relevant literature in research meaning

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Make a Literature Review in Research (RRL Example)

What is an RRL in a research paper?

A relevant review of the literature (RRL) is an objective, concise, critical summary of published research literature relevant to a topic being researched in an article. In an RRL, you discuss knowledge and findings from existing literature relevant to your study topic. If there are conflicts or gaps in existing literature, you can also discuss these in your review, as well as how you will confront these missing elements or resolve these issues in your study.

To complete an RRL, you first need to collect relevant literature; this can include online and offline sources. Save all of your applicable resources as you will need to include them in your paper. When looking through these sources, take notes and identify concepts of each source to describe in the review of the literature.

A good RRL does NOT:

A literature review does not simply reference and list all of the material you have cited in your paper.

• Presenting material that is not directly relevant to your study will distract and frustrate the reader and make them lose sight of the purpose of your study.
• Starting a literature review with “A number of scholars have studied the relationship between X and Y” and simply listing who has studied the topic and what each scholar concluded is not going to strengthen your paper.

A good RRL DOES:

• Present a brief typology that orders articles and books into groups to help readers focus on unresolved debates, inconsistencies, tensions, and new questions about a research topic.
• Summarize the most relevant and important aspects of the scientific literature related to your area of research
• Synthesize what has been done in this area of research and by whom, highlight what previous research indicates about a topic, and identify potential gaps and areas of disagreement in the field
• Give the reader an understanding of the background of the field and show which studies are important—and highlight errors in previous studies

How long is a review of the literature for a research paper?

The length of a review of the literature depends on its purpose and target readership and can vary significantly in scope and depth. In a dissertation, thesis, or standalone review of literature, it is usually a full chapter of the text (at least 20 pages). Whereas, a standard research article or school assignment literature review section could only be a few paragraphs in the Introduction section .

Building Your Literature Review Bookshelf

One way to conceive of a literature review is to think about writing it as you would build a bookshelf. You don’t need to cut each piece by yourself from scratch. Rather, you can take the pieces that other researchers have cut out and put them together to build a framework on which to hang your own “books”—that is, your own study methods, results, and conclusions.

What Makes a Good Literature Review?

The contents of a literature review (RRL) are determined by many factors, including its precise purpose in the article, the degree of consensus with a given theory or tension between competing theories, the length of the article, the number of previous studies existing in the given field, etc. The following are some of the most important elements that a literature review provides.

Historical background for your research

Analyze what has been written about your field of research to highlight what is new and significant in your study—or how the analysis itself contributes to the understanding of this field, even in a small way. Providing a historical background also demonstrates to other researchers and journal editors your competency in discussing theoretical concepts. You should also make sure to understand how to paraphrase scientific literature to avoid plagiarism in your work.

The current context of your research

Discuss central (or peripheral) questions, issues, and debates in the field. Because a field is constantly being updated by new work, you can show where your research fits into this context and explain developments and trends in research.

A discussion of relevant theories and concepts

Theories and concepts should provide the foundation for your research. For example, if you are researching the relationship between ecological environments and human populations, provide models and theories that focus on specific aspects of this connection to contextualize your study. If your study asks a question concerning sustainability, mention a theory or model that underpins this concept. If it concerns invasive species, choose material that is focused in this direction.

Definitions of relevant terminology

In the natural sciences, the meaning of terms is relatively straightforward and consistent. But if you present a term that is obscure or context-specific, you should define the meaning of the term in the Introduction section (if you are introducing a study) or in the summary of the literature being reviewed.

Description of related relevant research

Include a description of related research that shows how your work expands or challenges earlier studies or fills in gaps in previous work. You can use your literature review as evidence of what works, what doesn’t, and what is missing in the field.

Supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue your research is addressing that demonstrates its importance: Referencing related research establishes your area of research as reputable and shows you are building upon previous work that other researchers have deemed significant.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can differ in structure, length, amount, and breadth of content included. They can range from selective (a very narrow area of research or only a single work) to comprehensive (a larger amount or range of works). They can also be part of a larger work or stand on their own.

• A course assignment is an example of a selective, stand-alone work. It focuses on a small segment of the literature on a topic and makes up an entire work on its own.
• The literature review in a dissertation or thesis is both comprehensive and helps make up a larger work.
• A majority of journal articles start with a selective literature review to provide context for the research reported in the study; such a literature review is usually included in the Introduction section (but it can also follow the presentation of the results in the Discussion section ).
• Some literature reviews are both comprehensive and stand as a separate work—in this case, the entire article analyzes the literature on a given topic.

Literature Reviews Found in Academic Journals

The two types of literature reviews commonly found in journals are those introducing research articles (studies and surveys) and stand-alone literature analyses. They can differ in their scope, length, and specific purpose.

Literature reviews introducing research articles

The literature review found at the beginning of a journal article is used to introduce research related to the specific study and is found in the Introduction section, usually near the end. It is shorter than a stand-alone review because it must be limited to very specific studies and theories that are directly relevant to the current study. Its purpose is to set research precedence and provide support for the study’s theory, methods, results, and/or conclusions. Not all research articles contain an explicit review of the literature, but most do, whether it is a discrete section or indistinguishable from the rest of the Introduction.

How to structure a literature review for an article

When writing a literature review as part of an introduction to a study, simply follow the structure of the Introduction and move from the general to the specific—presenting the broadest background information about a topic first and then moving to specific studies that support your rationale , finally leading to your hypothesis statement. Such a literature review is often indistinguishable from the Introduction itself—the literature is INTRODUCING the background and defining the gaps your study aims to fill.

The stand-alone literature review

The literature review published as a stand-alone article presents and analyzes as many of the important publications in an area of study as possible to provide background information and context for a current area of research or a study. Stand-alone reviews are an excellent resource for researchers when they are first searching for the most relevant information on an area of study.

Such literature reviews are generally a bit broader in scope and can extend further back in time. This means that sometimes a scientific literature review can be highly theoretical, in addition to focusing on specific methods and outcomes of previous studies. In addition, all sections of such a “review article” refer to existing literature rather than describing the results of the authors’ own study.

In addition, this type of literature review is usually much longer than the literature review introducing a study. At the end of the review follows a conclusion that once again explicitly ties all of the cited works together to show how this analysis is itself a contribution to the literature. While not absolutely necessary, such articles often include the terms “Literature Review” or “Review of the Literature” in the title. Whether or not that is necessary or appropriate can also depend on the specific author instructions of the target journal. Have a look at this article for more input on how to compile a stand-alone review article that is insightful and helpful for other researchers in your field.

How to Write a Literature Review in 6 Steps

So how do authors turn a network of articles into a coherent review of relevant literature?

Writing a literature review is not usually a linear process—authors often go back and check the literature while reformulating their ideas or making adjustments to their study. Sometimes new findings are published before a study is completed and need to be incorporated into the current work. This also means you will not be writing the literature review at any one time, but constantly working on it before, during, and after your study is complete.

Here are some steps that will help you begin and follow through on your literature review.

Step 1: Choose a topic to write about—focus on and explore this topic.

Choose a topic that you are familiar with and highly interested in analyzing; a topic your intended readers and researchers will find interesting and useful; and a topic that is current, well-established in the field, and about which there has been sufficient research conducted for a review. This will help you find the “sweet spot” for what to focus on.

Step 2: Research and collect all the scholarly information on the topic that might be pertinent to your study.

This includes scholarly articles, books, conventions, conferences, dissertations, and theses—these and any other academic work related to your area of study is called “the literature.”

Step 3: Analyze the network of information that extends or responds to the major works in your area; select the material that is most useful.

Use thought maps and charts to identify intersections in the research and to outline important categories; select the material that will be most useful to your review.

Step 4: Describe and summarize each article—provide the essential information of the article that pertains to your study.

Determine 2-3 important concepts (depending on the length of your article) that are discussed in the literature; take notes about all of the important aspects of this study relevant to the topic being reviewed.

For example, in a given study, perhaps some of the main concepts are X, Y, and Z. Note these concepts and then write a brief summary about how the article incorporates them. In reviews that introduce a study, these can be relatively short. In stand-alone reviews, there may be significantly more texts and more concepts.

Step 5: Demonstrate how these concepts in the literature relate to what you discovered in your study or how the literature connects the concepts or topics being discussed.

In a literature review intro for an article, this information might include a summary of the results or methods of previous studies that correspond to and/or confirm those sections in your own study. For a stand-alone literature review, this may mean highlighting the concepts in each article and showing how they strengthen a hypothesis or show a pattern.

Discuss unaddressed issues in previous studies. These studies that are missing something you address are important to include in your literature review. In addition, those works whose theories and conclusions directly support your findings will be valuable to review here.

Step 6: Identify relationships in the literature and develop and connect your own ideas to them.

This is essentially the same as step 5 but focused on the connections between the literature and the current study or guiding concepts or arguments of the paper, not only on the connections between the works themselves.

Your hypothesis, argument, or guiding concept is the “golden thread” that will ultimately tie the works together and provide readers with specific insights they didn’t have before reading your literature review. Make sure you know where to put the research question , hypothesis, or statement of the problem in your research paper so that you guide your readers logically and naturally from your introduction of earlier work and evidence to the conclusions you want them to draw from the bigger picture.

Your literature review will not only cover publications on your topics but will include your own ideas and contributions. By following these steps you will be telling the specific story that sets the background and shows the significance of your research and you can turn a network of related works into a focused review of the literature.

Literature Review (RRL) Examples

Because creating sample literature reviews would take too long and not properly capture the nuances and detailed information needed for a good review, we have included some links to different types of literature reviews below. You can find links to more literature reviews in these categories by visiting the TUS Library’s website . Sample literature reviews as part of an article, dissertation, or thesis:

• Critical Thinking and Transferability: A Review of the Literature (Gwendolyn Reece)
• Building Customer Loyalty: A Customer Experience Based Approach in a Tourism Context (Martina Donnelly)

Sample stand-alone literature reviews

• Literature Review on Attitudes towards Disability (National Disability Authority)
• The Effects of Communication Styles on Marital Satisfaction (Hannah Yager)

Additional Literature Review Format Guidelines

In addition to the content guidelines above, authors also need to check which style guidelines to use ( APA , Chicago, MLA, etc.) and what specific rules the target journal might have for how to structure such articles or how many studies to include—such information can usually be found on the journals’ “Guide for Authors” pages. Additionally, use one of the four Wordvice citation generators below, choosing the citation style needed for your paper:

Wordvice Writing and Academic Editing Resources

Finally, after you have finished drafting your literature review, be sure to receive professional proofreading services , including paper editing for your academic work. A competent proofreader who understands academic writing conventions and the specific style guides used by academic journals will ensure that your paper is ready for publication in your target journal.

See our academic resources for further advice on references in your paper , how to write an abstract , how to write a research paper title, how to impress the editor of your target journal with a perfect cover letter , and dozens of other research writing and publication topics.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 2: Getting Started in Research

Reviewing the Research Literature

Learning Objectives

• Define the research literature in psychology and give examples of sources that are part of the research literature and sources that are not.
• Describe and use several methods for finding previous research on a particular research idea or question.

Reviewing the research literature means finding, reading, and summarizing the published research relevant to your question. An empirical research report written in American Psychological Association (APA) style always includes a written literature review, but it is important to review the literature early in the research process for several reasons.

• It can help you turn a research idea into an interesting research question.
• It can tell you if a research question has already been answered.
• It can help you evaluate the interestingness of a research question.
• It can give you ideas for how to conduct your own study.
• It can tell you how your study fits into the research literature.

What Is the Research Literature?

The  research literature  in any field is all the published research in that field. The research literature in psychology is enormous—including millions of scholarly articles and books dating to the beginning of the field—and it continues to grow. Although its boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, the research literature definitely does not include self-help and other pop psychology books, dictionary and encyclopedia entries, websites, and similar sources that are intended mainly for the general public. These are considered unreliable because they are not reviewed by other researchers and are often based on little more than common sense or personal experience. Wikipedia contains much valuable information, but the fact that its authors are anonymous and may not have any formal training or expertise in that subject area, and its content continually changes makes it unsuitable as a basis of sound scientific research. For our purposes, it helps to define the research literature as consisting almost entirely of two types of sources: articles in professional journals, and scholarly books in psychology and related fields.

Professional Journals

Professional journals  are periodicals that publish original research articles. There are thousands of professional journals that publish research in psychology and related fields. They are usually published monthly or quarterly in individual issues, each of which contains several articles. The issues are organized into volumes, which usually consist of all the issues for a calendar year. Some journals are published in hard copy only, others in both hard copy and electronic form, and still others in electronic form only.

Most articles in professional journals are one of two basic types: empirical research reports and review articles.  Empirical research reports  describe one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors. They introduce a research question, explain why it is interesting, review previous research, describe their method and results, and draw their conclusions. Review articles  summarize previously published research on a topic and usually present new ways to organize or explain the results. When a review article is devoted primarily to presenting a new theory, it is often referred to as a theoretical article .

Most professional journals in psychology undergo a process of  double-blind peer review . Researchers who want to publish their work in the journal submit a manuscript to the editor—who is generally an established researcher too—who in turn sends it to two or three experts on the topic. Each reviewer reads the manuscript, writes a critical but constructive review, and sends the review back to the editor along with his or her recommendations. The editor then decides whether to accept the article for publication, ask the authors to make changes and resubmit it for further consideration, or reject it outright. In any case, the editor forwards the reviewers’ written comments to the researchers so that they can revise their manuscript accordingly. This entire process is double-blind, as the reviewers do not know the identity of the researcher(s), and vice versa. Double-blind peer review is helpful because it ensures that the work meets basic standards of the field before it can enter the research literature. However, in order to increase transparency and accountability some newer open access journals (e.g., Frontiers in Psychology) utilize an open peer review process wherein the identities of the reviewers (which remain concealed during the peer review process) are published alongside the journal article.

Scholarly Books

Scholarly books  are books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for use by other researchers and practitioners. A  monograph  is written by a single author or a small group of authors and usually gives a coherent presentation of a topic much like an extended review article.  Edited volumes have an editor or a small group of editors who recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same topic. Although edited volumes can also give a coherent presentation of the topic, it is not unusual for each chapter to take a different perspective or even for the authors of different chapters to openly disagree with each other. In general, scholarly books undergo a peer review process similar to that used by professional journals.

Literature Search Strategies

Using psycinfo and other databases.

The primary method used to search the research literature involves using one or more electronic databases. These include Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and ProQuest for all academic disciplines, ERIC for education, and PubMed for medicine and related fields. The most important for our purposes, however, is PsycINFO, which is produced by the APA. PsycINFO is so comprehensive—covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books going back more than 100 years—that for most purposes its content is synonymous with the research literature in psychology. Like most such databases, PsycINFO is usually available through your university library.

PsycINFO consists of individual records for each article, book chapter, or book in the database. Each record includes basic publication information, an abstract or summary of the work (like the one presented at the start of this chapter), and a list of other works cited by that work. A computer interface allows entering one or more search terms and returns any records that contain those search terms. (These interfaces are provided by different vendors and therefore can look somewhat different depending on the library you use.) Each record also contains lists of keywords that describe the content of the work and also a list of index terms. The index terms are especially helpful because they are standardized. Research on differences between women and men, for example, is always indexed under “Human Sex Differences.” Research on notetaking is always indexed under the term “Learning Strategies.” If you do not know the appropriate index terms, PsycINFO includes a thesaurus that can help you find them.

Given that there are nearly four million records in PsycINFO, you may have to try a variety of search terms in different combinations and at different levels of specificity before you find what you are looking for. Imagine, for example, that you are interested in the question of whether women and men differ in terms of their ability to recall experiences from when they were very young. If you were to enter “memory for early experiences” as your search term, PsycINFO would return only six records, most of which are not particularly relevant to your question. However, if you were to enter the search term “memory,” it would return 149,777 records—far too many to look through individually. This is where the thesaurus helps. Entering “memory” into the thesaurus provides several more specific index terms—one of which is “early memories.” While searching for “early memories” among the index terms returns 1,446 records—still too many too look through individually—combining it with “human sex differences” as a second search term returns 37 articles, many of which are highly relevant to the topic.

Depending on the vendor that provides the interface to PsycINFO, you may be able to save, print, or e-mail the relevant PsycINFO records. The records might even contain links to full-text copies of the works themselves. (PsycARTICLES is a database that provides full-text access to articles in all journals published by the APA.) If not, and you want a copy of the work, you will have to find out if your library carries the journal or has the book and the hard copy on the library shelves. Be sure to ask a librarian if you need help.

Using Other Search Techniques

In addition to entering search terms into PsycINFO and other databases, there are several other techniques you can use to search the research literature. First, if you have one good article or book chapter on your topic—a recent review article is best—you can look through the reference list of that article for other relevant articles, books, and book chapters. In fact, you should do this with any relevant article or book chapter you find. You can also start with a classic article or book chapter on your topic, find its record in PsycINFO (by entering the author’s name or article’s title as a search term), and link from there to a list of other works in PsycINFO that cite that classic article. This works because other researchers working on your topic are likely to be aware of the classic article and cite it in their own work. You can also do a general Internet search using search terms related to your topic or the name of a researcher who conducts research on your topic. This might lead you directly to works that are part of the research literature (e.g., articles in open-access journals or posted on researchers’ own websites). The search engine Google Scholar is especially useful for this purpose. A general Internet search might also lead you to websites that are not part of the research literature but might provide references to works that are. Finally, you can talk to people (e.g., your instructor or other faculty members in psychology) who know something about your topic and can suggest relevant articles and book chapters.

What to Search For

When you do a literature review, you need to be selective. Not every article, book chapter, and book that relates to your research idea or question will be worth obtaining, reading, and integrating into your review. Instead, you want to focus on sources that help you do four basic things: (a) refine your research question, (b) identify appropriate research methods, (c) place your research in the context of previous research, and (d) write an effective research report. Several basic principles can help you find the most useful sources.

First, it is best to focus on recent research, keeping in mind that what counts as recent depends on the topic. For newer topics that are actively being studied, “recent” might mean published in the past year or two. For older topics that are receiving less attention right now, “recent” might mean within the past 10 years. You will get a feel for what counts as recent for your topic when you start your literature search. A good general rule, however, is to start with sources published in the past five years. The main exception to this rule would be classic articles that turn up in the reference list of nearly every other source. If other researchers think that this work is important, even though it is old, then by all means you should include it in your review.

Second, you should look for review articles on your topic because they will provide a useful overview of it—often discussing important definitions, results, theories, trends, and controversies—giving you a good sense of where your own research fits into the literature. You should also look for empirical research reports addressing your question or similar questions, which can give you ideas about how to operationally define your variables and collect your data. As a general rule, it is good to use methods that others have already used successfully unless you have good reasons not to. Finally, you should look for sources that provide information that can help you argue for the interestingness of your research question. For a study on the effects of cell phone use on driving ability, for example, you might look for information about how widespread cell phone use is, how frequent and costly motor vehicle crashes are, and so on.

How many sources are enough for your literature review? This is a difficult question because it depends on how extensively your topic has been studied and also on your own goals. One study found that across a variety of professional journals in psychology, the average number of sources cited per article was about 50 (Adair & Vohra, 2003) [1] . This gives a rough idea of what professional researchers consider to be adequate. As a student, you might be assigned a much lower minimum number of references to use, but the principles for selecting the most useful ones remain the same.

Key Takeaways

• The research literature in psychology is all the published research in psychology, consisting primarily of articles in professional journals and scholarly books.
• Early in the research process, it is important to conduct a review of the research literature on your topic to refine your research question, identify appropriate research methods, place your question in the context of other research, and prepare to write an effective research report.
• There are several strategies for finding previous research on your topic. Among the best is using PsycINFO, a computer database that catalogs millions of articles, books, and book chapters in psychology and related fields.
• Practice: Use the techniques discussed in this section to find 10 journal articles and book chapters on one of the following research ideas: memory for smells, aggressive driving, the causes of narcissistic personality disorder, the functions of the intraparietal sulcus, or prejudice against the physically handicapped.
• Watch the following video clip produced by UBCiSchool about how to read an academic paper (without losing your mind):

Video Attributions

• “ Sample PsycINFO Search on EBSCOhost ” by APA Publishing Training . Standard YouTube Licence.
• “ Using Google Scholar (CLIP) ” by clipinfolit . CC BY (Attribution)
• “ How to Read an Academic Paper ” by UBCiSchool . CC BY (Attribution)
• Adair, J. G., & Vohra, N. (2003). The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations: Psychology’s unique response to a crisis. American Psychologist, 58 , 15–23. ↵

All the published research in a particular field.

Periodicals that publish original research articles.

A type of research article which describes one or more new empirical studies conducted by the authors.

A type of research article that summarizes previously published research on a topic and usually presents new ways to organize or explain the results.

A type of review article primarily devoted to presenting a new theory.

Books written by researchers and practitioners mainly for sue by other researchers and practitioners.

Type of scholarly book written by a single author or small group of authors, coherently presents a topic much like an extended review article.

A type of scholarly book in which an editor or small group of editors recruit many authors to write separate chapters on different aspects of the same topic.

An electronic database covering thousands of professional journals and scholarly books produced by the APA.

Research Methods in Psychology - 2nd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a critical analysis of the literature related to your research topic. It evaluates and critiques the literature to establish a theoretical framework for your research topic and/or identify a gap in the existing research that your research will address.

A literature review is not a summary of the literature. You need to engage deeply and critically with the literature. Your literature review should show your understanding of the literature related to your research topic and lead to presenting a rationale for your research.

A literature review focuses on:

• the context of the topic
• key concepts, ideas, theories and methodologies
• key researchers, texts and seminal works
• major issues and debates
• identifying conflicting evidence
• the main questions that have been asked around the topic
• the organisation of knowledge on the topic
• definitions, particularly those that are contested
• showing how your research will advance scholarly knowledge (generally referred to as identifying the ‘gap’).

This module will guide you through the functions of a literature review; the typical process of conducting a literature review (including searching for literature and taking notes); structuring your literature review within your thesis and organising its internal ideas; and styling the language of your literature review.

The purposes of a literature review

A literature review serves two main purposes:

1) To show awareness of the present state of knowledge in a particular field, including:

• seminal authors
• the main empirical research
• theoretical positions
• controversies
• breakthroughs as well as links to other related areas of knowledge.

2) To provide a foundation for the author’s research. To do that, the literature review needs to:

• help the researcher define a hypothesis or a research question, and how answering the question will contribute to the body of knowledge;
• provide a rationale for investigating the problem and the selected methodology;
• provide a particular theoretical lens, support the argument, or identify gaps.

Before you engage further with this module, try the quiz below to see how much you already know about literature reviews.

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Research Findings – Types Examples and Writing...

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai.

Boatwright Memorial Library

• Chicago/Turabian
• AP (Associated Press)
• APSA (Political Science)
• ASA & AAA (Soc/Ant)
• ACS (Chemistry)
• Harvard Style
• SBL (Society of Biblical Literature)
• EndNote Web
• Help Resources
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Reviews
• Citation exercises This link opens in a new window

What is a Literature Review?

The literature review is a written explanation by you, the author, of the research already done on the topic, question or issue at hand. What do we know (or not know) about this issue/topic/question?

• A literature review provides a thorough background of the topic by giving your reader a guided overview of major findings and current gaps in what is known so far about the topic. 
• The literature review is not a list (like an annotated bibliography) -- it is a narrative helping your reader understand the topic and where you will "stand" in the debate between scholars regarding the interpretation of meaning and understanding why things happen. Your literature review  helps your reader start to see the "camps" or "sides" within a debate, plus who studies the topic and their arguments. 
• A good literature review should help the reader sense how you will answer your research question and should highlight the preceding arguments and evidence you think are most helpful in moving the topic forward.
• The purpose of the literature review is to dive into the existing debates on the topic to learn about the various schools of thought and arguments, using your research question as an anchor. If you find something that doesn't help answer your question, you don't have to read (or include) it. That's the power of the question format: it helps you filter what to read and include in your literature review, and what to ignore.

How Do I Start?

Essentially you will need to:

• Identify and evaluate relevant literature (books, journal articles, etc.) on your topic/question.
• Figure out how to classify what you've gathered. You could do this by schools of thought, different answers to a question, the authors' disciplinary approaches, the research methods used, or many other ways.
• Use those groupings to craft a narrative, or story, about the relevant literature on this topic. 
• Remember to cite your sources properly! 
• Research: Getting Started Visit this guide to learn more about finding and evaluating resources.
• Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources (IUPUI Writing Center) An in-depth guide on organizing and synthesizing what you've read into a literature review.
• Guide to Using a Synthesis Matrix (NCSU Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service) Overview of using a tool called a Synthesis Matrix to organize your literature review.
• Synthesis Matrix Template (VCU Libraries) A word document from VCU Libraries that will help you create your own Synthesis Matrix.

Literature Reviews: Overview

This video from NCSU Libraries gives a helpful overview of literature reviews. Even though it says it's "for graduate students," the principles are the same for undergraduate students too!

Literature Review Examples

Reading a Scholarly Article

• Reading a Scholarly Article or Literature Review Highlights sections of a scholarly article to identify structure of a literature review.
• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article (NCSU Libraries) Interactive tutorial that describes parts of a scholarly article typical of a Sciences or Social Sciences research article.
• Evaluating Information | Reading a Scholarly Article (Brown University Library) Provides examples and tips across disciplines for reading academic articles.
• Reading Academic Articles for Research [LIBRE Project] Gabriel Winer & Elizabeth Wadell (ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI))

Additional Tutorials and Resources

• UR Writer's Web: Using Sources Guidance from the UR Writing Center on how to effectively use sources in your writing (which is what you're doing in your literature review!).
• Write a Literature Review (VCU Libraries) "Lit Reviews 101" with links to helpful tools and resources, including powerpoint slides from a literature review workshop.
• Literature Reviews (UNC Writing Center) Overview of the literature review process, including examples of different ways to organize a lit review.
• “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review.” Pautasso, Marco. “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review.” PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 9, no. 7, July 2013, p. e1003149.
• Writing the Literature Review Part I (University of Maryland University College) Video that explains more about what a literature review is and is not. Run time: 5:21.
• Writing the Literature Review Part II (University of Maryland University College) Video about organizing your sources and the writing process. Run time: 7:40.
• Writing a Literature Review (OWL @ Purdue)
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Citation exercises >>

Literature Reviews

• What Is It?
• Finding Literature Reviews

A literature review is both a process and a product. As a process, it involves searching for information related to your topic, to familiarize yourself with the relevant research and to identify issues and gaps in the research. In most cases you're seeking to identify the key authors and key arguments that are relevant to your topic, not to exhaustively read everything written on the subject. 

Types of Literature Reviews

A stand alone literature review can be a single work in its own right.  Examples include:

• A class assignment
• A review article

Literature reviews can also be component parts of larger bodies of work. Examples include:

• A thesis / dissertation
• An academic journal article introduction

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is the writing process of summarizing, synthesizing and/or critiquing the literature found as a result of a literature search. It may be used as background or context for a primary research project.

There are several reasons to review the literature :

• Identify the developments in the field of study
• Learn about the information sources and the research methodologies
• Find gaps in the literature that can become research questions
• Validate the originality of a research project
• Evaluate the methods
• Identify errors to avoid
• Highlight the strengths, weaknesses and controversies in the field of study
• Identify the subject experts

When writing your review, there are objectives you should keep in mind :

• Inform the audience of the developments in the field
• Establish your credibility
• Discuss the relevance and significance of your question(s)
• Provide the context for your methodological approach
• Discuss the relevance and appropriateness of your approach.

​The level of detail or comprehensiveness of your literature review may depend on many things, but especially the purpose and audience of your review. For example, if you're writing a literature review that will aid you in writing a thesis or dissertation, you may want to have a very comprehensive lit review that reviews all relevant literature on a topic, as well as relevant sources beyond what is immediately and freely available (e.g. foundational scholarly articles not available through library collections).

Purpose of a Literature Review

Watch this YouTube video to understand the purpose of a literature review.

• Next: Finding Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Dec 12, 2023 3:07 PM
• URL: https://library.knox.edu/literature-review

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Hatzaras K, et al. Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Mar. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.6.)

Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care.

Chapter 2 relevant literature and the research context.

• Evidence-based medicine and the spread of innovations

The spread and adoption of innovations re-emerged as an important theme in health care with the rise of the EBM movement in the 1990s. 1 , 15 A central argument in this literature is that clinical practice should be based on rigorous and systematic evidence rather than individual opinion. The EBM movement is evident in a number of health systems, especially in Canada, in the USA and in the UK NHS, with explicit interest in understanding the diffusion of evidence-based innovations. 16 – 18 One of the central questions in organisational innovation diffusion literature that aligns with the aims of this study is as follows: ‘Why do innovations not readily spread, even if backed by strong (scientifically generated) evidence?’

There has now emerged considerable empirical evidence that argues that the adoption of health technologies and innovations, even if supported by sound research evidence on effectiveness, is a far more dynamic and complex process than previously suggested. 19 – 22 The classic innovation diffusion model of change, which has been particularly influential in UK health policy, suggests that the adoption of innovative ideas, practices or products is conditioned by the interaction among the attributes of the innovation, the characteristics of the adopter and the environment. 23 However, this early innovation diffusion work was criticised for adopting a simplistic rational view of change that ignores the complexities of the change process: also focusing on individuals rather than organisations. Later work by Rogers 24 partly addressed the criticism by explicitly considering the adoption process within organisations.

Recent studies have departed from the linear model of innovation diffusion 23 to offer more dynamic and interactive conceptualisations 25 , 26 and respond to a need for context-sensitive, contingent approaches. 19 , 27 Building on this latter literature stream, it is suggested that innovation adoption is a process which is highly dependent on the interactions among the innovation, local actors and contextual factors. 11 , 27 – 31 These factors include the interaction among the attributes of the innovation, the organisational context and leadership; 32 an organisational culture encouraging involvement, experimentation and learning; micropolitical factors; support by peer and expert opinion leadership; 23 , 30 , 33 social networks; 23 , 34 structural organisational characteristics; 35 organisational capacity for absorbing new knowledge; 36 and the existence of a ‘receptive context for change’. 37

• Organisational innovation process and the use of evidence

The innovation process in organisations is complex and involves several stages. Damanpour and Schneider 38 suggest that the process can be divided into three broad phases of ‘pre adoption’, ‘adoption decision’ and ‘post adoption’, also referred to in the literature as ‘initiation’, ‘adoption (decision)’ and ‘implementation’. 24 In this report, we use the latter terminology, which is also more commonly applied in the literature. Different concerns are central at the different phases, from an initial focus on innovation awareness and information seeking, through innovation use and application to manage a task or solve a problem, to consequences, and issues of sustainability. Adoption is often viewed as a process in which organisational members examine the potential benefits and costs or potential negative consequences of an innovation on the basis of relevant knowledge. 24 Potential adopters move from ‘ignorance’, through awareness, attitude formation, evaluation, and on to adoption: ‘the decision to make full use of the innovation as the best course of action available’. However, organisations should not be thought of as merely rational decision-making entities and innovation as an ordered sequential process. Rather, the adoption process should be recognised as complex, iterative and organic. 19 , 26

A key element in the organisational decision-making process that underpins innovation and technology adoption is the availability of supporting evidence of effectiveness. Despite the challenges above, there has been impetus for the development of EBMgt in health care to improve managerial decision-making through the use of the ‘best available scientific evidence’. 2 , 39 The integration of EBMgt with EBM is advocated to enhance the performance of health-care organisations. 3

However, within a health-care setting the evaluation of a technology can take a number of forms and include technical, economic and social assessments. Adoption decisions involve a number of stakeholders and thus it is important that the evidence used to support adoption is not just sufficient but also relevant and addresses the concerns of all parties. The earlier innovation evaluation stages are concerned with technical assessments of efficiency 40 – as well as efficacy and safety in health-care interventions 41 – whereas the focus in the later stages includes considerations of ease of use and social acceptance. 42 It, thus, marks a move away from scientific assessment to consideration of the complete value system for technology factors relating to types of evidence supporting adoption and contextual factors that might help or hinder implementation.

Implementation includes local trials and evaluation. The approach taken to implementation needs to vary according to the type and scale of the technology being adopted and the level and type of consequential changes it brings about. 43 For example, some technologies can be procured and put into service, whereas others require strategies such as pilots and phased roll outs. Implementation is linked to trialling and experimentation. For more complex technologies, and for those that require or lead to wider changes, such as changes in practice of health-care staff and changes to a process involving several stakeholders or cutting across departments, or even organisations, or need to be rolled out across many locations, implementation may be more challenging. 27 The end point for successful implementation will normally be the point at which the technology has become integrated into everyday practice.

A different insight on innovation adoption is available in a recent scoping review by Ferlie et al. 44 and Crilly et al. , 45 which conceptually synthesised issues of knowledge mobilisation in the NHS and, in particular, the perceived gaps in the process of translating knowledge from ‘bench to bedside’. The change towards EBMgt raises key questions such as ‘what evidence is considered as credible (and by whom)?’. And what is regarded as a legitimate epistemological basis for validating evidence (what is viewed as legitimate knowledge)? For example, should the evidence base for implementing an innovation into a specific context be exclusively focused on scientific reproducibility? Or alternatively, should the basis of innovation evidence take into account broader forms of evidence and wider concepts of what constitutes relevant and acceptable forms of knowledge?

• Sensemaking in organisations

When making decisions, managers need to justify these to themselves and to organisational members. The sensemaking lens allows these two processes to be examined in context. 46 , 47 Sensemaking theory is a social psychological approach that emphasises cognitions. Sensemaking is about ‘reality’ as ‘an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs’ (p. 635). 48 According to this perspective, values, beliefs, culture and language are important concepts. Central to this approach is enactment : the important role that people play in creating the environments that impose on them. The implications of a sensemaking lens in the evaluation of critical events is the difference between action as an ‘individual making bad choices’ and action as a result of an individual in a set of circumstances at a given time. 49 The event is therefore reframed ‘where context and individual action overlap’ (p. 410). 47 Thus, this perspective provides an analytical lens that helps understand actions in context.

The sensemaking perspective asks: how does a manager define his or her role? How is this shaped by the organisational culture, by peers, by professionals, by patients? Does his or her educational and professional background draw him or her to a particular paradigm of what constitutes evidence? This perspective is also interested in drawing out differences according to who the decision-maker is, and how individuals influence the sensemaking of others.

The sensemaking lens has been useful because of the nature of health care, with multiprofessional work in complex settings where organisational learning is important. 50 As Fitzgerald and Dopson 51 observe, a clinical team is one example of an enactment of negotiated order, in which team members learn to work with each other through repeated interpersonal encounters around joint tasks. Those members with a higher degree of power are able to influence ways in which work roles are enacted. 51 This interplay between professionals is described well through nurses’ accounts in the management of hospitalised babies. 47 The nurse makes her case to the attendant physician that a baby requires immediate attention: ‘the first nurse translates her concerns for the second more powerful nurse, who then rearticulates the case using terms relevant to the Attending [physician]’ (p. 413) . 47

Weick and Sutcliffe, 52 in their reanalysis of the inquiry into deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary in the UK, found an environment in which they could further demonstrate how small actions can enact a social structure that keeps the organisation ‘entrapped in cycles of behavior that preclude improvement’ (p. 74); 52 that is, easy explanations of an unusual situation should be challenged – this did not happen in Bristol. In the study of patient safety, sensemaking provides a powerful lens, as ‘the most fundamental level of data about patient safety is in the lived experience of staff as they struggle to function within an imperfect system’ (p. 1556). 53 Greenhalgh and coresearchers 54 suggest collective sensemaking (developing shared meaning) as one narrative approach to understanding issues of organisational innovation processes. For proposed changes to be accepted and assimilated by providers and service users, the change ‘must make sense in a way that relates to previous understanding and experience’ (p. 447). 55

Our research questions aimed to explore ‘sensemaking’ in the local and wider contexts; that is, the health-care organisation and the NHS environment. 56 In addition, we explicitly set out to explore how individual and collective sensemaking plays out – which is particularly pertinent when making decisions about innovation adoption and implementation. This lens allows one to focus on an individual’s sensemaking processes and how these iteratively ‘update’ ways of approaching decision-making and use of evidence. This also allows reflection on how this process differs in ‘everyday’, more passive situations compared with those of heightened activity owing to the need for decision-making, either because of funding deadlines or because of external influences relevant to the empirical setting (in this case, infection outbreaks or poor performance in the infection rates). In the latter, sensemaking is usefully applied along Weick’s seven dimensions (grounded in identity construction; retrospective; enactive of sensible environments; social; ongoing; focused on and extracted by cues; driven by plausibility rather than accuracy), and emergent from this framework an appreciation of how ‘sense for self’ and ‘sense for others’ plays out.

Here the concept of ‘making sense for others’ or ‘sensegiving’ is useful. Sensegiving ‘is concerned with the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others towards a preferred organisational reality’ (p. 442). 57 The concept first emerged as an explanatory concept in the study of strategic change at an American university. 57 In this ethnographic study, the researchers observed the chief executive officer (CEO) adopt a ‘sensegiving mode’ whereby his actions and cues were used to ‘make sense for others [organisational members]’. This concept relates to previous literature in the study of organisational member behaviour, namely ‘impression management’ 58 , 59 and ‘self-monitoring’. 60 (The theory of self-monitoring 60 proposes that individuals regulate their own behaviour in order to convey alignment with a preferred behaviour in any given context or situation. High self-monitors monitor and modify their behaviour to fit different situations; low self-monitors are more consistent in behaviour across situations.) Sensegiving describes the more purposeful and explicit action rather than implicit cues. The sense-giver will also make sense of organisational member behaviour and in turn modify sensegiving.

The social production of reality for oneself is a very tacit process which shapes decision-making and influences non-deliberate decisions. Sensemaking as justification to self and the resulting decision is influenced by other factors such as legitimacy and plausibility to others, that is, the publicly accountable decision. This lens pays particular attention to the social construction and coproduction of evidence through the interaction of a range of diverse professional and managerial groups. We engage with this body of literature summarised above, which has been useful in explaining organisational response to critical events in the health-care setting, 47 , 52 as well as to strategic change. 61 , 62

• Gaps in innovation, evidence-based health care and organisational sensemaking literatures

In summary, we note four key gaps in the relevant literature streams on innovation, evidence use and sensemaking in organisations which triggered our empirical exploration in this study.

First, with this study we address a significant gap in evidence-based health-care implementation literature. Namely, we respond to the call for more sustained interpretive work that explores the role and motives of actors and the influence of the organisational context and the social construction of evidence. 63

Second, despite the progress that has been achieved in our understanding of innovation diffusion and adoption processes, a consistent issue raised in high-quality reviews of general innovation diffusion literature 26 , 64 – 66 and a review of related literature in health care 19 is that empirical research has generally been limited to a single level of analysis – individual, organisational or interorganisational – thus failing to provide a holistic explanation of the influence of inter-related factors on innovation adoption and diffusion. Our study aimed to address the aforementioned criticism by exploring the innovation adoption process and by reflecting on influences at various embedded levels of analysis: namely, micro (individual), meso (organisational) and macro (interorganisational) levels.

Third, there are few empirical cases exploring issues of health management decision-making that focus on non-clinical decisions and particularly innovation, which is characterised by inherently high uncertainty and ambiguity. Moreover, little primary research exists that links the use of evidence to adoption decision-making and implementation within service organisations. We currently have a limited understanding of how pluralist evidence bases (and the associated diverse epistemological bases) might be reconciled or not in practice. The construction of shared meanings, or collective sensemaking, 46 is key for understanding how new types of evidence may be successfully embedded in certain contexts, or even be rejected under conditions of innovation uncertainty and ambiguity.

Fourth, in sensemaking theory there is less emphasis on empirical studies that deal with the day-to-day processes of sensemaking, rather than crises and critical events, and on the sensemaking that occurs among many and diverse organisational stakeholders as they address a range of issues. 46 , 62 By applying this theoretical lens to the investigation of managerial decision-making on the adoption and implementation of innovative technologies, we aim to empirically contribute to the field.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Kyratsis Y, Ahmad R, Hatzaras K, et al. Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Mar. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.6.) Chapter 2, Relevant literature and the research context.
• PDF version of this title (12M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Relevant literature and the research context - Making sense of evidence in manag... Relevant literature and the research context - Making sense of evidence in management decisions: the role of research-based knowledge on innovation adoption and implementation in health care

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Search form

You are here, selecting relevant literature: focus and scope.

It is necessary to be selective about what you choose to include in the literature review, and it is useful to think about how you will limit the scope of the literature you identify as you search. Points to consider to help you in limiting the scope of your literature are:

• the relevance of research studies carried out in other countries to your research: it is necessary to reflect critically on whether the context that the research is so different from the one in which you will be working that the findings of studies in a particular geographical region would not provide any useful insights;
• the time period within which work has been published: sometimes there is a case for including older sources, for example where a particular research study is of particular significance or where little recent work has been published in relation to a theme being developed in your review;
• the age range of pupils / students in the studies you include.

Also it is important to critically evaluate the literature to identify whether a source is of high quality. Below are some criteria to help you to evaluate the quality of a piece of research published in a journal, or a research study accessed online:

• Are the conclusions supported by evidence?
• Does the research design give you confidence that the findings of the research are reliable and valid?
• Are arguments clearly articulated and are conclusions clearly linked to the evidence presented in the results?

(Adapted from Walliman, 2009)

• research methods
• literature reviews

Creative Commons

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

• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

Radiomics workflow definition & challenges - German priority program 2177 consensus statement on clinically applied radiomics

• Ralf Floca   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-3377 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Jonas Bohn 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Christian Haux 7 ,
• Benedikt Wiestler 8 , 9 ,
• Frank G. Zöllner 10 , 11 ,
• Annika Reinke 12 , 13 ,
• Jakob Weiß 14 ,
• Marco Nolden 1 , 2 ,
• Steffen Albert 10 , 11 ,
• Thorsten Persigehl 15 ,
• Tobias Norajitra 1 , 2 ,
• Bettina Baeßler 16 ,
• Marc Dewey 17 ,
• Rickmer Braren 18 , 19 , 20 ,
• Martin Büchert 14 ,
• Eva Maria Fallenberg 18 ,
• Norbert Galldiks 21 , 22 , 23 ,
• Annika Gerken 24 ,
• Michael Götz 25 ,
• Horst K. Hahn 24 , 26 ,
• Johannes Haubold 27 ,
• Tobias Haueise 28 , 29 , 30 ,
• Nils Große Hokamp 15 ,
• Michael Ingrisch 31 ,
• Andra-Iza Iuga 15 ,
• Marco Janoschke 14 ,
• Matthias Jung 14 ,
• Lena Sophie Kiefer 32 , 33 ,
• Philipp Lohmann 34 , 35 ,
• Jürgen Machann 28 , 29 , 30 ,
• Jan Hendrik Moltz 24 ,
• Johanna Nattenmüller 14 , 36 ,
• Tobias Nonnenmacher 36 ,
• Benedict Oerther 14 ,
• Ahmed E. Othman 37 ,
• Felix Peisen 32 ,
• Fritz Schick 28 ,
• Lale Umutlu 27 ,
• Barbara D. Wichtmann 38 ,
• Wenzhao Zhao 11 ,
• Svenja Caspers 39 , 40 ,
• Heinz-Peter Schlemmer 41 ,
• Christopher L. Schlett 14 ,
• Klaus Maier-Hein 1 , 2   na1 &
• Fabian Bamberg 14   na1  

Insights into Imaging volume  15 , Article number:  124 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

55 Accesses

Metrics details

Achieving a consensus on a definition for different aspects of radiomics workflows to support their translation into clinical usage. Furthermore, to assess the perspective of experts on important challenges for a successful clinical workflow implementation.

Materials and methods

The consensus was achieved by a multi-stage process. Stage 1 comprised a definition screening, a retrospective analysis with semantic mapping of terms found in 22 workflow definitions, and the compilation of an initial baseline definition. Stages 2 and 3 consisted of a Delphi process with over 45 experts hailing from sites participating in the German Research Foundation (DFG) Priority Program 2177. Stage 2 aimed to achieve a broad consensus for a definition proposal, while stage 3 identified the importance of translational challenges.

Workflow definitions from 22 publications (published 2012–2020) were analyzed. Sixty-nine definition terms were extracted, mapped, and semantic ambiguities (e.g., homonymous and synonymous terms) were identified and resolved. The consensus definition was developed via a Delphi process. The final definition comprising seven phases and 37 aspects reached a high overall consensus (> 89% of experts “agree” or “strongly agree”). Two aspects reached no strong consensus. In addition, the Delphi process identified and characterized from the participating experts’ perspective the ten most important challenges in radiomics workflows.

To overcome semantic inconsistencies between existing definitions and offer a well-defined, broad, referenceable terminology, a consensus workflow definition for radiomics-based setups and a terms mapping to existing literature was compiled. Moreover, the most relevant challenges towards clinical application were characterized.

Critical relevance statement

Lack of standardization represents one major obstacle to successful clinical translation of radiomics. Here, we report a consensus workflow definition on different aspects of radiomics studies and highlight important challenges to advance the clinical adoption of radiomics.

Published radiomics workflow terminologies are inconsistent, hindering standardization and translation.

A consensus radiomics workflow definition proposal with high agreement was developed.

Publicly available result resources for further exploitation by the scientific community.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Substantial biomedical and technological progress during the past decades in capturing health-related characteristics such as molecular, genetic, metabolic, or morphological traits has facilitated increasingly personalized approaches towards disease management [ 1 ]. A key to personalized medicine is the detection of discriminating trait constellations, which may for instance be provided by imaging modalities such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. By exploiting software-based image analysis, multiple pattern extraction, and large-scale bioinformatics correlation analyses, advanced image post-processing and interpretation approaches (often, including this publication, also subsumed under the term ‘radiomics’) may allow for a more comprehensive image analysis [ 6 ] and trait detection.

However, while radiomics-derived imaging biomarkers may provide new insights, their traditional clinical role is merely limited to providing crude information such as the size, shape, or density of apparent disease processes. Thus, despite significant recent research efforts and accumulating evidence of their value for diagnostic, therapeutic, prognostic, and preventive schemes, these approaches have not been widely implemented into clinical workflows and radiological services yet [ 7 ].

The lack of translation of radiomics research into practical clinical applications can be attributed to various factors and still exists, despite existing initiatives such as the image biomarker standardization initiative (IBSI) [ 8 ], Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) [ 7 ], Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA; https://www.rsna.org/research/quantitative-imaging-biomarkers-alliance ), CheckList for Evaluation of Radiomics Research (CLEAR) [ 9 ], Assessment of Radiomics research (ARISE) [ 10 ], and guideline framing. Some studies, like CLEAR and ARISE, provide essential checklists aimed at ensuring thorough and reproducible reporting in radiomics research. One reason for this still existing lack is the absence of a unified set of common definitions of workflow terms to ensure comparability and correct classification of workflows. It is hindering, i.a., correct application of guidelines (like RQS) or comparison/reproducibility of experimental setups and therefore ultimately successful clinical translation. Therefore, the need for collaborative efforts within the scientific community to establish such a consensus terminology becomes apparent in addressing these challenges.

To address this within the framework of the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Priority Program “Radiomics”, we analyzed existing workflow definitions and conducted a Delphi process [ 11 ] to achieve the following: (i) a semantic analysis and mapping of existing definitions, (ii) a proposal for a workflow definition with high consensus to improve comparability and explainability of workflows, and (iii) an identification of the most important challenges that currently hinder the translation of such workflows into clinical routine.

Study design

This study was divided into three stages (see Fig.  1 ). In a retrospective definition screening (stage 1) we collected workflow items and terminologies used in published radiomics studies as well as reported translational challenges to establish a starting point for the consensus-building Delphi process (stages 2 & 3, prospective). In this Delphi process, domain experts (for details see “DFG Priority Program 2177 Radiomics” below) rated the workflow items and refined the terminology towards a consensus (stage 2). In a third (prospective) study stage the challenges were characterized and ranked by our experts using the same Delphi process as in stage 2. The details of each stage are given in the following.

Flowchart depicting all steps of the study from preparation (stage 1) to the Delphi process (stage 2). The different rounds of the Delphi process are also indicated (blue dashed line boxes). The actions taken by the experts panel in the Delphi process are marked by red boxes

Definition screening and analysis (stage 1)

A definition screening was conducted with two screening goals: (i) determine the existence of controversial/ambiguous definitions and (ii) provide input for the baselines of the Delphi process. Its search strategy was as follows. A PubMed search was conducted using the search string “radiomic”[All Fields] OR “radiomics”[All Fields] and Best-Match sorting. Furthermore, two queries were made to the Google search engine using (i) the term “radiomics”, and (ii) the terms “radiomics” and “FAIR” to see if radiomics standardization approaches exist in the context of FAIR principles ( www.go-fair.org ). In addition, reference sections in the retrieved publications as well as similar publications suggested by PubMed were reviewed. The searches were conducted on February 15, 2021 with no filters to narrow the search. Publications were included if they provided relevant content (workflow definitions or challenges). The inclusion was stopped by the core team when enough content was extracted to find evidence for controversial/ambiguous definitions and provide input for a baseline definition.

The included publications were examined for text passages that mentioned steps of a radiomics workflow. A coding system was created inductively from the text passages, by conducting the text research and building a terminology using the software MAXQDA 2020 [ 12 ], a widespread tool for qualitative data analysis. A new category was created for each newly named workflow step in the initial version of the coding system. Subsequently, an initial draft for a radiomics workflow was created based on the extracted steps (see supplement  1 ). In this process, all steps were mapped into a semantic hierarchy (including synonymous and homonymous steps).

Workflow definition consensus process (stage 2)

A consensus decision was derived utilizing a structured Delphi process [ 11 ], aiming to achieve an agreement for a specific topic among a panel of experts. A Delphi process comprises several rounds in which a core team presents several hypotheses or assumptions in the form of questionnaires to the expert panel which are then voted upon. The core team members are exempted from the votes. The feedback from the panel is incorporated by the core team and made transparent to the experts in the following rounds, in which the process is repeated. The assumptions are thus incrementally refined based on the expert agreement (measured on a 5-level Likert scale) until a consensus is reached. In this study, consensus was reached if at least 75% of the experts agreed.

The Delphi process in this study was composed of five rounds of questionnaires. Three rounds (rounds 1, 2 and 4) focused on resolving terminology conflicts and achieving a consensus definition for different aspects of a radiomics workflow. The process began with an initial definition proposal derived from the definition screening and analysis results.

Challenge characterization process (stage 3)

The aforementioned Delphi process was also used to identify the most important current roadblocks to the clinical translation of radiomics workflows.

Two rounds (rounds 3 and 5) of this process focused on achieving consensus about the importance of different challenges and on establishing a first characterization. The priority was deduced by (i) allowing each expert to make a priority selection and (ii) evaluating the frequency with which each challenge was picked. The baseline was a list of 32 challenges mentioned in the screened literature. Round 3 involved selection from the literature-based challenges or a proposal of additional challenges (up to seven prioritized challenges in total). Round 5 involved the (i) selection of up to three challenges from a shortlist (top ten literature-based and four expert-proposed challenges) and (ii) the characterization of the shortlisted challenges.

DFG priority program 2177 radiomics

The Priority Program (SPP) 2177 includes 16 different projects with more than 45 experts from the interdisciplinary field of radiomics and is funded by the DFG to advance the diagnostic and prognostic value of medical imaging by implementing radiomics (including advanced image interpretation approaches such as deep learning algorithms) in different clinical scenarios ( https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/402688427?language=en ). The program provides national, coordinated, competitive funding for and rigorous selection of independent research projects within its scientific objective coming from 19 research institutes of 15 locations in Germany. It creates added value by fostering collaboration among different disciplines and locations. As such, it provides a unique formation of national experts in the field of radiomics and is used in this study for fostering standardizations and problem statements to support clinical translation.

The experts for the Delphi process were recruited from the projects participating in SPP 2177. There were no other selection criteria for experts than their affiliation with a SPP 2177 radiomics project. For each round, invitations for participation were sent out to all project teams. The participation was voluntary and it was possible to participate anonymously.

Availability of data and materials

The survey data conducted during the current study are available in the RadiomicsOntologySPP repository, https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/radiomics-workflow-definition .

Participating experts

Over the course of the Delphi process, on average 39 experts (standard deviation +/− 3.5) participated per round and 45 named experts participated at least in one round. As anonymous participation was possible, the total number of participating individual experts cannot be determined. Figure  1 depicts the flow chart of the study including the Delphi process and Fig.  2 shows the overall participation trend throughout the process. The topic-related working experience of all participating experts ranges from less than one year to up to 20 or more years. For the Delphi process, the percentage of senior experts (5 years and more of experience) ranged from 56% to 74% (see Fig.  2 ).

a Numbers of participants (separated in known participants and anonymous participants) over the course of the Delphi process (Delphi rounds). b Experience (in years) of participants over the course of the Delphi rounds. c Representation of fields of expertise over the course of the Delphi rounds. Multiple selections of fields of expertise per participant were possible. Rounds marked with a “(C)” (rounds 3 and 5) were rounds that focused on the challenge prioritization and characterization

The field of expertise of the participants can be grouped into medicine (including radiology), computer science (including medical image computing), physics (including medical physics) and mathematics/statistics. The two most represented fields were medicine (ranging from 36% to 42%) followed by computer science (ranging from 28% to 38%); for further details and trends see Fig.  2 .

A total of 51 publications were screened for relevant content: 30 publications from PubMed; 5 publications from Google search and 16 publications from searching in references, supplemental material, and similar studies. Radiomics workflow definitions were found in 22 publications [ 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ], and 95 workflow step terms were extracted (for details see supplement  1 - List of extracted step terms and mapping ) . The most frequently mentioned terms are listed in Table  1 .

Forty-five conflicts concerning synonyms, homonyms, hierarchy, and semantic ambiguity were detected during validation (see supplement  1 ). Synonyms occurred when different terms were used for the same step (e.g., “feature calculation” or “quantification” for “feature extraction”). Homonyms were found when identically named steps were defined differently (e.g., “ROI extraction” in Murray et al [ 25 ] corresponds to “segmentation”, whereas in Zwanenburg et al [ 32 ] it corresponds to a substep of “feature extraction”). Hierarchy conflicts occurred when a step was mentioned as a main step in one publication, while it was a substep in another publication (e.g., “model building” in Avanzo et al [ 13 ] was identical to the main step “modeling”, whereas “model building” in Ibrahim et al [ 19 ], Lee et al [ 21 ], and Yang et al [ 31 ] was identified to be a substep of “modeling”). Semantic ambiguities occurred where definitions could not be clearly assigned to a step (e.g., “choice of imaging protocol” is described in Lambin et al [ 7 ] as possibly being a substep of both “data selection” and “data acquisition”). After creating a hierarchy and addressing the conflicts, a baseline for the consensus was modeled. This generic radiomics workflow consists of eight main steps and 28 substeps, called phases and aspects throughout the Delphi process and the results (see supplement  1 ).

Workflow definition consensus (stage 2)

The consensus version of the workflow definition presented here was structured as follows: the top-level consists of up to seven phases (study design; data acquisition; data management; image processing and segmentation; feature extraction; modeling; reporting). Phases represent different fundamental workflow steps and can therefore, to a certain extent, be found in every radiomics workflow. Between most phases, there is a logical dependency and therefore the order is not arbitrary (e.g., the study design is supposed to be the starting point and reporting to be the last phase).

A phase may contain one or more aspects. Aspects are activities that take place within a phase. Aspects are often optional and have, per se, no fixed order of execution or count, as these can be highly study-specific. In the presented version of the definition, 37 aspects were defined (taken from literature or defined in the Delphi process). The phases and their aspects are depicted in Fig.  3 .

The figure shows all phases and aspects of the consensus workflow definition. The phases are shown on the left side in their logical sequence (from top to bottom). The associated aspects are shown on the right side. The aspects are sorted alphabetically and their indention is just for better readability

Even though the overall finalization of the definition reached a high consensus (89.7% agree or strongly agree vs. 7.7% disagree or strongly disagree; 2.6% neither agree nor disagree), two aspects remain controversial. First, the question of whether the aspect “Data format conversion” should be kept separately (60%) or merged with the aspect “Data transfer and import” (33.3%) could not be answered conclusively. Second, the aspect “Image quality assessment” was discussed very controversially regarding phase association (35.9% “Image processing and segmentation” phase vs 53.9% “Data management” phase; 10.3% neither agree nor disagree) and obligation (43.6% mandatory vs 33.3% optional; 23.1% neither agree nor disagree).

The detailed version of the workflow definition (comprising names and descriptions in English and German language; compulsoriness; machine learning applicability) can be found in supplement  2 (Consensus Radiomics Workflow Definition) and a first proposal for a formal representation as an OWL ontology (W3C Web Ontology Language; https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/ ) will be made publicly available through https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/radiomics-workflow-definition . In addition, we provide supplement  3 , a mapping table between the consensus definition and analyzed literature terms to support the translation between terms used in different publications. We included the radiomics standardization guidelines ARISE [ 10 ], CLEAR [ 9 ], IBSI [ 8 ], and RQS [ 7 ] in this mapping and observed that only the phase “Feature extraction” is represented in all four guidelines. On average 3 of these 4 guidelines are mapping to aspects of the seven defined consensus phases, but no aspect is covered by all of the guidelines.

Challenge characterization (stage 3)

The ten most important challenges regarding the clinical application of radiomics workflows and the perspective of the participating experts, as identified by the consensus process, are shown in Table  2 . Those challenges consist of four challenges proposed by the expert panel (importance rank #2, #3, #4, and #7) and six that were derived from the screened literature (importance rank #1, #5, #6, #8, #9 and #10). From the initial seven challenge categories, five are represented in this list (A Lack of guidelines, B Lack of standardization, C Problems related to radiomics studies, D Problems related to radiomics pipelines, G Problems related to data sharing). A detailed list of all categories and challenges is provided in supplement  4 (List of challenges).

Besides importance, the experts also rated the relevance of different solution domains to address the respective challenge. Each expert was allowed to choose multiple domains (technological; methodological; social/organizational; political/regulatory; others; N/A) and in addition could indicate high uncertainty about their response. The details of this characterization are displayed in Fig.  4 . In general, most challenges were anticipated to require solutions that strongly involve multiple domains. Only three challenges (#1 and #2: methodological; #7: political/regulatory) were anticipated to have a clear domain focus (one domain > 80%).

The figure shows for each challenge the percentage of experts anticipating a specific solution domain (technological, methodological, social/organizational, political/regulatory, others, and N/A) as relevant. Experts were allowed to choose multiple domains as relevant. In addition, for each challenge the percentage of experts indicating high uncertainty with regard to their selection is provided

The challenges were further characterized by the anticipated time frame required to overcome them. Each expert was allowed to choose one of the following categories: short-term (≤ 2 years), medium-term (≤ 5 years), long-term (> 5 years) and N/A. Figure  5 shows the distribution of anticipated timeframe categories. Most challenges were assumed to have medium-term solution time frames. Two challenges (#7 and #9) were anticipated to be short-term and challenge #5 was anticipated to be long-term.

The figure shows for each challenge the anticipated time frame (short-term (≤ 2 years), medium-term (≤ 5 years), long-term (> 5 years), and N/A) to meet the respective challenge. Experts had to choose one time frame. The light red boxes show the “mean” anticipated time frame (excluding N/A selections) for each challenge

We conducted an analysis of existing radiomics workflow definitions followed by a Delphi process to achieve consensus on a common workflow definition (including an ontology) and identify the participating experts’ ten most important translation-hindering challenges. The review revealed controversial/ambiguous definitions and semantic conflicts (in total 45) in the 22 workflow definitions of the screened publications. That supports the need of a standardized workflow definition based on a broad consensus. Via the Delphi process, we achieved a radiomics workflow definition proposal with high consensus (89.7% agree or strongly agree). Further, the Delphi process allowed us to identify the challenges that were deemed most pressing by the participating experts.

Our results support the hypothesis that, while important endeavors to improve clinical translation such as IBSI, RQS, QIBA, or guideline framing are underway, there currently exists no consensus on standardized workflow definitions. Most analyzed papers include aspects of the defined consensus phases “Modelling” (96%, 23 publications) and “Feature extraction” (92%, 22 publications). Looking only at well-known radiomics standardization guidelines (ARISE [ 10 ], CLEAR [ 9 ], IBSI [ 8 ], and RQS [ 7 ]) the phase coverage overlap improves (all phases are covered to some extent by at least 3 guidelines; “Feature extraction” is covered by all). But even in this focused set of analyzed literature, the lack of definition overlap becomes evident as none of the consensus aspects is covered by all 4 guidelines. Therefore, such a standardized definition and common terminology would also support translation as it allows, i.a., a better comparability of radiomics studies. Further, such a definition would directly help to tackle two identified top challenges (#1 reproducibility/generalizability and #3 workflow integration). Some challenges have previously been addressed, e.g., IBSI addresses challenges #8 and #9. Nevertheless, the top five challenges are currently not sufficiently addressed; neither is challenge #7 (guidelines for reviewers). We would like to emphasize that our finding that IBSI addresses challenges of “lower” importance does not imply wrong targeting by IBSI. On the contrary, we see it as an indicator of the effectiveness and importance of efforts such as IBSI, as the challenges it addressed became less pressing over the last years, which resulted in lower ranks in our study.

This study has limitations. Our definition of screening is not a systematic review as it was limited by the stopping criterion employed. However, these limitations proved irrelevant for the purpose of our study. The screening served to (i) determine the presence of controversial/ambiguous definitions and (ii) provide input for the baselines of the Delphi process. Both aims were sufficiently met with the analyzed literature.

Furthermore, our team of experts was geographically limited to Germany, as they were recruited from the SPP 2177. Nevertheless, as shown in the results section, they covered a broad range of scientific fields and expertise in radiomics. Therefore, we don’t expect relevant biases in the definition consensus, but assume them more likely in the challenge prioritization. This is due to high regulatory requirements and other factors in Germany which might lead to higher prioritization of data availability and data protection challenges by our expert panel compared to experts coming from countries with less restrictive conditions. Moreover, this study represents the first consensus on workflow definition. We envision it to be a starting point for a larger community process that would address these issues. Also, for future applications, the scope of the proposed definition could be too narrow, as the consensus process began with a focus on rather classical radiomics workflows to build image feature-based prediction models. However, consensus definitions for (i) workflows that do not focus on model building but on model application (inferencing) and (ii) emerging machine learning (ML)-based workflows are missing. The former has not been addressed yet and represents a desirable goal for future iterations of the definition. The latter is covered only briefly. These ML-based approaches are only emerging and therefore, their role in a radiomics workflow is not settled yet [ 33 , 34 ]. They might replace individual aspects of our consensus or, in the case of an end-to-end approach, even entire sequences of workflow phases. Therefore, we limited our scope to only indicating which phases and aspects could, given sufficient methodological progress, potentially be replaced by ML. Nevertheless, as stated above, further revisions of this consensus might address ML approaches in more depth.

Even after multiple rounds in the Delphi process, not all aspects have reached consensus yet. As the current version already offers significant value due to an overall very high consensus rate, and we envision further iterations with a larger expert panel in the future, we decided to make the remaining controversies transparent and publish the current status to initiate a broader scientific discussion.

In summary, we identified and ranked the ten most important challenges in translating radiomics into the clinic from the perspective of the participating experts. We further propose a standardized definition of terms describing phases of radiomics workflows consisting of seven major phases and 37 associated aspects that achieved high consensus among our experts. This standardized definition (supplement  2 ) is provided with a translation table (supplement  3 ) that maps the terms against the analyzed literature. As the results of this study are seen as a starting point for further developments and a broader international consensus discussion, this definition (and ontology) is publicly available online. We have prepared the resources for a future open structured definition development process ( https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/radiomics-workflow-definition ) and experts from outside our network are very welcome to adapt, contribute to this, and make it their own. Standardizing the terminology in radiomics workflows can only constitute a first step towards clinical translation, with further research addressing major challenges and roadblocks urgently required. The SPP 2177 is committed to building upon the results of this study to address these challenges. By providing a common ontology for radiomics workflow definitions and identifying which challenges should be targeted with the highest priority, the presented study serves as an important foundation for future advances in the field.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in the published paper (see supplements) or in the repository: https://github.com/MIC-DKFZ/radiomics-workflow-definition .

Abbreviations

Assessment of radiomics research

Checklist for evaluation of radiomics research

Deutsch Forschungsgemeinschaft; German Research Foundation

FAIR principles ( www.go-fair.org ); Findable accessible interoperable reusable

Image biomarker standardization initiative

Machine learning

Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance

Radiomics quality score

Schwerpunktprogramm; Priority program

Khoury M, Galea S (2016) Will precision medicine improve population health. JAMA 316:1357–1358. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12260

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aerts H, Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5006

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gutsche R, Lowis C, Ziemons K et al (2023) Automated brain tumor detection and segmentation for treatment response assessment using amino acid PET. J Nucl Med 64:1594–1602. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.123.265725

Meißner AK, Gutsche R, Galldiks N et al (2022) Radiomics for the noninvasive prediction of the BRAF mutation status in patients with melanoma brain metastases. Neuro Oncol 24:1331–1340. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab294

Meißner AK, Gutsche R, Galldiks N et al (2023) Radiomics for the non-invasive prediction of PD-L1 expression in patients with brain metastases secondary to non-small cell lung cancer. J Neurooncol 163:597–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-023-04367-7

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gillies R, Kinahan P, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM et al (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:749–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141

Zwanenburg A, Vallières M, Abdalah M et al (2020) The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology 295:328–338. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191145

Kocak B, Baessler B, Bakas S et al (2023) Checklist for evaluation of radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII. Insights Imaging 14:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01415-8

Kocak B, Chepelev LL, Chu LC et al (2023) Assessment of radiomics research (ARISE): a brief guide for authors, reviewers, and readers from the Scientific Editorial Board of European Radiology. Eur Radiol 33:7556–7560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09768-w

Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

MAXQDA Software. VERBI Software (2020) Available via https://www.maxqda.com/ . Accessed 13 Nov 2022

Avanzo M, Stancanello J, El Naqa I (2017) Beyond imaging: the promise of radiomics. Phys Med 38:122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.071

Chaddad A, Kucharczyk MJ, Daniel P et al (2019) Radiomics in glioblastoma: current status and challenges facing clinical implementation. Front Oncol 9:374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00374

Fornacon-Wood I, Faivre-Finn C, O’Connor JPB, Price GJ (2020) Radiomics as a personalized medicine tool in lung cancer: separating the hope from the hype. Lung Cancer 146:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.028

Gu D, Hu Y, Ding H et al (2019) CT radiomics may predict the grade of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a multicenter study. Eur Radiol 29:6880–6890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06176-x

Hassani C, Varghese BA, Nieva J, Duddalwar V (2019) Radiomics in pulmonary lesion imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:497–504. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20623

Horvat N, Bates DDB, Petkovska I (2019) Novel imaging techniques of rectal cancer: what do radiomics and radiogenomics have to offer? A literature review. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44:3764–3774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02042-y

Ibrahim A, Vallières M, Woodruff H et al (2019) Radiomics analysis for clinical decision support in nuclear medicine. Semin Nucl Med 49:438–449. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2019.06.005

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036

Lee S-H, Park H, Ko ES (2020) Radiomics in breast imaging from techniques to clinical applications: a review. Korean J Radiol 21:779–792. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0855

Machicado JD, Koay EJ, Krishna SG (2020) Radiomics for the diagnosis and differentiation of pancreatic cystic lesions. Diagnostics (Basel) 10:505. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070505

Mayerhoefer ME, Materka A, Langs G et al (2020) Introduction to radiomics. J Nucl Med 61:488–495. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.222893

Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB et al (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162:W1–W73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0698

Murray JM, Kaissis G, Braren R, Kleesiek J (2020) Wie funktioniert radiomics. Radiologe 60:32–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-019-00617-w

Scheckenbach K (2018) Radiomics: big data instead of biopsies in the future? Laryngorhinootologie 97:S114–S141. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-121964

Thawani R, McLane M, Beig N et al (2018) Radiomics and radiogenomics in lung cancer: a review for the clinician. Lung Cancer 115:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.10.015

Vallières M, Zwanenburg A, Badic B, Cheze Le Rest C, Visvikis D, Hatt M (2018) Responsible radiomics research for faster clinical translation. J Nucl Med 59:189–193. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.200501

van Timmeren JES, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S, Alkadhi H, Baessler B (2020) Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging 11:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2

Wilson R, Devaraj A (2017) Radiomics of pulmonary nodules and lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 6:86–91. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2017.01.04

Yang L, Gu D, Wei J et al (2019) A radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 8:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494099

Zwanenburg A (2019) Radiomics in nuclear medicine: Robustness, reproducibility, standardization, and how to avoid data analysis traps and replication crisis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2638–2655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04391-8

Bukowski M, Farkas R, Beyan O et al (2020) Implementation of eHealth and AI integrated diagnostics with multidisciplinary digitized data: are we ready from an international perspective. Eur Radiol 30:5510–5524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06874-x

Wichtmann BD, Albert S, Zhao W et al (2022) Are we there yet? The value of deep learning in a multicenter setting for response prediction of locally advanced rectal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Diagnostics (Basel) 12:1601. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12071601

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Petra Knaup for her valuable ideas and support in the initial phase of the study. In addition, we thank Minu Dietlinde Tizabi and Margarethe Floca for their efforts regarding language editing and proofreading. Special thanks go to the coordination office of SPP 2177 for their support and work throughout the whole process.

This study has received funding from: • Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Projektnummer 428090865, 428149221, 428210203, 428212052, 428212161, 428215948, 428216905, 428218324, 428219815, 428222922, 428223038, 428223139, 428223917, 428224258, 428224476 / SPP 2177 • Partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Projektnummer 442326535 / NFDI4Health • Partially funded by Helmholtz Metadata Collaboration (HMC), Hub Health, a platform of the Helmholtz Incubator on Information and Data Science • Partially funded by Helmholtz Imaging (HI), a platform of the Helmholtz Incubator on Information and Data Science • Partially funded by the HiGHmed Consortium, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, funding code 01ZZ1802A). Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Klaus Maier-Hein, Fabian Bamberg.

Authors and Affiliations

German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany

Ralf Floca, Jonas Bohn, Marco Nolden, Tobias Norajitra & Klaus Maier-Hein

Pattern Analysis and Learning Group, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany

Ralf Floca, Marco Nolden, Tobias Norajitra & Klaus Maier-Hein

National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology NCRO, Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology HIRO, Heidelberg, Germany

Faculty of Bioscience, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), NCT Heidelberg, a partnership between DKFZ and University Medical Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Translational Lung Research Center (TLRC), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Heidelberg, Germany

Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany

Christian Haux

Department of Neuroradiology, TU Munich University Hospital, Munich, Germany

Benedikt Wiestler

TranslaTUM - Central Institute for Translational Cancer Research, TU Munich, Munich, Germany

Computer Assisted Clinical Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Frank G. Zöllner & Steffen Albert

Mannheim Institute for Intelligent Systems in Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Frank G. Zöllner, Steffen Albert & Wenzhao Zhao

Intelligent Medical Systems, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany

Annika Reinke

Helmholtz Imaging, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Jakob Weiß, Martin Büchert, Marco Janoschke, Matthias Jung, Johanna Nattenmüller, Benedict Oerther, Christopher L. Schlett & Fabian Bamberg

Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Thorsten Persigehl, Nils Große Hokamp & Andra-Iza Iuga

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

Bettina Baeßler

Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiology, Berlin Institute of Health, DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), and DKTK (German Cancer Consortium), both partner sites Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine & Health, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany

Rickmer Braren & Eva Maria Fallenberg

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Medicine, School of Computation, Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Rickmer Braren

German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich partner site, Heidelberg, Germany

Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Norbert Galldiks

Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-3), Research Center Juelich (FZJ), Juelich, Germany

Center of Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf (CIO ABCD), Aachen, Bonn, Cologne & Duesseldorf, Germany

Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Bremen, Germany

Annika Gerken, Horst K. Hahn & Jan Hendrik Moltz

Division of Experimental Radiology, Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany

Michael Götz

Faculty 3, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Horst K. Hahn

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

Johannes Haubold & Lale Umutlu

Section on Experimental Radiology, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Tobias Haueise, Jürgen Machann & Fritz Schick

Institute for Diabetes Research and Metabolic Diseases (IDM) of the Helmholtz Center Munich at the University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Tobias Haueise & Jürgen Machann

German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), Tübingen, Germany

Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

Michael Ingrisch

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Lena Sophie Kiefer & Felix Peisen

Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Lena Sophie Kiefer

Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-4), Research Center Juelich (FZJ), Juelich, Germany

Philipp Lohmann

Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Johanna Nattenmüller & Tobias Nonnenmacher

Department of Neuroradiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Ahmed E. Othman

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Barbara D. Wichtmann

Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, Germany

Svenja Caspers

Institute for Anatomy I, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Radiology, Heidelberg, Germany

Heinz-Peter Schlemmer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RF refined the method, organized the delphi process, analyzed the data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript, JB was a major contributor in writing the manuscript and created the graphical abstract, CH generated the figures and performed the definition screening, AR generated figures in the manuscript. CH, BW, FZ, AR, JW helped define the survey questions. KMH and FB provided the basis for the conducted study, and ensured complementary guidance for the study. All authors read, corrected and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Floca .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because no patients or animals were involved in the study. The scientific guarantors of this publication are Fabian Bamberg and Klaus Maier-Hein.

Competing interests

FB receives funding and payment from SIEMENS Healthineers and Bayer Healthcare; CS receives funding and payment from SIEMENS Healthineers; MD receives funding from SIEMENS Healthineers, GE, Philips, and Canon. HPS is a member of the Advisory Editorial Board for Insights into Imaging (European Society of Oncologic Imaging)—they were not involved in the selection or review process of this article. For the remaining authors, there are no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Electronic supplementary material, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Floca, R., Bohn, J., Haux, C. et al. Radiomics workflow definition & challenges - German priority program 2177 consensus statement on clinically applied radiomics. Insights Imaging 15 , 124 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01704-w

Download citation

Received : 22 December 2023

Accepted : 20 April 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-024-01704-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Image processing
• Computer-assisted
• Terminology
• Consensus development conference