difference between case study and literature review

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• Does the case represent an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• Does the case provide important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• Does the case challenge and offer a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in practice. A case may offer you an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to the study a case in order to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• Does the case provide an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings in order to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• Does the case offer a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for exploratory research that points to a need for further examination of the research problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of Uganda. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a particular village can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community throughout rural regions of east Africa. The case could also point to the need for scholars to apply feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work. In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What was I studying? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why was this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the research problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would include summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to study the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in the context of explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that frames your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; c) what were the consequences of the event.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of his/her experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using him or her as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, cultural, economic, political, etc.], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, why study Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research reveals Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is more common to combine a description of the findings with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings It is important to remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and needs for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1)  restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were on social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood differently than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Essays
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

CC0006 Basics of Report Writing

Structure of a report (case study, literature review or survey).

• Structure of report (Site visit)
• Citing Sources
• Tips and Resources

The information in the report has to be organised in the best possible way for the reader to understand the issue being investigated, analysis of the findings and recommendations or implications that relate directly to the findings. Given below are the main sections of a standard report. Click on each section heading to learn more about it.

• Tells the reader what the report is about
• Informative, short, catchy

Example - Sea level rise in Singapore : Causes, Impact and Solution

The title page must also include group name, group members and their matriculation numbers.

Content s Page

• Has headings and subheadings that show the reader where the various sections of the report are located
• Written on a separate page
• Includes the page numbers of each section
• Briefly summarises the report, the process of research and final conclusions
• Provides a quick overview of the report and describes the main highlights
• Short, usually not more than 150 words in length
• Mention briefly why you choose this project, what are the implications and what kind of problems it will solve

Usually, the abstract is written last, ie. after writing the other sections and you know the key points to draw out from these sections. Abstracts allow readers who may be interested in the report to decide whether it is relevant to their purposes.

Introduction

• Discusses the background and sets the context
• Introduces the topic, significance of the problem, and the purpose of research
• Gives the scope ie shows what it includes and excludes

In the introduction, write about what motivates your project, what makes it interesting, what questions do you aim to answer by doing your project. The introduction lays the foundation for understanding the research problem and should be written in a way that leads the reader from the general subject area of the topic to the particular topic of research.

Literature Review

• Helps to gain an understanding of the existing research in that topic
• To develop on your own ideas and build your ideas based on the existing knowledge
• Prevents duplication of the research done by others

Search the existing literature for information. Identify the data pertinent to your topic. Review, extract the relevant information for eg how the study was conducted and the findings. Summarise the information. Write what is already known about the topic and what do the sources that you have reviewed say. Identify conflicts in previous studies, open questions, or gaps that may exist. If you are doing

• Case study - look for background information and if any similar case studies have been done before.
• Literature review - find out from literature, what is the background to the questions that you are looking into
• Site visit - use the literature review to read up and prepare good questions before hand.
• Survey - find out if similar surveys have been done before and what did they find?

Keep a record of the source details of any information you want to use in your report so that you can reference them accurately.

Methodology

Methodology is the approach that you take to gather data and arrive at the recommendation(s). Choose a method that is appropriate for the research topic and explain it in detail.

In this section, address the following: a) How the data was collected b) How it was analysed and c) Explain or justify why a particular method was chosen.

Usually, the methodology is written in the past tense and can be in the passive voice. Some examples of the different methods that you can use to gather data are given below. The data collected provides evidence to build your arguments. Collect data, integrate the findings and perspectives from different studies and add your own analysis of its feasibility.

For CC0006 Group Project, use one of the four methods listed below:

• Explore the literature/news/internet sources to know the topic in depth
• Give a description of how you selected the literature for your project
• Compare the studies, and highlight the findings, gaps or limitations.
• An in-depth, detailed examination of specific cases within a real-world context.
• Enables you to examine the data within a specific context.
• Examine a well defined case to identify the essential factors, process and relationship.
• Write the case description, the context and the process involved.
• Make sense of the evidence in the case(s) to answer the research question
• Gather data from a predefined group of respondents by asking relevant questions
• Can be conducted in person or online
• Why you chose this method (questionnaires, focus group, experimental procedure, etc)
• How you carried out the survey. Include techniques and any equipment you used
• If there were participants in your research, who were they? How did you select them and how may were there?
• How the survey questions address the different aspects of the research question
• Analyse the technology / policy approaches by visiting the required sites
• Make a detailed report on its features and your understanding of it

Results and Analysis

• Present the results of the study. You may consider visualising the results in tables and graphs, graphics etc.
• Analyse the results to obtain answer to the research question.
• Provide an analysis of the technical and financial feasibility, social acceptability etc

Discussion, Limitation(s) and Implication(s)

• Discuss your interpretations of the analysis and the significance of your findings
• Explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research
• Consider the different perspectives (social, economic and environmental)in the discussion
• Explain the limitation(s)
• Explain how could what you found be used to make a difference for sustainability

Conclusion and Recommendations

• Summarise the significance and outcome of the study highlighting the key points.
• Come up with alternatives and propose specific actions based on the alternatives
• Describe the result or improvement it would achieve
• Explain how it will be implemented

Recommendations should have an innovative approach and should be feasible. It should make a significant difference in solving the issue under discussion.

• List the sources you have referred to in your writing
• Use the recommended citation style consistently in your report

Appendix (if necessary/any)

Include any material relating to the report and research that does not fit in the body of the report, in the appendix. For example, you may include survey questionnaire and results in the appendix.

• << Previous: Structure of a report
• Next: Structure of report (Site visit) >>
• Last Updated: Jun 24, 2024 10:35 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ntu.edu.sg/report-writing

You are expected to comply with University policies and guidelines namely, Appropriate Use of Information Resources Policy , IT Usage Policy and Social Media Policy . Users will be personally liable for any infringement of Copyright and Licensing laws. Unless otherwise stated, all guide content is licensed by CC BY-NC 4.0 .

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

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

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved June 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

• 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: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Systematic, Scoping, and Other Literature Reviews: Overview

• Project Planning

What Is a Systematic Review?

Regular literature reviews are simply summaries of the literature on a particular topic. A systematic review, however, is a comprehensive literature review conducted to answer a specific research question. Authors of a systematic review aim to find, code, appraise, and synthesize all of the previous research on their question in an unbiased and well-documented manner. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) outline the minimum amount of information that needs to be reported at the conclusion of a systematic review project. 

Other types of what are known as "evidence syntheses," such as scoping, rapid, and integrative reviews, have varying methodologies. While systematic reviews originated with and continue to be a popular publication type in medicine and other health sciences fields, more and more researchers in other disciplines are choosing to conduct evidence syntheses. 

This guide will walk you through the major steps of a systematic review and point you to key resources including Covidence, a systematic review project management tool. For help with systematic reviews and other major literature review projects, please send us an email at  [email protected] .

Getting Help with Reviews

Organization such as the Institute of Medicine recommend that you consult a librarian when conducting a systematic review. Librarians at the University of Nevada, Reno can help you:

• Understand best practices for conducting systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses in your discipline
• Choose and formulate a research question
• Decide which review type (e.g., systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.) is the best fit for your project
• Determine what to include and where to register a systematic review protocol
• Select search terms and develop a search strategy
• Identify databases and platforms to search
• Find the full text of articles and other sources
• Become familiar with free citation management (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)
• Get access to you and help using Covidence, a systematic review project management tool

Doing a Systematic Review

• Plan - This is the project planning stage. You and your team will need to develop a good research question, determine the type of review you will conduct (systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.), and establish the inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., you're only going to look at studies that use a certain methodology). All of this information needs to be included in your protocol. You'll also need to ensure that the project is viable - has someone already done a systematic review on this topic? Do some searches and check the various protocol registries to find out. 
• Identify - Next, a comprehensive search of the literature is undertaken to ensure all studies that meet the predetermined criteria are identified. Each research question is different, so the number and types of databases you'll search - as well as other online publication venues - will vary. Some standards and guidelines specify that certain databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE) should be searched regardless. Your subject librarian can help you select appropriate databases to search and develop search strings for each of those databases.  
• Evaluate - In this step, retrieved articles are screened and sorted using the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias for each included study is also assessed around this time. It's best if you import search results into a citation management tool (see below) to clean up the citations and remove any duplicates. You can then use a tool like Rayyan (see below) to screen the results. You should begin by screening titles and abstracts only, and then you'll examine the full text of any remaining articles. Each study should be reviewed by a minimum of two people on the project team. 
• Collect - Each included study is coded and the quantitative or qualitative data contained in these studies is then synthesized. You'll have to either find or develop a coding strategy or form that meets your needs. 
• Explain - The synthesized results are articulated and contextualized. What do the results mean? How have they answered your research question?
• Summarize - The final report provides a complete description of the methods and results in a clear, transparent fashion. 

Adapted from

Types of reviews, systematic review.

These types of studies employ a systematic method to analyze and synthesize the results of numerous studies. "Systematic" in this case means following a strict set of steps - as outlined by entities like PRISMA and the Institute of Medicine - so as to make the review more reproducible and less biased. Consistent, thorough documentation is also key. Reviews of this type are not meant to be conducted by an individual but rather a (small) team of researchers. Systematic reviews are widely used in the health sciences, often to find a generalized conclusion from multiple evidence-based studies. 

Meta-Analysis

A systematic method that uses statistics to analyze the data from numerous studies. The researchers combine the data from studies with similar data types and analyze them as a single, expanded dataset. Meta-analyses are a type of systematic review.

Scoping Review

A scoping review employs the systematic review methodology to explore a broader topic or question rather than a specific and answerable one, as is generally the case with a systematic review. Authors of these types of reviews seek to collect and categorize the existing literature so as to identify any gaps.

Rapid Review

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews conducted under a time constraint. Researchers make use of workarounds to complete the review quickly (e.g., only looking at English-language publications), which can lead to a less thorough and more biased review. 

Narrative Review

A traditional literature review that summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous original research articles. The purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely and do not follow a set protocol. Most literature reviews are narrative reviews. 

Umbrella Review

Umbrella reviews are, essentially, systematic reviews of systematic reviews. These compile evidence from multiple review studies into one usable document. 

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, 2009, pp. 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x .

• Next: Project Planning >>

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.21(3); Fall 2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers

Julie a. luft.

† Department of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124

Sophia Jeong

‡ Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

Robert Idsardi

§ Department of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004

Grant Gardner

∥ Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Associated Data

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and delineate the purpose of each in the educational research process. We describe what biology education researchers should consider as they conduct literature reviews, identify theoretical frameworks, and construct conceptual frameworks. Clarifying these different components of educational research studies can be helpful to new biology education researchers and the biology education research community at large in situating their work in the broader scholarly literature.

INTRODUCTION

Discipline-based education research (DBER) involves the purposeful and situated study of teaching and learning in specific disciplinary areas ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Studies in DBER are guided by research questions that reflect disciplines’ priorities and worldviews. Researchers can use quantitative data, qualitative data, or both to answer these research questions through a variety of methodological traditions. Across all methodologies, there are different methods associated with planning and conducting educational research studies that include the use of surveys, interviews, observations, artifacts, or instruments. Ensuring the coherence of these elements to the discipline’s perspective also involves situating the work in the broader scholarly literature. The tools for doing this include literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. However, the purpose and function of each of these elements is often confusing to new education researchers. The goal of this article is to introduce new biology education researchers to these three important elements important in DBER scholarship and the broader educational literature.

The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. Literature reviews situate the relevance of the study within a topic and a field. The process may seem familiar to science researchers entering DBER fields, but new researchers may still struggle in conducting the review. Booth et al. (2016b) highlight some of the challenges novice education researchers face when conducting a review of literature. They point out that novice researchers struggle in deciding how to focus the review, determining the scope of articles needed in the review, and knowing how to be critical of the articles in the review. Overcoming these challenges (and others) can help novice researchers construct a sound literature review that can inform the design of the study and help ensure the work makes a contribution to the field.

The second and third highlighted elements are theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These guide biology education research (BER) studies, and may be less familiar to science researchers. These elements are important in shaping the construction of new knowledge. Theoretical frameworks offer a way to explain and interpret the studied phenomenon, while conceptual frameworks clarify assumptions about the studied phenomenon. Despite the importance of these constructs in educational research, biology educational researchers have noted the limited use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks in published work ( DeHaan, 2011 ; Dirks, 2011 ; Lo et al. , 2019 ). In reviewing articles published in CBE—Life Sciences Education ( LSE ) between 2015 and 2019, we found that fewer than 25% of the research articles had a theoretical or conceptual framework (see the Supplemental Information), and at times there was an inconsistent use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Clearly, these frameworks are challenging for published biology education researchers, which suggests the importance of providing some initial guidance to new biology education researchers.

Fortunately, educational researchers have increased their explicit use of these frameworks over time, and this is influencing educational research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. For instance, a quick search for theoretical or conceptual frameworks in the abstracts of articles in Educational Research Complete (a common database for educational research) in STEM fields demonstrates a dramatic change over the last 20 years: from only 778 articles published between 2000 and 2010 to 5703 articles published between 2010 and 2020, a more than sevenfold increase. Greater recognition of the importance of these frameworks is contributing to DBER authors being more explicit about such frameworks in their studies.

Collectively, literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks work to guide methodological decisions and the elucidation of important findings. Each offers a different perspective on the problem of study and is an essential element in all forms of educational research. As new researchers seek to learn about these elements, they will find different resources, a variety of perspectives, and many suggestions about the construction and use of these elements. The wide range of available information can overwhelm the new researcher who just wants to learn the distinction between these elements or how to craft them adequately.

Our goal in writing this paper is not to offer specific advice about how to write these sections in scholarly work. Instead, we wanted to introduce these elements to those who are new to BER and who are interested in better distinguishing one from the other. In this paper, we share the purpose of each element in BER scholarship, along with important points on its construction. We also provide references for additional resources that may be beneficial to better understanding each element. Table 1 summarizes the key distinctions among these elements.

Comparison of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual reviews

This article is written for the new biology education researcher who is just learning about these different elements or for scientists looking to become more involved in BER. It is a result of our own work as science education and biology education researchers, whether as graduate students and postdoctoral scholars or newly hired and established faculty members. This is the article we wish had been available as we started to learn about these elements or discussed them with new educational researchers in biology.

LITERATURE REVIEWS

Purpose of a literature review.

A literature review is foundational to any research study in education or science. In education, a well-conceptualized and well-executed review provides a summary of the research that has already been done on a specific topic and identifies questions that remain to be answered, thus illustrating the current research project’s potential contribution to the field and the reasoning behind the methodological approach selected for the study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). BER is an evolving disciplinary area that is redefining areas of conceptual emphasis as well as orientations toward teaching and learning (e.g., Labov et al. , 2010 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Nehm, 2019 ). As a result, building comprehensive, critical, purposeful, and concise literature reviews can be a challenge for new biology education researchers.

Building Literature Reviews

There are different ways to approach and construct a literature review. Booth et al. (2016a) provide an overview that includes, for example, scoping reviews, which are focused only on notable studies and use a basic method of analysis, and integrative reviews, which are the result of exhaustive literature searches across different genres. Underlying each of these different review processes are attention to the s earch process, a ppraisa l of articles, s ynthesis of the literature, and a nalysis: SALSA ( Booth et al. , 2016a ). This useful acronym can help the researcher focus on the process while building a specific type of review.

However, new educational researchers often have questions about literature reviews that are foundational to SALSA or other approaches. Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section addresses such questions broadly while providing general guidance for writing a narrative literature review that evaluates the most pertinent studies.

The literature review process should begin before the research is conducted. As Boote and Beile (2005 , p. 3) suggested, researchers should be “scholars before researchers.” They point out that having a good working knowledge of the proposed topic helps illuminate avenues of study. Some subject areas have a deep body of work to read and reflect upon, providing a strong foundation for developing the research question(s). For instance, the teaching and learning of evolution is an area of long-standing interest in the BER community, generating many studies (e.g., Perry et al. , 2008 ; Barnes and Brownell, 2016 ) and reviews of research (e.g., Sickel and Friedrichsen, 2013 ; Ziadie and Andrews, 2018 ). Emerging areas of BER include the affective domain, issues of transfer, and metacognition ( Singer et al. , 2012 ). Many studies in these areas are transdisciplinary and not always specific to biology education (e.g., Rodrigo-Peiris et al. , 2018 ; Kolpikova et al. , 2019 ). These newer areas may require reading outside BER; fortunately, summaries of some of these topics can be found in the Current Insights section of the LSE website.

In focusing on a specific problem within a broader research strand, a new researcher will likely need to examine research outside BER. Depending upon the area of study, the expanded reading list might involve a mix of BER, DBER, and educational research studies. Determining the scope of the reading is not always straightforward. A simple way to focus one’s reading is to create a “summary phrase” or “research nugget,” which is a very brief descriptive statement about the study. It should focus on the essence of the study, for example, “first-year nonmajor students’ understanding of evolution,” “metacognitive prompts to enhance learning during biochemistry,” or “instructors’ inquiry-based instructional practices after professional development programming.” This type of phrase should help a new researcher identify two or more areas to review that pertain to the study. Focusing on recent research in the last 5 years is a good first step. Additional studies can be identified by reading relevant works referenced in those articles. It is also important to read seminal studies that are more than 5 years old. Reading a range of studies should give the researcher the necessary command of the subject in order to suggest a research question.

Given that the research question(s) arise from the literature review, the review should also substantiate the selected methodological approach. The review and research question(s) guide the researcher in determining how to collect and analyze data. Often the methodological approach used in a study is selected to contribute knowledge that expands upon what has been published previously about the topic (see Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation, 2013 ). An emerging topic of study may need an exploratory approach that allows for a description of the phenomenon and development of a potential theory. This could, but not necessarily, require a methodological approach that uses interviews, observations, surveys, or other instruments. An extensively studied topic may call for the additional understanding of specific factors or variables; this type of study would be well suited to a verification or a causal research design. These could entail a methodological approach that uses valid and reliable instruments, observations, or interviews to determine an effect in the studied event. In either of these examples, the researcher(s) may use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods methodological approach.

Even with a good research question, there is still more reading to be done. The complexity and focus of the research question dictates the depth and breadth of the literature to be examined. Questions that connect multiple topics can require broad literature reviews. For instance, a study that explores the impact of a biology faculty learning community on the inquiry instruction of faculty could have the following review areas: learning communities among biology faculty, inquiry instruction among biology faculty, and inquiry instruction among biology faculty as a result of professional learning. Biology education researchers need to consider whether their literature review requires studies from different disciplines within or outside DBER. For the example given, it would be fruitful to look at research focused on learning communities with faculty in STEM fields or in general education fields that result in instructional change. It is important not to be too narrow or too broad when reading. When the conclusions of articles start to sound similar or no new insights are gained, the researcher likely has a good foundation for a literature review. This level of reading should allow the researcher to demonstrate a mastery in understanding the researched topic, explain the suitability of the proposed research approach, and point to the need for the refined research question(s).

The literature review should include the researcher’s evaluation and critique of the selected studies. A researcher may have a large collection of studies, but not all of the studies will follow standards important in the reporting of empirical work in the social sciences. The American Educational Research Association ( Duran et al. , 2006 ), for example, offers a general discussion about standards for such work: an adequate review of research informing the study, the existence of sound and appropriate data collection and analysis methods, and appropriate conclusions that do not overstep or underexplore the analyzed data. The Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation (2013) also offer Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development that can be used to evaluate collected studies.

Because not all journals adhere to such standards, it is important that a researcher review each study to determine the quality of published research, per the guidelines suggested earlier. In some instances, the research may be fatally flawed. Examples of such flaws include data that do not pertain to the question, a lack of discussion about the data collection, poorly constructed instruments, or an inadequate analysis. These types of errors result in studies that are incomplete, error-laden, or inaccurate and should be excluded from the review. Most studies have limitations, and the author(s) often make them explicit. For instance, there may be an instructor effect, recognized bias in the analysis, or issues with the sample population. Limitations are usually addressed by the research team in some way to ensure a sound and acceptable research process. Occasionally, the limitations associated with the study can be significant and not addressed adequately, which leaves a consequential decision in the hands of the researcher. Providing critiques of studies in the literature review process gives the reader confidence that the researcher has carefully examined relevant work in preparation for the study and, ultimately, the manuscript.

A solid literature review clearly anchors the proposed study in the field and connects the research question(s), the methodological approach, and the discussion. Reviewing extant research leads to research questions that will contribute to what is known in the field. By summarizing what is known, the literature review points to what needs to be known, which in turn guides decisions about methodology. Finally, notable findings of the new study are discussed in reference to those described in the literature review.

Within published BER studies, literature reviews can be placed in different locations in an article. When included in the introductory section of the study, the first few paragraphs of the manuscript set the stage, with the literature review following the opening paragraphs. Cooper et al. (2019) illustrate this approach in their study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). An introduction discussing the potential of CURES is followed by an analysis of the existing literature relevant to the design of CUREs that allows for novel student discoveries. Within this review, the authors point out contradictory findings among research on novel student discoveries. This clarifies the need for their study, which is described and highlighted through specific research aims.

A literature reviews can also make up a separate section in a paper. For example, the introduction to Todd et al. (2019) illustrates the need for their research topic by highlighting the potential of learning progressions (LPs) and suggesting that LPs may help mitigate learning loss in genetics. At the end of the introduction, the authors state their specific research questions. The review of literature following this opening section comprises two subsections. One focuses on learning loss in general and examines a variety of studies and meta-analyses from the disciplines of medical education, mathematics, and reading. The second section focuses specifically on LPs in genetics and highlights student learning in the midst of LPs. These separate reviews provide insights into the stated research question.

Suggestions and Advice

A well-conceptualized, comprehensive, and critical literature review reveals the understanding of the topic that the researcher brings to the study. Literature reviews should not be so big that there is no clear area of focus; nor should they be so narrow that no real research question arises. The task for a researcher is to craft an efficient literature review that offers a critical analysis of published work, articulates the need for the study, guides the methodological approach to the topic of study, and provides an adequate foundation for the discussion of the findings.

In our own writing of literature reviews, there are often many drafts. An early draft may seem well suited to the study because the need for and approach to the study are well described. However, as the results of the study are analyzed and findings begin to emerge, the existing literature review may be inadequate and need revision. The need for an expanded discussion about the research area can result in the inclusion of new studies that support the explanation of a potential finding. The literature review may also prove to be too broad. Refocusing on a specific area allows for more contemplation of a finding.

It should be noted that there are different types of literature reviews, and many books and articles have been written about the different ways to embark on these types of reviews. Among these different resources, the following may be helpful in considering how to refine the review process for scholarly journals:

• Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book addresses different types of literature reviews and offers important suggestions pertaining to defining the scope of the literature review and assessing extant studies.
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This book can help the novice consider how to make the case for an area of study. While this book is not specifically about literature reviews, it offers suggestions about making the case for your study.
• Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. This book offers guidance on writing different types of literature reviews. For the novice researcher, there are useful suggestions for creating coherent literature reviews.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of theoretical frameworks.

As new education researchers may be less familiar with theoretical frameworks than with literature reviews, this discussion begins with an analogy. Envision a biologist, chemist, and physicist examining together the dramatic effect of a fog tsunami over the ocean. A biologist gazing at this phenomenon may be concerned with the effect of fog on various species. A chemist may be interested in the chemical composition of the fog as water vapor condenses around bits of salt. A physicist may be focused on the refraction of light to make fog appear to be “sitting” above the ocean. While observing the same “objective event,” the scientists are operating under different theoretical frameworks that provide a particular perspective or “lens” for the interpretation of the phenomenon. Each of these scientists brings specialized knowledge, experiences, and values to this phenomenon, and these influence the interpretation of the phenomenon. The scientists’ theoretical frameworks influence how they design and carry out their studies and interpret their data.

Within an educational study, a theoretical framework helps to explain a phenomenon through a particular lens and challenges and extends existing knowledge within the limitations of that lens. Theoretical frameworks are explicitly stated by an educational researcher in the paper’s framework, theory, or relevant literature section. The framework shapes the types of questions asked, guides the method by which data are collected and analyzed, and informs the discussion of the results of the study. It also reveals the researcher’s subjectivities, for example, values, social experience, and viewpoint ( Allen, 2017 ). It is essential that a novice researcher learn to explicitly state a theoretical framework, because all research questions are being asked from the researcher’s implicit or explicit assumptions of a phenomenon of interest ( Schwandt, 2000 ).

Selecting Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks are one of the most contemplated elements in our work in educational research. In this section, we share three important considerations for new scholars selecting a theoretical framework.

The first step in identifying a theoretical framework involves reflecting on the phenomenon within the study and the assumptions aligned with the phenomenon. The phenomenon involves the studied event. There are many possibilities, for example, student learning, instructional approach, or group organization. A researcher holds assumptions about how the phenomenon will be effected, influenced, changed, or portrayed. It is ultimately the researcher’s assumption(s) about the phenomenon that aligns with a theoretical framework. An example can help illustrate how a researcher’s reflection on the phenomenon and acknowledgment of assumptions can result in the identification of a theoretical framework.

In our example, a biology education researcher may be interested in exploring how students’ learning of difficult biological concepts can be supported by the interactions of group members. The phenomenon of interest is the interactions among the peers, and the researcher assumes that more knowledgeable students are important in supporting the learning of the group. As a result, the researcher may draw on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and development that is focused on the phenomenon of student learning in a social setting. This theory posits the critical nature of interactions among students and between students and teachers in the process of building knowledge. A researcher drawing upon this framework holds the assumption that learning is a dynamic social process involving questions and explanations among students in the classroom and that more knowledgeable peers play an important part in the process of building conceptual knowledge.

It is important to state at this point that there are many different theoretical frameworks. Some frameworks focus on learning and knowing, while other theoretical frameworks focus on equity, empowerment, or discourse. Some frameworks are well articulated, and others are still being refined. For a new researcher, it can be challenging to find a theoretical framework. Two of the best ways to look for theoretical frameworks is through published works that highlight different frameworks.

When a theoretical framework is selected, it should clearly connect to all parts of the study. The framework should augment the study by adding a perspective that provides greater insights into the phenomenon. It should clearly align with the studies described in the literature review. For instance, a framework focused on learning would correspond to research that reported different learning outcomes for similar studies. The methods for data collection and analysis should also correspond to the framework. For instance, a study about instructional interventions could use a theoretical framework concerned with learning and could collect data about the effect of the intervention on what is learned. When the data are analyzed, the theoretical framework should provide added meaning to the findings, and the findings should align with the theoretical framework.

A study by Jensen and Lawson (2011) provides an example of how a theoretical framework connects different parts of the study. They compared undergraduate biology students in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups over the course of a semester. Jensen and Lawson (2011) assumed that learning involved collaboration and more knowledgeable peers, which made Vygotsky’s (1978) theory a good fit for their study. They predicted that students in heterogeneous groups would experience greater improvement in their reasoning abilities and science achievements with much of the learning guided by the more knowledgeable peers.

In the enactment of the study, they collected data about the instruction in traditional and inquiry-oriented classes, while the students worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. To determine the effect of working in groups, the authors also measured students’ reasoning abilities and achievement. Each data-collection and analysis decision connected to understanding the influence of collaborative work.

Their findings highlighted aspects of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. One finding, for instance, posited that inquiry instruction, as a whole, resulted in reasoning and achievement gains. This links to Vygotsky (1978) , because inquiry instruction involves interactions among group members. A more nuanced finding was that group composition had a conditional effect. Heterogeneous groups performed better with more traditional and didactic instruction, regardless of the reasoning ability of the group members. Homogeneous groups worked better during interaction-rich activities for students with low reasoning ability. The authors attributed the variation to the different types of helping behaviors of students. High-performing students provided the answers, while students with low reasoning ability had to work collectively through the material. In terms of Vygotsky (1978) , this finding provided new insights into the learning context in which productive interactions can occur for students.

Another consideration in the selection and use of a theoretical framework pertains to its orientation to the study. This can result in the theoretical framework prioritizing individuals, institutions, and/or policies ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Frameworks that connect to individuals, for instance, could contribute to understanding their actions, learning, or knowledge. Institutional frameworks, on the other hand, offer insights into how institutions, organizations, or groups can influence individuals or materials. Policy theories provide ways to understand how national or local policies can dictate an emphasis on outcomes or instructional design. These different types of frameworks highlight different aspects in an educational setting, which influences the design of the study and the collection of data. In addition, these different frameworks offer a way to make sense of the data. Aligning the data collection and analysis with the framework ensures that a study is coherent and can contribute to the field.

New understandings emerge when different theoretical frameworks are used. For instance, Ebert-May et al. (2015) prioritized the individual level within conceptual change theory (see Posner et al. , 1982 ). In this theory, an individual’s knowledge changes when it no longer fits the phenomenon. Ebert-May et al. (2015) designed a professional development program challenging biology postdoctoral scholars’ existing conceptions of teaching. The authors reported that the biology postdoctoral scholars’ teaching practices became more student-centered as they were challenged to explain their instructional decision making. According to the theory, the biology postdoctoral scholars’ dissatisfaction in their descriptions of teaching and learning initiated change in their knowledge and instruction. These results reveal how conceptual change theory can explain the learning of participants and guide the design of professional development programming.

The communities of practice (CoP) theoretical framework ( Lave, 1988 ; Wenger, 1998 ) prioritizes the institutional level , suggesting that learning occurs when individuals learn from and contribute to the communities in which they reside. Grounded in the assumption of community learning, the literature on CoP suggests that, as individuals interact regularly with the other members of their group, they learn about the rules, roles, and goals of the community ( Allee, 2000 ). A study conducted by Gehrke and Kezar (2017) used the CoP framework to understand organizational change by examining the involvement of individual faculty engaged in a cross-institutional CoP focused on changing the instructional practice of faculty at each institution. In the CoP, faculty members were involved in enhancing instructional materials within their department, which aligned with an overarching goal of instituting instruction that embraced active learning. Not surprisingly, Gehrke and Kezar (2017) revealed that faculty who perceived the community culture as important in their work cultivated institutional change. Furthermore, they found that institutional change was sustained when key leaders served as mentors and provided support for faculty, and as faculty themselves developed into leaders. This study reveals the complexity of individual roles in a COP in order to support institutional instructional change.

It is important to explicitly state the theoretical framework used in a study, but elucidating a theoretical framework can be challenging for a new educational researcher. The literature review can help to identify an applicable theoretical framework. Focal areas of the review or central terms often connect to assumptions and assertions associated with the framework that pertain to the phenomenon of interest. Another way to identify a theoretical framework is self-reflection by the researcher on personal beliefs and understandings about the nature of knowledge the researcher brings to the study ( Lysaght, 2011 ). In stating one’s beliefs and understandings related to the study (e.g., students construct their knowledge, instructional materials support learning), an orientation becomes evident that will suggest a particular theoretical framework. Theoretical frameworks are not arbitrary , but purposefully selected.

With experience, a researcher may find expanded roles for theoretical frameworks. Researchers may revise an existing framework that has limited explanatory power, or they may decide there is a need to develop a new theoretical framework. These frameworks can emerge from a current study or the need to explain a phenomenon in a new way. Researchers may also find that multiple theoretical frameworks are necessary to frame and explore a problem, as different frameworks can provide different insights into a problem.

Finally, it is important to recognize that choosing “x” theoretical framework does not necessarily mean a researcher chooses “y” methodology and so on, nor is there a clear-cut, linear process in selecting a theoretical framework for one’s study. In part, the nonlinear process of identifying a theoretical framework is what makes understanding and using theoretical frameworks challenging. For the novice scholar, contemplating and understanding theoretical frameworks is essential. Fortunately, there are articles and books that can help:

• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book provides an overview of theoretical frameworks in general educational research.
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020101-1–020101-13. This paper illustrates how a DBER field can use theoretical frameworks.
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 . This paper articulates the need for studies in BER to explicitly state theoretical frameworks and provides examples of potential studies.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage. This book also provides an overview of theoretical frameworks, but for both research and evaluation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Purpose of a conceptual framework.

A conceptual framework is a description of the way a researcher understands the factors and/or variables that are involved in the study and their relationships to one another. The purpose of a conceptual framework is to articulate the concepts under study using relevant literature ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ) and to clarify the presumed relationships among those concepts ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). Conceptual frameworks are different from theoretical frameworks in both their breadth and grounding in established findings. Whereas a theoretical framework articulates the lens through which a researcher views the work, the conceptual framework is often more mechanistic and malleable.

Conceptual frameworks are broader, encompassing both established theories (i.e., theoretical frameworks) and the researchers’ own emergent ideas. Emergent ideas, for example, may be rooted in informal and/or unpublished observations from experience. These emergent ideas would not be considered a “theory” if they are not yet tested, supported by systematically collected evidence, and peer reviewed. However, they do still play an important role in the way researchers approach their studies. The conceptual framework allows authors to clearly describe their emergent ideas so that connections among ideas in the study and the significance of the study are apparent to readers.

Constructing Conceptual Frameworks

Including a conceptual framework in a research study is important, but researchers often opt to include either a conceptual or a theoretical framework. Either may be adequate, but both provide greater insight into the research approach. For instance, a research team plans to test a novel component of an existing theory. In their study, they describe the existing theoretical framework that informs their work and then present their own conceptual framework. Within this conceptual framework, specific topics portray emergent ideas that are related to the theory. Describing both frameworks allows readers to better understand the researchers’ assumptions, orientations, and understanding of concepts being investigated. For example, Connolly et al. (2018) included a conceptual framework that described how they applied a theoretical framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT) to their study on teaching programs for doctoral students. In their conceptual framework, the authors described SCCT, explained how it applied to the investigation, and drew upon results from previous studies to justify the proposed connections between the theory and their emergent ideas.

In some cases, authors may be able to sufficiently describe their conceptualization of the phenomenon under study in an introduction alone, without a separate conceptual framework section. However, incomplete descriptions of how the researchers conceptualize the components of the study may limit the significance of the study by making the research less intelligible to readers. This is especially problematic when studying topics in which researchers use the same terms for different constructs or different terms for similar and overlapping constructs (e.g., inquiry, teacher beliefs, pedagogical content knowledge, or active learning). Authors must describe their conceptualization of a construct if the research is to be understandable and useful.

There are some key areas to consider regarding the inclusion of a conceptual framework in a study. To begin with, it is important to recognize that conceptual frameworks are constructed by the researchers conducting the study ( Rocco and Plakhotnik, 2009 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). This is different from theoretical frameworks that are often taken from established literature. Researchers should bring together ideas from the literature, but they may be influenced by their own experiences as a student and/or instructor, the shared experiences of others, or thought experiments as they construct a description, model, or representation of their understanding of the phenomenon under study. This is an exercise in intellectual organization and clarity that often considers what is learned, known, and experienced. The conceptual framework makes these constructs explicitly visible to readers, who may have different understandings of the phenomenon based on their prior knowledge and experience. There is no single method to go about this intellectual work.

Reeves et al. (2016) is an example of an article that proposed a conceptual framework about graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. The authors used existing literature to create a novel framework that filled a gap in current research and practice related to the training of graduate teaching assistants. This conceptual framework can guide the systematic collection of data by other researchers because the framework describes the relationships among various factors that influence teaching and learning. The Reeves et al. (2016) conceptual framework may be modified as additional data are collected and analyzed by other researchers. This is not uncommon, as conceptual frameworks can serve as catalysts for concerted research efforts that systematically explore a phenomenon (e.g., Reynolds et al. , 2012 ; Brownell and Kloser, 2015 ).

Sabel et al. (2017) used a conceptual framework in their exploration of how scaffolds, an external factor, interact with internal factors to support student learning. Their conceptual framework integrated principles from two theoretical frameworks, self-regulated learning and metacognition, to illustrate how the research team conceptualized students’ use of scaffolds in their learning ( Figure 1 ). Sabel et al. (2017) created this model using their interpretations of these two frameworks in the context of their teaching.

Conceptual framework from Sabel et al. (2017) .

A conceptual framework should describe the relationship among components of the investigation ( Anfara and Mertz, 2014 ). These relationships should guide the researcher’s methods of approaching the study ( Miles et al. , 2014 ) and inform both the data to be collected and how those data should be analyzed. Explicitly describing the connections among the ideas allows the researcher to justify the importance of the study and the rigor of the research design. Just as importantly, these frameworks help readers understand why certain components of a system were not explored in the study. This is a challenge in education research, which is rooted in complex environments with many variables that are difficult to control.

For example, Sabel et al. (2017) stated: “Scaffolds, such as enhanced answer keys and reflection questions, can help students and instructors bridge the external and internal factors and support learning” (p. 3). They connected the scaffolds in the study to the three dimensions of metacognition and the eventual transformation of existing ideas into new or revised ideas. Their framework provides a rationale for focusing on how students use two different scaffolds, and not on other factors that may influence a student’s success (self-efficacy, use of active learning, exam format, etc.).

In constructing conceptual frameworks, researchers should address needed areas of study and/or contradictions discovered in literature reviews. By attending to these areas, researchers can strengthen their arguments for the importance of a study. For instance, conceptual frameworks can address how the current study will fill gaps in the research, resolve contradictions in existing literature, or suggest a new area of study. While a literature review describes what is known and not known about the phenomenon, the conceptual framework leverages these gaps in describing the current study ( Maxwell, 2012 ). In the example of Sabel et al. (2017) , the authors indicated there was a gap in the literature regarding how scaffolds engage students in metacognition to promote learning in large classes. Their study helps fill that gap by describing how scaffolds can support students in the three dimensions of metacognition: intelligibility, plausibility, and wide applicability. In another example, Lane (2016) integrated research from science identity, the ethic of care, the sense of belonging, and an expertise model of student success to form a conceptual framework that addressed the critiques of other frameworks. In a more recent example, Sbeglia et al. (2021) illustrated how a conceptual framework influences the methodological choices and inferences in studies by educational researchers.

Sometimes researchers draw upon the conceptual frameworks of other researchers. When a researcher’s conceptual framework closely aligns with an existing framework, the discussion may be brief. For example, Ghee et al. (2016) referred to portions of SCCT as their conceptual framework to explain the significance of their work on students’ self-efficacy and career interests. Because the authors’ conceptualization of this phenomenon aligned with a previously described framework, they briefly mentioned the conceptual framework and provided additional citations that provided more detail for the readers.

Within both the BER and the broader DBER communities, conceptual frameworks have been used to describe different constructs. For example, some researchers have used the term “conceptual framework” to describe students’ conceptual understandings of a biological phenomenon. This is distinct from a researcher’s conceptual framework of the educational phenomenon under investigation, which may also need to be explicitly described in the article. Other studies have presented a research logic model or flowchart of the research design as a conceptual framework. These constructions can be quite valuable in helping readers understand the data-collection and analysis process. However, a model depicting the study design does not serve the same role as a conceptual framework. Researchers need to avoid conflating these constructs by differentiating the researchers’ conceptual framework that guides the study from the research design, when applicable.

Explicitly describing conceptual frameworks is essential in depicting the focus of the study. We have found that being explicit in a conceptual framework means using accepted terminology, referencing prior work, and clearly noting connections between terms. This description can also highlight gaps in the literature or suggest potential contributions to the field of study. A well-elucidated conceptual framework can suggest additional studies that may be warranted. This can also spur other researchers to consider how they would approach the examination of a phenomenon and could result in a revised conceptual framework.

It can be challenging to create conceptual frameworks, but they are important. Below are two resources that could be helpful in constructing and presenting conceptual frameworks in educational research:

• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 in this book describes how to construct conceptual frameworks.
• Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This book explains how conceptual frameworks guide the research questions, data collection, data analyses, and interpretation of results.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are all important in DBER and BER. Robust literature reviews reinforce the importance of a study. Theoretical frameworks connect the study to the base of knowledge in educational theory and specify the researcher’s assumptions. Conceptual frameworks allow researchers to explicitly describe their conceptualization of the relationships among the components of the phenomenon under study. Table 1 provides a general overview of these components in order to assist biology education researchers in thinking about these elements.

It is important to emphasize that these different elements are intertwined. When these elements are aligned and complement one another, the study is coherent, and the study findings contribute to knowledge in the field. When literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks are disconnected from one another, the study suffers. The point of the study is lost, suggested findings are unsupported, or important conclusions are invisible to the researcher. In addition, this misalignment may be costly in terms of time and money.

Conducting a literature review, selecting a theoretical framework, and building a conceptual framework are some of the most difficult elements of a research study. It takes time to understand the relevant research, identify a theoretical framework that provides important insights into the study, and formulate a conceptual framework that organizes the finding. In the research process, there is often a constant back and forth among these elements as the study evolves. With an ongoing refinement of the review of literature, clarification of the theoretical framework, and articulation of a conceptual framework, a sound study can emerge that makes a contribution to the field. This is the goal of BER and education research.

Supplementary Material

• Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning . OD Practitioner , 32 ( 4 ), 4–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, M. (2017). The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1–4 ). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381411 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (2014). Setting the stage . In Anfara, V. A., Mertz, N. T. (eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes, M. E., Brownell, S. E. (2016). Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), ar18. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0243 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote, D. N., Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher , 34 ( 6 ), 3–15. 10.3102/0013189x034006003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016a). Systemic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., Fitzgerald, W. T. (2016b). The craft of research (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology . Studies in Higher Education , 40 ( 3 ), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234 [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-02-0039 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Education research in the biological sciences: A nine decade review (Paper commissioned by the NAS/NRC Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline Based Education Research) . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Mee ting2_commissioned_papers_page.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, L. (2019). Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 ( 2 ), 020101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks, C. (2011). The current status and future direction of biology education research . Paper presented at: Second Committee Meeting on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research, 18–19 October (Washington, DC). Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BOSE/DBASSE_071087 [ Google Scholar ]
• Duran, R. P., Eisenhart, M. A., Erickson, F. D., Grant, C. A., Green, J. L., Hedges, L. V., Schneider, B. L. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications: American Educational Research Association . Educational Researcher , 35 ( 6 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Henkel, T. P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J. L., Arnold, B., Passmore, H. A. (2015). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 ( 2 ), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-12-0222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galvan, J. L., Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315229386 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gehrke, S., Kezar, A. (2017). The roles of STEM faculty communities of practice in institutional and departmental reform in higher education . American Educational Research Journal , 54 ( 5 ), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM pathway . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar28. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf
• Jensen, J. L., Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 10 ( 1 ), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolpikova, E. P., Chen, D. C., Doherty, J. H. (2019). Does the format of preclass reading quizzes matter? An evaluation of traditional and gamified, adaptive preclass reading quizzes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 4 ), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 ( 1 ), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lane, T. B. (2016). Beyond academic and social integration: Understanding the impact of a STEM enrichment program on the retention and degree attainment of underrepresented students . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0070 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lysaght, Z. (2011). Epistemological and paradigmatic ecumenism in “Pasteur’s quadrant:” Tales from doctoral research . In Official Conference Proceedings of the Third Asian Conference on Education in Osaka, Japan . Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://iafor.org/ace2011_offprint/ACE2011_offprint_0254.pdf
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nehm, R. (2019). Biology education research: Building integrative frameworks for teaching and learning about living systems . Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research , 1 , ar15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0017-6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 7 ( 2 ), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change . Science Education , 66 ( 2 ), 211–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ravitch, S. M., Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 2 ), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., Thompson, R. J. Jr. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11 ( 1 ), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rocco, T. S., Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions . Human Resource Development Review , 8 ( 1 ), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 4 ), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabel, J. L., Dauer, J. T., Forbes, C. T. (2017). Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 3 ), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0298 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbeglia, G. C., Goodridge, J. A., Gordon, L. H., Nehm, R. H. (2021). Are faculty changing? How reform frameworks, sampling intensities, and instrument measures impact inferences about student-centered teaching practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 ( 3 ), ar39. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-11-0259 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism . In Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sickel, A. J., Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the evolution education literature with a focus on teachers: Major findings, goals for teacher preparation, and directions for future research . Evolution: Education and Outreach , 6 ( 1 ), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-23 [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, A., Romine, W. L., Correa-Menendez, J. (2019). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context . Research in Science Education , 49 ( 2 ), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system . Systems Thinker , 9 ( 5 ), 2–3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziadie, M. A., Andrews, T. C. (2018). Moving evolution education forward: A systematic analysis of literature to identify gaps in collective knowledge for teaching . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 ( 1 ), ar11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0190 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Literature Review versus Literature Survey. What is the difference?

I have read several articles about literature reviews. At the same time I found some guides about literature surveys . I am confused... how is a literature survey different from a literature review? What is the standard procedure to conduct a literature survey without making it a literature review?

• research-process
• literature-review
• literature-search

• 2 Welcome to Academia.SE. You have a couple of different questions in your post. We encourage multiple posts for multiple questions. See our tour and help center pages. Your questions about literature surveys and reviews are closely related and match the title. You should make a second post about how to pursue research given your background, since that it unrelated. –  Ben Norris Commented Dec 26, 2013 at 14:11

2 Answers 2

Reviewing the literature relevant to a given field is a standard part of doing research, as this serves to put your work into the context of the larger discipline in which you are working.

If there is an actual difference between the "literature survey" and the "literature review," it's that the latter can serve as a paper in and of itself, and is much more extensive than a literature survey, which is typically a major part of the introduction of a research paper.

The literature review as a standalone article could be compared to a "curated" overview of the literature in the field—who has done what, how do papers relate to one another, and what are the most important present and (possibly) future directions of work in such a field. Such papers can also be considerably longer than a traditional research paper, and some reviews might cite as many as a thousand references!

In comparison, the literature survey of a standard research article is usually much shorter (1-2 journal pages), and will not cite nearly as many papers (anywhere from 10 to 100, depending on the topic and the amount of relevant literature available).

• 2 Hi thanks for your comment. But I m still confused. I have seen survey papers are published and I have seen literature review sections in thesis. I mean aren't survey papers related to computer science are literature reviews ? –  Npn Commented Jan 1, 2014 at 14:51
• 3 In general, "review paper" is much more commonly used than "survey paper." Maybe CS prefers "survey paper," but essentially, there's no substantial difference between them. But every paper includes some sort of synopsis of existing literature; in a review or survey paper, it's the entire paper. –  aeismail Commented Jan 1, 2014 at 15:12
• Thanks ,I understood that review papers should be read to do a research. –  Npn Commented Jan 1, 2014 at 15:30

Well, I have written couple of survery/review articles published in prestigious journals here , here , and here and hence I think I can give you some hint on this question.

First View: One of the most important things to consider is that, these terms have been used differently in varied academic disciplines and even in some cases they are used interchangeably with negligible differences. Even in CS (my field), the way image processing scholars look at these terms may be different from networking researchers (I once experienced the comments I received from experts in image processing and realize how different they look at the works). So it might not be wrong if consider insignificant differences between these two terms.

What I describe here may be more applicable to CS. There are two different views at these terms that I describe here

Technically a feasible description around these two terms is that in survey works you should review the published papers and analyze, summarize, organize, and present findings in a novel way that can generate an original view to a certain aspect of the domain. For example, if researchers review the available research findings and conclude that electrical cars are emission-free vehicles, another researcher can review the same results and present an argument that building batteries themselves produce huge emission. The second contribution opens door for new research around emission-free production of car batteries. If we consider that survey paper is the result of literature survey, we can use the following definitions from CS journals.

• According to the definition of survey paper provided by IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials journal (one of the best CS journals), " The term survey, as applied here, is defined to mean a survey of the literature. A survey article should provide a comprehensive review of developments in a selected area ".
• In ACM Computing Survey (another prestigious CS journal), survey paper is described as “A paper that summarizes and organizes recent research results in a novel way that integrates and adds understanding to work in the field. A survey article emphasizes the classification of the existing literature, developing a perspective on the area, and evaluating trends.”
• In Elsevier journal of Computer Science Review, you will see here 4 that “Critical review of the relevant literature“ is required a component of every typical survey paper.

To summarize, these two terms can be distinguished using following notes (or maybe definitions)

Literature Survey: Is the process of analyzing, summarizing, organizing, and presenting novel conclusions from the results of technical review of large number of recently published scholarly articles. The results of the literature survey can contribute to the body of knowledge when peer-reviewed and published as survey articles

Literature Review: Is the process of technically and critically reviewing published papers to extract technical and scientific metadata from the presented contents. The metadata are usually used during literature survey to technically compare different but relevant works and draw conclusions on weaknesses and strengths of the works.

Second View: The second view over literature survey and review is that in survey, researchers usually utilize the author-provided contents available in the published works to qualitatively analyze and compare them with other related works. While in the former, you should not perform qualitative analysis. Rather it should be quantitative meaning that every research work under study should be implemented and benchmarked under certain criteria. The results of this benchmarking study can be used to compare them together and criticize or appreciate the works.

So basically you can look at current literature and find which approach is dominating in your field. Hope it helps. I try to revise it if I came a cross other points or useful comments here.

• 3 Up vote for Comprehensive answer. –  user3135645 Commented Dec 28, 2013 at 5:57
• 3 Nice answer (+1). I agree with you that the difference between the two terms is non-essential and preference in terminology depends mostly on the research discipline (field) and journal editors' preferences. Having said that, your distinction between the terms seems artificial, meaning that I don't see core logic that prevents applying both definitions to the opposite terms (unless I've missed some points). Also, I wanted to add that more accurate definitions should mention that literature survey or literature review is each both a process and an artifact , resulting from that process. –  Aleksandr Blekh Commented May 8, 2015 at 3:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged research-process literature-review literature-search ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• What's the meaning of "nai gar"?
• Synthesis of racemic nicotine
• How to capitalize ToC entries using \capitalisewords and \titlecontents
• Eye Floaters Optics
• Does anyone know what the heck this tool is? I got it in a box lot or tools and dont have a clue
• How to join two PCBs with a very small separation?
• How to turn a desert into a fertile farmland with engineering?
• What is a quarter in 19th-century England converted to contemporary pints?
• SEPIC DC-DC converter
• Film/series involving a rich/poor divide and a guy and a girl who fall for one another
• Reconstructing Euro results
• How does the router know to send packets to a VM on bridge mode?
• How can I take apart a bookshelf?
• SQL Express CPU limitation ignored
• How to merge two videos with openshot?
• Why do many philosophers consider a past-eternal universe to be self-explanatory but not a universe that began with no cause?
• How much variation in the transimpedance gain of the TIA is acceptable?
• How do I pour *just* the right amount of plaster into these molds?
• Did James Madison say or write that the 10 Commandments are critical to the US nation?
• How do I get my D&D group to engage to a minimum
• What actual purpose do accent characters in ISO-8859-1 and Windows 1252 serve?
• Are both vocal cord and vocal chord correct?
• If a reference is no longer publicly available, should you include the proofs of the results you cite from it?
• Colored underline and overline in math mode

Quif Studio

Building Young Architects

Episode 2: Case Studies and Literature Review

Case studies and literature review in architecture are extremely important before conducting any design. An architect is required to be a good observer and have the ability to examine and analyze buildings. These abilities are necessary when conducting case studies.

From the term “case study”, it simply means studying an existing case (i.e. building, area etc.) which is similar to your design project. Literature review simply means the review of existing literature on a particular topic through books, articles, building codes, etc. Conducting a case study and review of literature helps you in understanding what is required in the design project.

How to conduct a case study

The first step before visiting any building for a case study is conducting a literature review. It gives you the first idea of what to expect in any building. For example, before designing a house, a simple google search will provide you with basic information of what a house comprises of. You become familiar with the functions in a house, names of the spaces, what they are used for, and other information. However, reading alone does not give you full knowledge of the house, users, user-space relationship, cultural values, and the rest. For example, you are designing a house for a Hausa family, the information online will not give the way a Hausa family lives, how they interact with the space, or the form and function of the spaces.

Next, you conduct a live case study, which means visiting an existing building. You need at least two local case studies and an international case study (through online research). You will also require an introductory letter from your school before heading to the case study location. Before choosing the two buildings, you need to make sure that they have the following in common with your project: • Occupants of the existing buildings and the intended users of your design are of the same background. • Location of your case study and the proposed location for your design have similar features (e.g. climate). • One case study should have the minimum basics while the other should have the maximum i.e. case studies can be from a lower-class family, middle-class family, and a high-class family home to have an overall view of what a house can have.

During the visit, there are some elements that need to be analyzed which are as follows: • The environment and the micro-climate • Behavior of the occupants/users • User-space relationship • The form and function of the building • Circulation patterns • Materials and construction methods • Merits and demerits of the building

Proper documentation of the case studies during the visit and after is required. You will need pictures, sketches (if possible), questions for interviews with the users and the rest. After the case study visit has been completed, it is now time to present and document your findings for your presentation. Below are some of my case studies from my time in school:

The documentation of your case studies are not limited to these examples. You can make several sheets on a single case study giving full details on it.

( NOTE : My designs were done before the establishing of Quif Studio. These current blog posts are written in line with research, my experience and through consultations. Any mistakes, omissions etc. that have been noticed in my designs, were made a few years ago. The sole purpose of sharing them is to give you an idea of what each and every step should look like.)

Thank you for reading and stay tuned for the next episode!

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Published by Mariya Aminu Kabir

Graduate architect and also an architectural blogger, based in Kano, Nigeria. Loves to laugh and chat with people. Love anything architecture! View all posts by Mariya Aminu Kabir

Discover more from Quif Studio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Key Differences Between the Background of a Study and Literature Review

Don’t be too hard on yourself if you didn’t realize the study background and literature review were two distinct entities. The study background and literature review are both important parts of the research paper; however, due to their striking similarities, they are frequently confused with one another 1 . In this article, we will look at the key differences between the background of a study and literature review and how to write each section effectively.  

When it comes to similarities between the study background and the literature review, both provide information about existing knowledge in a specific field by discussing various studies and developments. They almost always address gaps in the literature to contextualize the study at hand. So, how do they differ from one another? Simple answer: A literature review is an expanded version of the study background, or a study background is a condensed version of a literature review. To put it another way, “a study background is to a literature review what an abstract is to a paper.”  

Differences between the background of the study and a literature review  

Though the distinctions are subtle, understanding them is critical to avoiding confusion between these two elements. The following are the differences between the background of the study and a literature review:  

• The background of a study is discussed at the beginning of the introduction while the literature review begins once the background of a study is completed (in the introduction section).  
• The study background sets the stage for the study; the main goal of the study background is to effectively communicate the need for the study by highlighting the gaps in answering the open-ended questions. In contrast, a literature review is an in-depth examination of the relevant literature in that field in order to prepare readers for the study at hand . Furthermore, the literature review provides a broad overview of the topic to support the case for identifying gaps.  
• The study background and literature review serve slightly different purposes; the study background emphasizes the significance of THE study, whereas the review of literature emphasizes advancement in the field by conducting a critical analysis of existing literature. It should be noted that a literature review also identifies gaps in the literature by comparing and analyzing various studies, but it is the study background that summarizes the critical findings that justifies the need for the research at hand.  
• Another interesting difference is how they are structured; the study background structure follows a top-down approach, beginning with a discussion of a broader area and eventually narrowing down to a specific question—study problem—addressed in the study.   
• The length of the background of the study and the literature review also differ, with the former being more concise and crisp and the latter being more detailed and elaborate.  

Tips to effectively write the background of the study  

Writing the background of the study is sometimes a difficult undertaking for early career researchers; however, because this is an important component of the paper, it is critical that once write it clearly and accurately. The background must convey the context of the study, defining the need to conduct the current study 2 . The study background should be organized in such a way that it provides a historical perspective on the topic, while identifying the gaps that the current study aims to fill. If the topic is multidisciplinary, it should concisely address the relevant studies, laying the groundwork for the research question at hand. To put it simply, the researchers can follow the structure below:  

• What is the state of the literature on the subject?  
• Where are the gaps in the field?  
• What is the importance of filling these gaps?  
• What are the premises of your research?  

The idea is to present the relevant studies to build the context without going into detail about each one; remember to keep it concise and direct. It is recommended that the findings be organized chronologically in order to trace the developments in the field and provide a snapshot of research advancements. The best way is to create an engaging story to pique readers’ interest in the topic by presenting sequential findings that led to YOUR research question. The flow should be such that each study prepares for the next while remaining in accordance with the central theme. However, the author should avoid common blunders such as inappropriate length (too long or too short), ambiguity, an unfocused theme, and disorganization.  

Tips to write the literature review without mixing it up with the background of the study  

As previously discussed in this article, the literature review is an extended version of the background of the study. It follows the background of the study and presents a detailed analysis of existing literature to support the background.   

Authors must conduct a thorough research survey that includes various studies related to the broad topics of their research. Following an introduction to a broader topic, the literature review directs readers to relevant studies that are significant for the objectives of the present study.   

The authors are advised to present the information thematically, preferably chronologically, for a better understanding of the readers from a wide range of disciplines. This arrangement provides a more complete picture of previous research, current focus, and future directions. Finally, there are two types of literature reviews that serve different purposes in papers; they are broadly classified as experimental and theoretical literature reviews. This, however, is a topic for another article.  

We believe you can now easily distinguish between the study background and the literature review and understand how you can write them most effectively for your next study. Have fun writing!  

  References  

• Qureshi, F. 6 Differences between Study Background and Literature Review. Editage Insights, May 3, 2019. https://www.editage.com/insights/6-differences-between-a-study-background-and-a-literature-review .  
• Sachdev, R. How to Write the Background of Your Study. Editage Insights, November 27, 2018. https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-write-the-background-of-your-study .  

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How R Discovery is Transforming Research Reading Habits for Academics in Brazil

Thesis Defense: How to Ace this Crucial Step

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What is the difference between literature and review study?

I had submitted a review article few days before and I have received a comment from an editor of a journal. The comment is " Is it literature or review study"?

I am wondering that I had submitted a literature review but he has coined something new that I am unable to understand? What does he mean by this?

I need help over this.

It's likely a sarcastic way of asking you whether you are writing a review study, which is the review article you intended to write, or a piece of literature, meaning prose, which is likely not what the editor wants - he wants the article, not a novel.

This means that your writing may be extravagant, or you may not be focusing as much on the facts as the editor would expect you to do for the kind of article you want to publish. Basically your style seems to fit better for creative writing than for review articles.

In any case: the editor is the only one who can tell you what he really means. For me it sounds like a sarcastic comment... and a bit unprofessional from the editor...

Your Answer

Reminder: Answers generated by artificial intelligence tools are not allowed on Writing Stack Exchange. Learn more

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged publishing reviews or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• How to refer to the locations in lower depths of a waterbody (such as a lake)?
• Tricky response against the London system
• Idiom for a situation where a problem has two simultaneous but unrelated causes?
• Can a planet have a warm, tropical climate both at the poles and at the equator?
• How do Blok and the other astronaut do a spacewalk to repair the ship? Didn’t they already land?
• Collaborators write their departments for my (undergraduate) affiliation
• Extending normal filters
• What's the meaning of "nai gar"?
• Can God transcend human logic and reasoning?
• Did James Madison say or write that the 10 Commandments are critical to the US nation?
• SEPIC DC-DC converter
• Determine the continuity of a function
• In an interview how to ask about access to internal job postings?
• Colored underline and overline in math mode
• Is the OP_PUSHBYTES_X opcode always required after OP_RETURN?
• Is there a non-perfect field in which polynomials of large degree are reducible?
• How to join two PCBs with a very small separation?
• Received unidentified "PayPal" payment - bank and PayPal deny knowledge
• Diagnosing tripped breaker on the dishwasher circuit?
• What actual purpose do accent characters in ISO-8859-1 and Windows 1252 serve?
• sample size in chi-squared test
• Isn't it problematic to look at the data to decide to use a parametric vs. non-parametric test?
• Is it consistent with ZFC that the real line is approachable by sets with no accumulation points?
• Homebrew spell to improve familiar link before combat

Pituitary apoplexy: a systematic review of non-gestational risk factors

• Published: 27 June 2024

Cite this article

• Smile Kajal 1 ,
• Youssef El Sayed Ahmad 2 ,
• Akaber Halawi 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Mohammad Abraham Kazemizadeh Gol 1 , 2 , 3 &
• William Ashley 2  

Pregnancy is a known risk factor for Pituitary Apoplexy (PA) but there is a lack of consistency in the literature regarding non-gestational risk factors responsible for PA.

We did a systematic review following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to identify the non-gestational risk factors associated with the development of PA in adult patients with pituitary adenoma. Also, we discuss here a case of an elderly female with pituitary macroadenoma who was initially planned for pituitary resection electively but underwent emergency surgery after she developed PA.

As per screening and eligibility criteria, seven studies with 4937 study participants were included in this systematic review out of which 490 (9.92%) patients had PA, including asymptomatic subclinical PA (SPA) and symptomatic clinical PA (CPA). The macroadenomas and negative staining of the tumor were found to be a significant risk factor consistently in multivariate analysis in three and two retrospective studies, respectively. However, the results were varied for any significant difference in the risk factors for apoplexy between SPA and CPA. Similarly, there was no consistency among the studies for risk factors significantly responsible for CPA or PA compared to controls.

No single non-gestational risk factor is solely responsible for the development of PA in a pituitary adenoma compared to the control population. Tumor size (macroadenoma) and the non-functioning status of the adenoma are the only significant factors contributing independently toward an apoplectic event in most patients. Such patients can be prioritized for early pituitary tumor resection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

H. G. W. (1924) Correct definition of “apoplexy.” J Am Med Assoc 82(24):1984

Article   Google Scholar  

Brougham M, Heusner AP, Adams RD (1950) Acute degenerative changes in adenomas of the pituitary body—with special reference to pituitary apoplexy. J Neurosurg 7(5):421–439

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bailey P (1898) Pathological report of a case of acromegaly, with especial reference to the lesions in the hypophysis cerebri and in the thyroid gland; and a case of hemorrhage into the pituitary. Philadelphia Medical J 1:789

Google Scholar  

Bleibtreu L (1905) Ein Fall von Akoremegalie (Zerstoerung der Hypophysis durch Blutung). Muench Med Wohschr 52:2079–2080

Rajasekaran S, Vanderpump M, Baldeweg S, Drake W, Reddy N, Lanyon M, Markey A, Plant G, Powell M, Sinha S, Wass J (2011) UK guidelines for the management of pituitary apoplexy. Clin Endocrinol 74(1):9–20

Fernandez A, Karavitaki N, Wass JAH (2010) Prevalence of pituitary adenomas: a community-based, cross-sectional study in Banbury (Oxfordshire, UK). Clin Endocrinol 72(3):377–382

Raappana A, Koivukangas J, Ebeling T, Pirilä T (2010) Incidence of pituitary adenomas in Northern Finland in 1992–2007. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95(9):4268–4275

Donegan D, Erickson D (2022) Revisiting Pituitary Apoplexy. J Endocr Soc 6(9):bvac113

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fernández-Balsells MM, Murad MH, Barwise A, Gallegos-Orozco JF, Paul A, Lane MA, Lampropulos JF, Natividad I, Perestelo-Pérez L, Ponce de León-Lovatón PG, Erwin PJ, Carey J, Montori VM (2011) Natural history of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas and incidentalomas: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96(4):905–12

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sivakumar W, Chamoun R, Nguyen V, Couldwell WT (2011) Incidental pituitary adenomas. Neurosurg Focus 31(6):E18

Luger A, Broersen LHA, Biermasz NR, Biller BMK, Buchfelder M, Chanson P, Jorgensen JOL, Kelestimur F, Llahana S, Maiter D, Mintziori G, Petraglia F, Verkauskiene R, Webb SM, Dekkers OM (2021) ESE clinical practice guideline on functioning and nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas in pregnancy. Eur J Endocrinol 185(3):G1-33

Gheorghe AM, Trandafir AI, Stanciu M, Popa FL, Nistor C, Carsote M (2023) Challenges of pituitary apoplexy in pregnancy. J Clin Med 12(10):3416

Jemel M, Kandara H, Riahi M, Gharbi R, Nagi S, Kamoun I (2019) Gestational pituitary apoplexy: case series and review of the literature. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 48(10):873–881

Molitch ME (2017) Diagnosis and Treatment of Pituitary Adenomas. JAMA 317(5):516

Biagetti B, Sarria-Estrada S, Cordero Asanza E, Chaachou-Charradi A, Ng-Wong Y, Cicuendez M, Hernandez I, Rojano-Toimil A, Costa P, Martinez-Saez E, Casteràs A, Simò R (2022) Risk factors, radiological and clinical outcomes in subclinical and clinical pituitary apoplexy. J Clin Med 11(24):7288

Iqbal F, Adams W, Dimitropoulos I, Muquit S, Flanagan D (2021) Pituitary haemorrhage and infarction: the spectrum of disease. Endocr Connect 10(2):171–179

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li Y, Qian Y, Qiao Y, Chen X, Xu J, Zhang C, Wang W, Li J, Deng X (2020) Risk factors for the incidence of apoplexy in pituitary adenoma: a single-center study from southwestern China. Chin Neurosurg J 6(1):20

Zhu X, Wang Y, Zhao X, Jiang C, Zhang Q, Jiang W, Wang Y, Chen H, Shou X, Zhao Y, Li Y, Li S, Ye H (2015) Incidence of pituitary apoplexy and its risk factors in chinese people: a database study of patients with pituitary adenoma. PLoS One 10(9):e0139088

Sarwar KN, Huda MSB, Van de Velde V, Hopkins L, Luck S, Preston R, McGowan BM, Carroll PV, Powrie JK (2013) The prevalence and natural history of pituitary hemorrhage in prolactinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(6):2362–2367

Cinar N, Tekinel Y, Dagdelen S, Oruckaptan H, Soylemezoglu F, Erbas T (2013) Cavernous sinus invasion might be a risk factor for apoplexy. Pituitary 16(4):483–489

Möller-Goede DL, Brändle M, Landau K, Bernays RL, Schmid C (2011) Pituitary apoplexy: re-evaluation of risk factors for bleeding into pituitary adenomas and impact on outcome. Eur J Endocrinol 164(1):37–43

Randeva HS, Schoebel J, Byrne J, Esiri M, Adams CBT, Wass JAH (1999) Classical pituitary apoplexy: clinical features, management and outcome. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 51(2):181–188

Muthukumar N (2020) Pituitary apoplexy: a comprehensive review. Neurol India 68(Supplement):72–78

Briet C, Salenave S, Bonneville JF, Laws ER, Chanson P (2015) Pituitary apoplexy. Endocr Rev 36(6):622–645

Gheorghe AM, Trandafir AI, Ionovici N, Carsote M, Nistor C, Popa FL, Stanciu M (2023) Pituitary apoplexy in patients with pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET). Biomedicines 11(3):680

Ciavarra B, McIntyre T, Kole MJ, Li W, Yao W, Guttenberg KB, Blackburn SL (2023) Antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy and the risk of pituitary apoplexy in pituitary adenoma patients. Pituitary 26(4):375–382

Ly S, Naman A, Chaufour-Higel B, Patey M, Arndt C, Delemer B, Litre CF (2017) Pituitary apoplexy and rivaroxaban. Pituitary 20(6):709–710

Swaid B, Kalaba F, Bachuwa G, Sullivan SE (2019) Heparin-induced pituitary apoplexy presenting as isolated unilateral oculomotor nerve palsy: a case report and literature review. Case Rep Endocrinol 9(2019):1–5

Thomas M, Robert A, Rajole P, Robert P (2019) A rare case of pituitary apoplexy secondary to dengue fever-induced thrombocytopenia. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5323

Maïza JC, Bennet A, Thorn-Kany M, Lagarrigue J, Caron Ph (2004) Pituitary apoplexy and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a new case and review of the literature. Pituitary 7(3):189–192

Tsuji T, Mochinaga H, Yamasaki H, Tsuda H (2016) Primary immune thrombocytopenia accompanied by pituitary apoplexy. Rinsho Ketsueki 57(7):877–880

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liew SY, Seese R, Shames A, Majumdar K (2021) Apoplexy in a previously undiagnosed pituitary Macroadenoma in the setting of recent COVID-19 infection. BMJ Case Rep 14(7):e243607

Frara S, Allora A, Castellino L, di Filippo L, Loli P, Giustina A (2021) COVID-19 and the pituitary. Pituitary 24(3):465–481

Capatina C, Poiana C, Fleseriu M (2023) Pituitary and SARS CoV-2: an unremitting conundrum. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 37(4):101752

Martinez-Perez R, Kortz MW, Carroll BW, Duran D, Neill JS, Luzardo GD, Zachariah MA (2021) Coronavirus disease 2019 and pituitary apoplexy: a single-center case series and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 152:e678–e687

Aliberti L, Gagliardi I, Rizzo R, Bortolotti D, Schiuma G, Franceschetti P, Gafà R, Borgatti L, Cavallo MA, Zatelli MC, Ambrosio MR (2022) Pituitary apoplexy and COVID-19 vaccination: a case report and literature review. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 17:13

Taieb A, Mounira EE (2022) Pilot findings on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced pituitary diseases: a mini review from diagnosis to pathophysiology. Vaccines (Basel). 10(12):2004

Kobayashi J, Miyashita K, Tamanaha T, Kobayashi N, Iihara K, Nagatsuka K (2013) Pituitary ischemic apoplexy in a young woman using oral contraceptives: a case report. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 22(8):e643–e644

Shiraishi K, Akai T, Tomita T, Hayashi R, Minamisaka T, Kuroda S (2023) Pituitary apoplexy in endocrinologically silent adenoma during somatostatin analog administration for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: a case report. Neuropathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/neup.12959

Gomaa A, Skelly R (2023) Pituitary macroadenoma apoplexy as a rare complication of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor in chronic lymphoid leukaemia. Chin Neurosurg J 9(1):30

González-Tortosa J, Poza-Poza M, Ruiz-Espejo-Vilar A (2009) Pituitary adenoma apoplexy after spinal anaesthesia. Report of two cases and review of the literature. Neurocirugia (Astur) 20(5):484–93

Kasl R, Kistka H, Turner J, Devin J, Chambless L (2015) Pituitary apoplexy after intravitreal injection of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor: a novel complication. J Neurol Surg Rep 76(02):e205–e210

Xu K, Yuan Y, Zhou J, Yu J (2015) Pituitary adenoma apoplexy caused by rupture of an anterior communicating artery aneurysm: case report and literature review. World J Surg Oncol 13(1):228

Fukushima Y, Oka H, Utsuki S, Fujii K (2001) A symptomatic Rathke’s cleft cyst with pituitary apoplexy: a case report. No Shinkei Geka 29(12):1183–1187

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abo KM, Kane J, Druckenbrod RC, Mooney MA, Rachlin J (2023) Intraoperative hypovolemia as a possible precipitating factor for pituitary apoplexy: a case report. J Med Case Rep 17(1):53

Brar KS, Garg MK (2012) High altitude-induced pituitary apoplexy. Singapore Med J 53(6):e117–e119

Sun T, Liu L, Sunnassee A, Zhuo L, Zhu S (2013) Sudden death in custody due to pituitary apoplexy during long restriction in a sitting position: a case report and review of the literature. J Forensic Leg Med 20(7):812–815

Arita K, Tominaga A, Sugiyama K, Eguchi K, Iida K, Sumida M, Migita K, Kurisu K (2006) Natural course of incidentally found nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma, with special reference to pituitary apoplexy during follow-up examination. J Neurosurg 104(6):884–891

Santiago-Andres Y, Aquiles A, Taniguchi-Ponciano K, Salame L, Guinto G, Mercado M, Fiordelisio T (2023) Association between intracellular calcium signaling and tumor recurrence in human non-functioning pituitary adenomas. Int J Mol Sci. 25(7):3968

Dzialach L, Sobolewska J, Respondek W, Wojciechowska-Luzniak A, Witek P (2024) Pituitary apoplexy as the first manifestation of non-functioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumour. Endokrynol Pol 75(1):111–112

Biagetti B, Simò R (2022) Pituitary apoplexy: risk factors and underlying molecular mechanisms. Int J Mol Sci 23(15):8721

Siu A, Rangarajan S, Karsy M, Farrell CJ, Nyquist G, Rosen M, Evans JJ (2022) Predictive clinical and surgical factors associated with recurrent apoplexy in pituitary adenomas. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 83(S.02):e591–e597

Vicchio TM, Aliquò F, Ruggeri RM, Ragonese M, Giuffrida G, Cotta OR, Spagnolo F, Torre ML, Alibrandi A, Asmundo A, Angileri FF, Esposito F, Polito F, Oteri R, Aguennouz MH, Cannavò S, Ferraù F (2020) MicroRNAs expression in pituitary tumors: differences related to functional status, pathological features, and clinical behavior. J Endocrinol Invest 43(7):947–958

Wu S, Gu Y, Huang Y, Wong TC, Ding H, Liu T, Zhang Y, Zhang X (2017) Novel biomarkers for non-functioning invasive pituitary adenomas were identified by using analysis of micrornas expression profile. Biochem Genet 55(3):253–267

Capatina C, Inder W, Karavitaki N, Wass JAH (2015) Management of endocrine disease: pituitary tumour apoplexy. Eur J Endocrinol 172(5):R179–R190

Bi WL, Dunn IF, Laws ER (2015) Pituitary apoplexy. Endocrine 48(1):69–75

Goyal P, Utz M, Gupta N, Kumar Y, Mangla M, Gupta S, Mangla R (2018) Clinical and imaging features of pituitary apoplexy and role of imaging in differentiation of clinical mimics. Quant Imaging Med Surg 8(2):219–231

Seaman SC, Dougherty MC, Zanaty M, Bruch LA, Graham SM, Greenlee JDW (2019) Visual and hormone outcomes in pituitary apoplexy: results of a single surgeon, single institution 15-year retrospective review and pooled data analysis. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713104

Bujawansa S, Thondam SK, Steele C, Cuthbertson DJ, Gilkes CE, Noonan C, Bleaney CW, MacFarlane IA, Javadpour M, Daousi C (2014) Presentation, management and outcomes in acute pituitary apoplexy: a large single-centre experience from the United Kingdom. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 80(3):419–424

Marx C, Rabilloud M, Borson Chazot F, Tilikete C, Jouanneau E, Raverot G (2021) A key role for conservative treatment in the management of pituitary apoplexy. Endocrine 71(1):168–177

Jho DH, Biller BMK, Agarwalla PK, Swearingen B (2014) Pituitary apoplexy: large surgical series with grading system. World Neurosurg 82(5):781–790

Cavalli A, Martin A, Connolly DJ, Mirza S, Sinha S (2021) Pituitary apoplexy: how to define safe boundaries of conservative management? Early and long-term outcomes from a single UK tertiary neurosurgical unit. Br J Neurosurg 35(3):334–340

Tu M, Lu Q, Zhu P, Zheng W (2016) Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for pituitary apoplexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci 370:258–262

Hosmann A, Micko A, Frischer JM, Roetzer T, Vila G, Wolfsberger S, Knosp E (2019) Multiple pituitary apoplexy—cavernous sinus invasion as major risk factor for recurrent hemorrhage. World Neurosurg 126:e723–e730

Download references

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

MedStar Health Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

Smile Kajal, Akaber Halawi & Mohammad Abraham Kazemizadeh Gol

LifeBridge Health Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 21215, USA

Youssef El Sayed Ahmad, Akaber Halawi, Mohammad Abraham Kazemizadeh Gol & William Ashley

Maryland ENT Center, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

Akaber Halawi & Mohammad Abraham Kazemizadeh Gol

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization of the project was done by SK Literature search and Methodology was prepared by SK and YA Data analysis and original draft preparation were done by SK. The final draft was reviewed and revised by AH, MG, and WA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Smile Kajal .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kajal, S., Ahmad, Y.E.S., Halawi, A. et al. Pituitary apoplexy: a systematic review of non-gestational risk factors. Pituitary (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-024-01412-0

Download citation

Accepted : 01 June 2024

Published : 27 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-024-01412-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Pituitary apoplexy
• Risk factors
• Non-gestational
• Pituitary adenoma
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The past, present, and future of cross-border cooperation between municipalities in the south bohemian region: a case study.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods.

• What are the main types of structures supporting cross-border cooperation in the South Bohemian Region?
• How did the methods and ways of cooperation among municipalities in the South Bohemian Region change between the programming periods in 2007–2013 and 2014–2020?
• What are the main factors influencing the decline in municipal interest in cross-border cooperation in the South Bohemian Region in recent years?
• What are the main barriers to the development of cross-border cooperation among municipalities in the South Bohemian Region?
• What roles do Euroregions, cross-border impulse centers, and European Territorial Cooperation groups play in supporting cross-border cooperation in the South Bohemian Region?
• The first obstacle was the lack of comprehensive data sources. Conducting an in-depth examination of these cooperation modalities would require access to diverse and detailed datasets, which are often fragmented or incomplete.
• Secondly, the complexity and diversity of these cooperation mechanisms posed challenges for standardizing data collection and analysis methodologies. The intricacies of intergovernmental agreements, institutional structures, and funding mechanisms further complicate the research process.

3. Research Results

3.1. development of cross-border cooperation in europe.

• Political changes in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have opened the way for the gradual removal of the dividing influence of borders;
• Deepening integration within the European Union, where cross-border cooperation has played an important role in the EU regional policy, reducing the disparities between European regions;
• Gradual enlargement of the EU, where cross-border cooperation has played a very important role in the process of preparing the new member states for EU accession and consequently their integration;
• Cross-border cooperation as an important instrument in the development of relations with neighboring countries without the status of candidate countries.
• Informal cooperation. A considerable portion of cooperation takes place informally, both in the past and now. Cooperation works on the basis of an unwritten agreement and is not formalized in any way.
• Signed cooperation agreement. This is the beginning of the formalization of cooperation.
• Joint entities (structures) without legal personality. This is a higher form of cooperation that is no longer short-term cooperation and starts being systematically promoted and developed.
• Joint entities with legal personality. Various entities may have a legal personality under either private or public law.
• Cross-border impulse centers—Impulse centers offer impulse and supporting activities in cross-border projects and activities of everyday life. Economic, cultural, and social cooperation in the region help overcome existing prejudices and motivate the population to work together across borders.
• Euroregions—A Euroregion can be characterized as a form of cross-border cooperation between the local or regional self-administration of border regions of two or more countries sharing a border, where cooperation aims at coordinating joint efforts and implementing joint activities in different areas of life in accordance with national law and international law standards, in order to address common problems, taking into account the interests of people who inhabit this territory on both sides of the border. In European politics, the term “Euroregion” usually refers to the structure of transnational cooperation between two (or more) neighboring territories located in different European countries.
• European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation—One of the latest forms of foreign/cross-border cooperation is the so-called European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). The political strategy of the European Committee of the Regions, adopted by the Committee of the Regions council in December 2006, states the following ( Dušek 2013 ): “The EGTC is a new legal instrument that allows the creation of stable structures for territorial cooperation on the cross-border, transnational and interregional level. First and foremost, it must be understood as an instrument supporting territorial cooperation under the Structural Funds, although the EGTC Regulation allows it to be used outside the Cohesion Policy and, more generally, outside EU funding. The EGTC can actually be used for cooperation in such domains as public health, public transport, disaster prevention or the creation of transnational tourism structures. In addition to this, the EGTC will be open to national funding and will be an additional tool for the implementation of PPP strategies”.
• Partner cities and towns—Partner cooperation between towns and municipalities is a form of long-term international cooperation between municipalities consisting of regular meetings between the representatives of towns and their citizens and is mostly based on an official document (partnership agreement) or on a resolution by the city/municipality authorities. Partner cooperation, as a natural tool for international cooperation between cities and municipalities during their long existence, has shown its contribution to the greater understanding between peoples and cultures.
• Specific forms of cooperation—Within the cooperation between municipalities and entities from other countries, municipalities can participate (on the European level) in a number of associations defending the interests of towns and municipalities, e.g., the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities at the Council of Europe (CLRAE), the European Council of Municipalities and Regions (CEMRs), or the Committee of the Regions. Ad hoc informal cross-border cooperation, for example, in the cultural field, can belong here as well. An entirely new form of cooperation has been, since 2009, the Covenant of Mayors, a major European initiative aimed at local and regional authorities that volunteer to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources in their territory.

3.2. Development of Cross-Border Cooperation in the Czech Republic

3.2.1. cross-border impulse centers, 3.2.2. euroregions, 3.2.3. european groupings for territorial cooperation, 3.2.4. level of cross-border cooperation in the south bohemian region, 4. discussion.

• Support for the development of regional levels of self-government from the structural funds following the accession of new states to the European Union;
• Functional requirements for EU-funded environmental infrastructure;
• The desire of municipalities for regaining independence in the post-1989 period, after an era of violent merging in Communist totalitarianism;
• Regional autonomy in Spain;
• Ethnic conflict in the countries of the Western Balkans.

5. Conclusions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Andersen, Dorte Jagetic, and Eeva-Kaisa Prokkola. 2022. Introduction: Embedding Borderlands Resilience. In Borderlands Resilience. Transitions, Adaptation and Resistance at Borders. Border Region Series . Edited by Dorte Jagetic Andersen and Eeva-Kaisa Prokkola. London: Routledge, pp. 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, James, and Liam O’Dowd. 1999. Borders, Border Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory Meanings, Changing Significance. Regional Studies 33: 593–604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antunes, Micaela, Carlos Pinho, Celeste Varum, and Miguel Viegas. 2020. The Impact of Structural Funds on Regional Growth: A Panel Data Spatial Analysis. Intereconomics 55: 312–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aschauer, Wolfgang. 1995. Dimensionen und Aspekte grenzüberschreitender Regionsbildung im ungarisch-österreichishen Grenzraum. Neue grenzüberschreitende Regionen im östlichen Mitteleuropa 67: 139–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Badulescu, Alina, Daniel Badulescu, and Afrodita Borma. 2014. Enhancing Cross-border Cooperation through Local Actors’ Involvement. The Case of Tourism Cooperation in Bihor (Romania)—Hajdú-Bihar (Hungary) Euroregion. Lex Localis 12: 349–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Basboga, Kadir. 2020. The Role of Open Borders and Cross-Border Cooperation in Regional Growth Across Europe. Regional Studies, Regional Science 7: 532–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baycan-Levent, Tüzin, Aliye Ahu Gülümser Akgün, and Seda Kundak. 2010. Success Conditions for Urban Networks: Eurocities and Sister Cities. European Planning Studies 18: 1187–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Binder, Julia, and Antje Matern. 2019. Mobility and Social Exclusion in Peripheral Regions. European Planning Studies 28: 1049–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Čajková, Andrea, Nadežda Jankelová, and Dušan Masár. 2023. Knowledge Management as a Tool for Increasing the Efficiency of Municipality Management in Slovakia. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 21: 292–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Camagni, Roberto, Roberta Capello, and Andrea Caragliu. 2019. Measuring the Impact of Legal and Administrative International Barriers on Regional Growth. Regional Science Policy & Practice 11: 345–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Capello, Roberta, Andrea Caragliu, and Ugo Fratesi. 2018a. Compensation Modes of Border Effects in Cross-Border Regions. Journal of Regional Science 58: 759–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Capello, Roberta, Andrea Caragliu, and Ugo Fratesi. 2018b. Measuring Border Effects in European Cross-Border Regions. Regional Studies 52: 986–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chilla, Tobias, and Markus Lambracht. 2022. Institutional Mapping of Cross-Border Cooperation. INTERREG Programme Analyses with KEEP Data. European Planning Studies 31: 700–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davey, Kenneth. 2011. Local Government in Critical Times: Policies for Crisis, Recovery and a Sustainable Future . Strasbourg: Council of Europe—Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, pp. 1–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drulák, Petr, Lucie Königová, and Petr Kratochvíl. 2004. Podíl obecních a krajských samospráv na zahraniční politice ČR. Zpráva z výzkumného projektu MZV ČR . Praha: Ústav mezinárodních vztahů, pp. 1–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dušek, Jiří. 2010. Faktory regionálního růstu a rozvoje (se zaměřením na spolupráci měst a obcí v Jihočeském kraji) . České Budějovice: Vysoká škola evropských a regionálních studií, pp. 1–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dušek, Jiří. 2013. European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation as a Way of Cross-Border Regional Cooperation within the European Union. Paper presented at 16th International Colloquium on Regional Sciences, Valtice, Czech Republic, June 19–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dvorský, Jan, Maria Hudáková, Zora Petráková, and Joana Bednarz. 2023. National Support and Legislative Change in the Business Environment of V4 countries: Business Sectors View. Journal of Business Sectors 1: 42–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evropský region Dunaj-Vltava. 2024. Available online: https://www.evropskyregion.cz (accessed on 21 April 2024).
• Euroregion Šumava. 2024. Euroregion Šumava—Jihozápadní Čechy. Available online: http://www.euregio.cz (accessed on 21 April 2024).
• Fichter-Wolf, Heidi. 2010. Towards a Communicative Construction of European Spaces of Culture. Outline of a Theoretical Conceptual Analysis Approach Focussing on Crossborder Arrangements Related to Tertiary Education. Geographica Helvetica 65: 24–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frątczak-Müller, Joanna, and Anna Mielczarek-Żejmo. 2019. Networks of Cross-border Cooperation in Europe—The Interests and Values. The Case of Spree–Neisse–Bober Euroregion. European Planning Studies 28: 8–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frick, Hans-Jörg, and Michael Hokkeler. 2008. Interkommunale Zusammenarbeit—Handreichung für die Kommunalpolitik . Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung KommunalAkademie, pp. 1–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbe, Jens, Viktor von Malchus, Haris Martinos, and Roland Blomeyer. 2002. Linkage, Assistance and Cooperation for the European Border Regions . Gronau: Association of European Border Regions, pp. 1–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goecke, Henry, and Michael Hüther. 2016. Regional Convergence in Europe. Intereconomics 51: 165–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Griebel, Christine. 2010. Crossborder Regional Identity in the Trirhena Region of University Students in Basel, Freiburg im Breisgau and Mulhouse. Geographica Helvetica 65: 15–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haggett, Peter. 1975. Geography and Modern Synthesis . London: HarperCollins Publishers, pp. 1–620. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hálová, Pavlína, and Jiří Alina. 2014. Analysis of Investment in Infrastructure and Other Selected Determinants Influence to Unemployment in CR Regions. Paper presented at 8th International Days of Statistics and Economics, Prague, Czech Republic, September 11–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hampl, Martin. 2005. Border Regions in the Czech Republic: Contemporary Tendencies of Development Differentiation. Geografie—Sborník ČGS 110: 241–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harguindéguy, Jean-Baptiste, and Katy Hayward. 2012. The Institutionalization of the European Internal Cross-Border Co-Operation Policy: A First Appraisal. European Planning Studies 22: 184–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huber, Tanja. 2014. Interkommunale Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen der (Teil-)Flächennutzungsplanung Windkraft: Als Konsequenz der Änderung des baden-württembergischen Landesplanungsgesetzes . Kehl: Hochschule für öffentliche Verwaltung, pp. 1–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulst, Rudie, and André van Montfort. 2007. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe . Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jančák, Vít, Tomáš Havlíček, Pavel Chromý, and Miroslav Marada. 2008. Regional Differentiation of Selected Conditions for the Development of Human and Social Capital in Czechia. Geografie 113: 269–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Järviö, Pekka. 2011. Cross-Border Cooperation—Benefiting from Borders ; Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, pp. 1–12.
• Jech, Jaromír, and Ingrid Štegmannová. 2013. Podpořme společně rozvoj meziobecní spolupráce v ČR! Moderní obec 19: 33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ježek, Jiří. 2006. Dobrovolná sdružení obcí a měst v České republice a jejich budoucnost. Paper presented at Conference Veřejná správa, Seč u Chrudimi, Czech Republic, September 19–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ježek, Jiří. 2015. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland—Organizational Perspective. Paper presented at 18th International Colloquium on Regional Sciences, Hustopeče, Czech Republic, June 17–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kallioras, Dimitris, Panagiotis Artelaris, Lefteris Topaloglou, and Maria Tsiapa. 2011. Detecting the Growth Pattern(s) of the EU Border Regions: A Convergence Clubs Approach. Paper presented at 51st Congress of the European Regional Science Association: New Challenges for European Regions and Urban Areas in a Globalised World, Barcelona, Spain, August 30–September 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaššaj, Michal, and Tomáš Peráček. 2024. Sustainable Connectivity—Integration of Mobile Roaming, WiFi4EU and Smart City Concept in the European Union. Sustainability 16: 788. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, Khurram Ajaz, Mohammed Anam Akhtar, Rohit Kumar Vishwakarma, and Hung-Cuong Hoang. 2023. A Sectoral Perspective on the Sustainable Growth of SMEs. Empirical Research in the V4 Countries. Journal of Business Sectors 1: 10–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klein, Benjamin. 2012. Kommunale Kooperationen zwischen innerstaatlichem Organisationsakt und Markt: Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung der Reichweite des europäischen Vergaberechts dargelegt am Beispiel der Vergabekoordinierungsrichtlinie, des Vergabeprimärrechts und des deutschen Kartellvergaberechts . Göttingen: V&R Unipress GmbH, pp. 1–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knippschild, Robert. 2011. Cross-border Spatial Planning: Understanding, Designing and Managing Cooperation Processes in the German-Polish-Czech Borderland. European Planning Studies 19: 629–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lezzi, Mario. 1994. Raumordnungspolitik in europäischen Grenzregionen zwischen Konkurrenz und Zusammenarbeit: Untersuchungen an der EG-Aussengrenze Deutschland-Schweiz, Wirtschaftsgeographie und Raumplanung . Zürich: Universität Zürich-Irchel, Geographisches Institut, pp. 1–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipott, Sigrid. 2011. The Model of Cross-border Cooperation in the Torne Valley region. Lex Localis 9: 283–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maier, Jörg. 1990. Staatsgrenzen und ihre Einfluss auf Raumstrukturen und Verhaltensmuster. Arbeitsmaterial fur Raumordnung und Raumplanung . Bayreuth: Universitat, pp. 1–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin, Aaron Russell. 2009. Analyzing the Effects of Microregions on Macroregions: Can Euroregions Legitimize the European Union? Ann Arbour: ProQuest, pp. 1–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maskell, Peter. 2000. Social Capital, Innovation, and Competitiveness. In Social Capital—Critical Perspectives . Edited by Stephen Baron, John Field and Tom Schuller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Medeiros, Eduardo, and Paulo Neto. 2021. Border Cities in Portugal–Spain and Territorial Development Trends. In Border Cities and Territorial Development . Edited by Eduardo Medeiros. London: Routledge, pp. 190–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Medeiros, Eduardo, Jacek Zaucha, and Dorota Ciołek. 2023. Measuring Territorial Cohesion Trends in Europe: A Correlation with EU Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies 31: 1868–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milošovičová, Petra, Alexandra Mittelman, Boris Mucha, and Tomáš Peráček. 2018. The Particularities of Entrepreneurship According to the Trade Licensing Act in the Conditions of the Slovak Republic. Paper presented at 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, Milan, Italy, April 25–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic. 2019. Regional Development Strategy Czech Republic 2021+ ; Prague: Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic, pp. 1–196.
• Nováčková, Daniela, Lucia Paškrtová, and Jana Vnuková. 2023. Cross-Border Provision of Services: Case Study in the Slovak Republic. Administrative Sciences 13: 54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Novotná, Martina, Tomáš Volek, and Jiří Alina. 2014. Regional Disparities in Productivity of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Food Industry. Paper presented at 17th International Colloquium on Regional Sciences, Hustopeče, Czech Republic, June 18–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Opiłowska, Elżbieta. 2020. The COVID-19 Crisis: The End of a Borderless Europe? European Societies 23: 589–600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Paxton, Pamela. 1999. Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator Assessment. American Journal of Sociology 105: 88–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peráček, Tomáš, and Michal Kaššaj. 2023. A Critical Analysis of the Rights and Obligations of the Manager of a Limited Liability Company: Managerial Legislative Basis. Laws 12: 56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peráček, Tomáš, Majerčáková, Daniela, and Alexandra Mittelman. 2016. Significance of the Waste Act in the Context of the Right to Protection of the Environment. Paper presented at 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference (SGEM 2016), Albena, Bulgaria, June 30–July 6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peráček, Tomáš, Mária Srebalová, and Andrej Srebala. 2022. The Valuation of Land in Land Consolidation and Relevant Administrative Procedures in the Conditions of the Slovak Republic. Administrative Sciences 12: 174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peráček, Tomáš, Milena Nosková, and Boris Mucha. 2017. Selected Issues of Slovak Business Environment. Economic and Social Development: Managerial Issues in Modern Business. Paper presented at 24th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development: Managerial Issues in Modern Business, Warsaw, Poland, October 13–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Porvazník, Jan, Ivana Ljudvigová, and Andrea Čajková. 2018. Holistic Competence of Leadership and Managerial Subjects. Politické vedy 21: 56–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Poštolka, Václav, and Pavel Branda. 2009. Cross-border Cooperation, Euroregions and the Neisse-Nisa-Nysa Euroregion. Czech Regional Studies 1: 2–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rauhut, Daniel, and Alois Humer. 2020. EU Cohesion Policy and Spatial Economic Growth: Trajectories in Economic Thought. European Planning Studies 28: 2116–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Richter, Michael. 2013. Regionalisierung und interkommunale Zusammenarbeit: Wirtschaftsregionen als Instrumente kommunaler Wirtschaftsförderung . Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rose, Jérémie. 2010. L’aménagement du territoire, la coordination intermunicipale et les relations centrales-locales en contexte métropolitain . Québec: Université du Québec—École nationale d’administration publique, pp. 1–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Šafr, Jiří, and Markéta Sedláčková. 2006. Sociální kapitál: Koncepty, teorie a metody měření . Praha: Sociologický ústav AV ČR, pp. 1–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulitz, Antonia, and Britta Knoblauch. 2011. Interkommunale Kooperation schrumpfender Kleinstädte: Analyse der Chancen und Grenzen für schrumpfende Kleinstädte im ländlichen Raum . München: AVM—Akademische Verlagsgemeinschaft München, pp. 1–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva Nortica. 2024. Jihočeská Silva Nortica. Available online: http://www.silvanortica.com (accessed on 21 April 2024).
• Srebalová, Mária, and Tomáš Peráček. 2022. Effective Public Administration as a Tool for Building Smart Cities: The Experience of the Slovak Republic. Laws 11: 67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Deth, Jan W. 2003. Measuring Social Capital: Orthodoxies and Continuing Controversies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6: 79–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Viegas, Miguel, Jan Wolf, Paulo Batista, and João Lourenço Marques. 2023. Overcoming the Barriers: Cross-Border Convergence in Portugal and Spain between 2000 and 2018. European Planning Studies 32: 463–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Dušek, J. The Past, Present, and Future of Cross-Border Cooperation between Municipalities in the South Bohemian Region: A Case Study. Adm. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14070134

Dušek J. The Past, Present, and Future of Cross-Border Cooperation between Municipalities in the South Bohemian Region: A Case Study. Administrative Sciences . 2024; 14(7):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14070134

Dušek, Jiří. 2024. "The Past, Present, and Future of Cross-Border Cooperation between Municipalities in the South Bohemian Region: A Case Study" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 7: 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14070134

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2024

Unraveling the controversy between fasting and nonfasting lipid testing in a normal population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 244,665 participants

• Ahmed B. Zaid   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-4538 6 ,
• Samah M. Awad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0626-8115 2 ,
• Mona G El-Abd   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0117-4307 1 ,
• Sara A. Saied   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0009-8183-7868 1 ,
• Shimaa K. Almahdy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3385-9562 3 ,
• AbdulRahman A Saied   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8616-5874 4 ,
• Alshimaa M. Elmalawany   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9297-8326 6 ,
• Hind S. AboShabaan 6 &
• Helmy S. Saleh 5  

Lipids in Health and Disease volume  23 , Article number:  199 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The final decision to fast or not fast for routine lipid profile examination in a standard, healthy population is unclear. Whereas the United States and European protocols state that fasting for regular lipid analysis is unnecessary, the North American and Chinese guidelines still recommend fasting before routine lipid testing.

This study aimed to unravel the contradiction between the different protocols of lipid profile testing worldwide and clarify the effect of diet on lipid profile testing only in a regular, healthy population.

A literature search was conducted through May 2024. The analyses included studies performed from the date 2000 until now because the contradiction of guidelines for lipid profile testing appeared for the first time in this period. A planned internal validity evaluation was performed using the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality measurement tools for observational cohort, case‒control, controlled interventional, and cross-sectional studies. The data were synthesized according to RevMan 5.3.

Eight studies with a total of 244,665 participants were included. The standardized mean difference in cholesterol in six studies showed significant differences in overall effect among fasting and nonfasting states ( P  < 0.00001), as did high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( P  < 0.00001). At the same time, with respect to triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, there were notable variations in the overall effect between the fasted and nonfasted states ( P  < 0.00001 and P  ≤ 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis concluded that fasting for lipid profile testing is preferred as a conservative model to reduce variability and increase consistency in patients’ metabolic status when sampling for lipid testing.

Introduction

Examining fasting blood lipid levels can offer valuable information about the effects of different diets and metabolic processes. However, it is important to consider whether these levels accurately reflect the impact of individual foods or meals consumed throughout the day. For 24 h, the human body remains in a state of nonfasting and absorptive state for more than 18 h [ 1 ]. In a study conducted by Acevedo-Fani and Singh [ 2 ], the processes of digesting, absorbing, incorporating into the circulatory system, and clearing lipids from different foods and meals were influenced by a range of factors that can be classified into two categories: modifiable and unmodifiable. Factors that cannot be changed include diseases, genetic history, sex, age, and menstrual status; however, lifestyle choices such as engaging in regular exercise, smoking cigarettes, consuming alcoholic beverages, taking prescription drugs, and making specific food choices are regarded as factors that can be modified. Various factors influence the body’s ability to process lipids [ 3 ]. In individuals with average weight and those who are obese, consuming a single meal with a higher total fat content leads to an increase in the postprandial response of chylomicron triglycerides [ 4 ].

Fasting and nonfasting lipid testing protocols. Fasting for eight hours is enough to reduce variability and increase consistency in patients’ metabolic status at the time of sampling for lipid testing

Although humans typically do not fast or consume less fat regularly, it was previously believed that blood samples for lipid assessment should be taken after 8–12 h of fasting. This was based on the changes in serum triglycerides during a fat tolerance test. Furthermore, fasting helps to prevent lipemic serum and ensures accurate measurement of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels using the commonly used Friedewald’s formula in the laboratory [ 5 ]. Nonfasting samples have numerous clear advantages:

Staying away from the difficulty of prolonged fasting and early morning sampling.

Minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia in diabetic patients.

A nonfasting state is better for cardiovascular risk prediction, according to the guidelines in many countries [ 6 , 7 ].

Research has demonstrated the strongest correlation between peak triglyceride levels measured four hours after meals and a cardiovascular event [ 8 , 9 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting a correlation between insulin resistance and lipid or lipoprotein levels after a meal [ 10 ]. In addition, postmeal triglyceride levels that are greater than average and lower levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol can be strong indicators of insulin resistance [ 11 ]. Community-based studies have shown that consuming food and following nonfasting routines for routine lipid testing have resulted in minimal changes in lipid profiles that are not clinically significant [ 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Major prospective trials have reported significant changes in various lipid parameters. The changes recorded were as follows: triglycerides increased by 0.3 mmol/L (26 milligrammes/dL), total cholesterol decreased by 0.2 mmol/L (8 milligrammes/dL), HDL cholesterol decreased by 0.1 mmol/L (4 milligrammes/dL), LDL cholesterol decreased by 0.2 mmol/L (8 milligrammes/dL), the calculated remnant cholesterol increased by 0.2 mmol/L (8 milligrammes/dL), and the estimated non-HDL cholesterol increased by 0.2 mmol/L (8 milligrammes/dL). The study revealed that the levels of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) remained unaffected by whether the participants were fasting or non-fasting.

Furthermore, the capacity to predict cardiovascular diseases using both nonfasting and fasting concentrations is similar [ 6 , 7 , 12 ]. Fasting lipid testing is recommended if triglyceride levels exceed 440 mg/dL when not fasting [ 7 , 16 ].

The American Heart Association’s (ACC/AHA) recommendations do not call for fasting to estimate the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ 17 ]. It is important to remember that performing a fasting lipid profile to evaluate LDL cholesterol levels is recommended. This is especially important for individuals with non-HDL cholesterol levels below 5.7 millimol/L (220 milligrams/dL) or triglyceride levels above 5.7 millimol/L (500 milligrams/dL). These lipid profiles can be used as possible indicators for inherited and secondary factors contributing to hypertrophy [ 7 ]. This study sought to consolidate the results of previous smaller studies into a comprehensive meta-analysis. The goal of this study was to investigate the potential impact of fasting, nonfasting, or both on lipid profile testing in the general population. This study represents a groundbreaking meta-analysis involving a substantial sample size of 244,665 participants. It aims to shed light on the global controversy surrounding this subject.

Resources and procedures

The current systematic review is reported under the guidelines set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, which is widely recognized as the standard for reporting systematic reviews [ 18 ]. This systematic review’s methodology adheres to the most recent edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 19 ]. Additionally, it has been registered on Prospero with the number CRD42022376871.

Data sources

This study thoroughly searched various online databases, such as Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Virtual Health Library (VHL), and Global Index Medicine (GHL), as well as the references of the included studies. Additionally, the study explored related articles up to May 2024.

This study consists of studies performed from 2000 until now because the contradiction of guidelines for lipid profile testing appears for the first time in this period. Broad search filters were applied to find all the studies by using the following search strategy: (“Lipids” OR (“fatty acids”) OR “Ceroids” OR “Fats” OR “Glycerides” OR “Glycolipids” OR” Lipoproteins” OR “Lipopolysaccharides”) AND (“Fast* “OR” Fasting” OR (“Hunger Strikes”) OR (“Intermittent fasting”) OR (“Time-Restricted Feeding”)) AND (“Postprandial Periods”) OR “non-Fast$” OR” nonFast$” OR” nonfasting “OR (“Postcibal Period”) AND (“Normal population”) OR (“Healthy volunteers”) OR (“Healthy subject”). The search technique used text words and controlled phrases for the normal population’s fasting and nonfasting lipid profiles. The studies were included according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (See Appendix 1 ).

Study selection

Inclusion criteria.

Studies satisfying the following criteria were included:

Study design: All clinical trials or observational studies that measured lipid profiles in fasting and postprandial states.

Population: A population of individuals aged between 18 and 75 years who are in good health. Establishing a baseline by accounting for the influence of various diseases eliminated any potential variables that could impact the results of lipid profile testing. Therefore, the specific effects of diet on the lipid profile were isolated and analyzed.

Outcome: Studies reporting demographic and laboratory findings.

Language: Only studies published in international scientific journals and written in English were included.

Studies that had enough information for qualitative and quantitative analyses.

Exclusion criteria

The researchers did not suggest sufficient data.

Assessing lipid profile parameters or comparing the concentrations of different lipid parameters in unhealthy individuals were omitted.

Animal research, posters, duplicate papers, or conference papers were not included.

Screening and study selection

The studies were exported to EndNote X9.1 (Clarivate Analytics, https://clarivate.com/ ) to remove duplicates. Two independent reviewers [HS, AB] screened all records for eligibility. Eligibility screening was performed in two steps: in the first step, titles and abstracts were screened, and in the second step, full-text articles of the selected abstracts were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The following PRISMA diagram illustrates the search procedure and details of the study selection process in Fig.  2 .

Identification of studies via databases and registers (Lipid Testing)

Data extraction

Data about the patients’ demographic features, past medical history, clinical presentation, laboratory values, therapies, and clinical outcomes were extracted. Two reviewers, working independently, collected the data from a standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. To ensure the accuracy of the retrieved data, an additional reviewer, independent from the previous two, conducted a thorough examination. All instances of disputes were effectively resolved by engaging in thoughtful and constructive debates.

Evaluation of the bias risk of the included studies

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the National Institute of Health (NIH) scale for observational studies.

Assessing risk of bias in individual studies

Two authors (AB and HS) evaluated the reliability of the studies using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for various types of research, including observational cohort, case‒control, controlled interventional, and cross-sectional studies [ 20 ]. This instrument comprises a set of 14 inquiries of various aspects, such as sample size, selection process, exposure assessment, and outcome evaluation. Research articles with a score of 9 or more points were classified as having good quality, while those scoring between 5 and 8 points were deemed to have reasonable quality. Articles with scores ranging from 1 to 4 were categorized as having low quality.

Assessing the risk of bias across studies

The results from all the studies were thoroughly scrutinized and compared to assess any potential bias in the evaluated trials. This enabled the researchers to detect and eliminate biased reporting of outcomes. Egger and colleagues found that the reliability of detecting publication bias using the funnel plot method fails when there are fewer than ten pooled studies [ 21 ].

Data synthesis and analysis

Review Manager Software Version 5.3 (Rev-Man 5.3, Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). Four studies reported the mean and standard deviation [ 5 , 11 , 13 , 14 ]. Another four studies reported the median and range [ 15 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. For the statistical analysis, the data are presented as the means and standard deviations, so the data were transformed into means and standard deviations according to the methods described by McGrath [ 22 ].

Heterogeneity

The evaluation of heterogeneity involved a visual examination of the forest plots to verify the extent of overlap between the 95% confidence intervals of the pooled estimations. The chi-square test was employed to assess heterogeneity, while the I2 test was used to quantify heterogeneity. The heterogeneity of the outcomes was deemed significant when the P value exceeded 0.1 and 2 was > 50%. Evidence of heterogeneity in the LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride data was observed in the present study. A random-effects model was employed to address this heterogeneity. Additionally, sensitivity analysis, subgrouping analysis, and prediction intervals were calculated to assess the impact of heterogeneity on the study outcomes and determine its magnitude (trivial, moderate, or substantial).

P values less than 0.05 for the overall standardized mean difference (SMD) were considered to indicate statistical significance. UN inconsistency (I2), chi-square (X2), and tau-square tests were used to assess heterogeneity.

Sensitivity analysis

To evaluate the influence of each study on the overall results, a leave-one-out analysis was conducted to address the variability observed in LDL cholesterol levels. In addition, a specific subgroup analysis was performed for TG. A study that significantly deviated from the norm was excluded to assess the collective effect and accommodate potential variations.

Subgrouping analysis

Subgrouping analysis was conducted based on patients’ metabolic status by separating countries into fat-rich and fat-poor meal countries.

Calculation of the 95% prediction interval

The summary meta-analysis estimates M, the two-sided crucial t value t1-0.05/2, k-1, and the standard deviation for the prediction interval (SDPI) are required to construct the 95% prediction interval. With k being the number of papers included in the meta-analysis, DF = k-1 and a probability level of 0.025 are used. The SDPI, also known as the standard deviation of the prediction interval, has the formula SDPI = (τ2 + SE2), where τ2 is the estimated heterogeneity and SE denotes the standard error of the SMD. If the SE was not supplied, its estimated value could be calculated by multiplying the separation between the 95% confidence interval for the SMD by 3.92. The 95% confidence intervals of the bottom and upper boundaries are equal to M t1-0.05/2 and k-1 SDPI, respectively.

Details of the included studies

Eight studies were included, with 244,665 participants matched by age and sex. Seven studies (Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ]; Sidhu and Naugler, 2012 [ 11 ]; Yanget al., 2018 [ 13 ]; Langston, 2008 [ 15 ]; and Umakanth and Ibrahim, 2018 [ 24 ]; Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ]; Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ]) reported separate measurements of lipid parameters in fasting and usual diet lifestyles. Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 14 ] reported separate measurements of lipid parameters during fasting and after four hours of a fat-rich meal. All studies that reported different fasting and nonfasting lipid parameter values were included in the meta-analyses for comparison (Table  1 ).

Characteristics of the included studies

Table  2 was constructed to present the data extraction. Four cross-sectional studies were identified: Sidhu & Naugler, 2012 [ 11 ]; Langsted et al., 2008 [ 15 ]; Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ]; Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ]; the first study [ 11 ] involved 209,180 subjects representing 46.9% males and 53.1% females with a mean age of 52.8 years (18–74 years) and no available data for those participants; the second study [ 15 ] enrolled 33,391 subjects representing 47% males and 53% females with a mean age of 60 ± 9.5 years and a BMI of 26.5 ± 2.5; the third study [ 25 ] enrolled 499 participants divided into 51.6% males and 49.4% females with a mean age of 55 ± 13 years; and the fourth study [ 23 ] involved 289 participants distributed into 50.9 males and 49.1 females with a median age of 48 ± 1.36 years. Additionally, three cohort studies were detected: Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ]. In this study, individuals with diabetes were compared to a control group. The control arm was chosen for examination and included 1093 subjects, 50.3% male and 42.5% female, with a mean age of 62.5 ± 10 years. The study conducted by Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ] involved 41,55% male and 45% female participants, with a mean age of 25.6 ± 6.2 years and a BMI of 21.6 ± 6.2 years. Umakathand Ibrahim 2018 [ 24 ] included 84 participants; 64.28% were male, and 35.71% were female aged 25 to 60. Finally, the RCT by Schaefer et al. 2001 [ 14 ] (this study compares CVs to controls; only the control group was chosen for the study) included 88 subjects, 85% male and 15% female, with a mean age of 62 ± 8.6 years and BMI of 26.2 ± 4.2 years.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the NIH scale. Six studies scored 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, and 10; Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 14 ], Langsted, 2008 [ 15 ], Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ], Sidhu and Naugler 2012 [ 11 ], Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ] and Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ], respectively, and were considered high-quality, while two studies, Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ] and Umakanth and Ibrahim, 2018 [ 24 ], were targeted (score 8) with fair quality (Table  3 ).

A funnel plot is not accurate for the assessment of publication bias in this study (fewer than ten studies), so Egger’s regression was utilized, revealing significance for publication bias ( P  < 0.001). Subsequently, publication bias was assessed using Egger’s equation. Based on the refilled and trimmed number of studies in Table  4 , a renewed search across databases was conducted to identify an additional two studies—Liu (2021) [ 25 ] and Szternel (2019) [ 23 ]—to conceal publication bias across the studies (Fig.  3 ; Table  4 ).

Funnel plot for publication bias

Differences in fasting and nonfasting cholesterol and high-density cholesterol

As depicted in Figs.  4 and 5 , the estimated mean differences in cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein levels between fasting and nonfasting patients were − 0.03 − 0.02 and − 0.06 − 0.05, respectively. The overall impact of both metrics was significant ( P <  0.00001). The Z values were 9.93 and 20.05 for cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein, respectively. The X2 values were 7.45 ( P  = 0.38) and 9.29 ( p  = 0.23) for testing heterogeneity, respectively. The I2 statistics for cholesterol levels, fasting and nonfasting lipoprotein levels, and high-density lipoprotein levels were I2 = 6 and I2 = 25%, respectively; therefore, a fixed-effects model was employed due to the homogeneity observed in the included studies.

Forest plot of cholesterol

Forest plot of HDL- cholesterol

Fasting and nonfasting triglyceride levels and low-density cholesterol differences

As shown in Figs.  6 and 7 , the estimation mean differences in triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein levels between fasting and nonfasting patients were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.44) and − 0.06 (95% CI, -0.09), respectively. For both metrics, the test for the total effect was significant ( P  < 0. 00001), and the Z values were 13.04 and 3.92 for triglycerides and low-density lipoproteins, respectively. For testing heterogeneity, the X2 values were 102.4 ( P  < 0.00001) and 24.4 ( P  = 0.001). The I2 statistics for TG levels, fasting and nonfasting lipoprotein levels, and low-density lipoprotein levels were I2 = 93 and I2 = 71%, respectively. A random-effects model was utilized due to the significant heterogeneity observed in the included studies. Sensitivity and subgrouping analyses were conducted, and the prediction intervals were discussed.

Forest plot of triglycerides

Forest plot of LDL- cholesterol

Sensitivity analysis for LDL-chol

A random-effects model was employed due to significant heterogeneity in the included studies, and a sensitivity analysis for LDL-C was also conducted. Leaving out Cartier, 2017 [ 5 ] resolved the heterogeneity in Appendix 2 .

By excluding one study from each scenario, heterogeneity was not resolved, so the subgrouping analysis was conducted based on patients’ metabolic status by separating countries into fat-rich meal and fat-poor meal countries (Appendix 3 ). The subgroup analysis resolved heterogeneity (X2 = 0.57, P  = 0.45, I2 = 0%). Additionally, prediction intervals were discussed.

The characteristics of the included studies, including the study design, participant demographics, and quality assessment scores, were detailed. Most of the studies were of high quality, as indicated by their NIH scores. However, two studies were rated as being of fair quality, emphasizing the need to interpret their results carefully.

The analysis revealed significant differences in cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein levels between fasting and nonfasting states, as evidenced by estimated mean differences and corresponding confidence intervals. Heterogeneity testing and model selection were conducted based on the I2 statistics, with a fixed-effect model utilized for homogenous data and a random-effect model for heterogeneous data.

Regarding cholesterol, a significant difference between fasting and nonfasting levels could be seen in the forest plot (Fig.  4 ). The overall SMD was − 0.03, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was (-0.03, -0.02), with a P value < 0.00001. Regarding heterogeneity, I2 = 6%, and I2 is the percentage of observed variance that reflects actual effect size variations instead of sampling error. The findings align with studies with larger sample sizes: Sidhu and Naugler., 2012 [ 11 ]; Langsted., 2008 [ 15 ] and Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ]. A large sample size is crucial for minimizing the standard deviation around the mean and, as a result, reducing error. These findings align with previous studies showing the superiority of larger sample sizes over smaller ones. These studies include Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ], Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ], Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 14 ], Umakanth and Ibrahim., 2018 [ 24 ] and Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ].

In addition, the forest plot revealed a notable disparity in HDL levels between individuals who fasted and those who did not. The overall standardized mean difference is -0.06, with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.06, -0.05) and a P value of less than 0.00001. Regarding heterogeneity, an I2 value of 42% and a P value of less than 0.12 suggested that a relatively small proportion of the overall observed effect size variance was true. This study aligns with the findings of several previous researchers, such as Sidhu and Naugler, 2012 [ 11 ]; Langsted., 2008 [ 15 ]; Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ]; and Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ], and disagrees with Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ]; Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ]; Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 14 ]; and Umakanth and Ibrahim., 2018 [ 24 ].

The forest plot also revealed a statistically significant difference in triglyceride levels between fasting and nonfasting patients. The overall SMD was 0.38, the 95% CI was 0.33, 0.44, and the Z value of the overall effect was 13.04, with a P value < 0.00001. That is, fasting was significantly different from nonfasting. According to the prediction intervals, triglyceride levels ranged from 0.25 to 1.21; this study expected most levels (moderate effect) to coincide with the respective CIs of overall effect (0.28, 0.41), trivial levels with a range of 0.25 to 0.28 and substantial accurate effect levels with a range of 0.41 to 1.21. Both the PI and overall CI of triglycerides were on the same positive side as the null, i.e., fasting was significantly different from nonfasting in the present study and future studies. All studies’ point estimates and 95% CIs were in the positive direction of the null line, except for Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ]. In the Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 15 ] study, the SMD was within the overall range, but few values within the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated a substantial actual effect of the PI. According to Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ], the SMD and its 95% CI had a trivial effect on the PI. In Langsted, 2008 [ 15 ], Umakanth and Ibrahim 2018 [ 24 ], Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ] and Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ], the SMD and its 95% CI were found to have substantial effects on the PI. In Yang et al. [ 13 ]. , although the 95% CI crossed the null line in the negative direction, its point estimate value was within the trivial effect of the PI.

According to the LDL data analysis, the forest plot showed a significant difference between fasting and nonfasting levels. The overall standardized mean difference was − 0.06 (95% CI (-0.09, -0.03)), and the Z value of the overall effect was 3.92 ( P  < 0.0001); i.e., nonfasting significantly differed from fasting ( P  < 0.05). In the studies of Cartier et al., 2017 [ 5 ], Sidhu and Naugler, 2012 [ 11 ], Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ], Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 14 ], Langsted, 2008 [ 15 ], Umakanth and Ibrahim, 2018 [ 24 ] and Liu et al., 2021 [ 25 ], the SMD had a negative effect on the null line, with only 95% CI of Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ], Schaefer et al., 2001 [ 14 ] and Szternel et al., 2019 [ 23 ], which were in the positive direction of the null line, i.e., a substantial effect of the PI. In the studies of Yang et al., 2018 [ 13 ], Sidhu and Naugler., 2012 [ 11 ], and Langsted, 2008 [ 15 ], the SMD and 95% CI were within the overall moderate effect of the PI. However, Umakanth and Ibrahim, 2018 [ 24 ] showed that the SMD and 95% CI were within the trivial range of the effect of the PI.

Similarly, differences in triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein levels between fasting and nonfasting states were observed, with significant effects demonstrated through estimated mean differences and heterogeneity testing. A random-effects model was employed due to significant heterogeneity among the included studies, necessitating sensitivity and subgrouping analyses to explore potential sources of variation.

Hence, most of the included studies used Friedewald’s equation; logically, TG levels in blood were inversely proportional to LDL-cholesterol levels, and normal levels of serum TG and LDL-cholesterol ranged from 150 to 200 mg/dL and < 135 mg/dL, respectively, because TG, which represents 25%, is not a significant component of LDL-chol, but cholesterol, which represents 75% of LDL-chol. In the fasting state, TG is used for energy production so that the levels of total TG decrease and LDL cholesterol increase. This explains why total TG is on the positive side and LDL-C is on the negative side.

The previous results for all lipid profiles matched and explained according to Kovar and Havel, 2002 [ 26 ], Nakajima et al., 2011 [ 27 ], and Feingold, 2021 [ 28 ], who stated that the appearance of chylomicrons in the blood is followed by a rise in very low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs) due to competition for lipolysis between VLDL and chylomicrons [ 26 , 27 ]. Postprandial lipaemia results from an increase in both intestine-derived chylomicrons and liver-derived VLDL [ 29 ]. Capillary endothelial cells have an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL) on their luminal surface, which binds to chylomicrons and hydrolyses their triglycerides, releasing free fatty acids (FFAs) that may easily pass into cells and be oxidized for energy or re-esterified for cholesterol ester enrichment [ 30 ]. ApoB48 and ApoE levels are preserved throughout the conversion of chylomicrons to chylomicron remnants. The liver is the primary organ that removes remnants from the blood; receptors for chylomicron remnants recognize ApoE and take up the remnants. Therefore, postprandially, the amount of VLDL tends to increase more than that of chylomicrons [ 27 , 31 ]. After six hours, VLDL is converted to LDL in circulation. Peristalsis helps pump chyme into the small intestine while you eat. They occur during digestion and can persist for two hours after the stomach is emptied. It takes four to five hours for the stomach to empty into the small intestine after a meal [ 27 , 32 ].

The American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines do not recommend a fasting protocol for estimating the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, the AHA only supposes fasting lipid testing for patients who will undergo statin therapy as well as for patients in whom the non-HDL cholesterol level is less than 5.7 mmol/L (220 mg/dL) or triglycerides are greater than 5.7 mmol/L (500 mg/dL) to avoid the effect of lipemic serum. Nonfasting and fasting results should be complementary but not exclusive because these could be signs of hereditary and/or secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia [ 7 , 33 ]. According to the findings of Wilson et al. [ 34 ], the identification of potentially actionable abnormal lipid test results, explicitly fasting triglyceride (TG) levels equal to or exceeding 500 mg/dL, necessitates the reporting of such cases as hypertriglyceridemia. Enhancing the proper utilization and accurate documentation of lipid tests is expected to improve their efficacy in the comprehensive care of individuals with a heightened susceptibility to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) occurrence. On a laboratory basis, if lipemic serum is detected, fasting for 8–12 h for triglyceride and LDL testing is mandatory; in addition, LDL should be technically measured using diagnostic kits, not Friedewald’s formula. This is because lipaemia affects the calculation of LDL cholesterol, and chylomicrons affect the measurement of triglycerides.

Specifically, sensitivity analysis for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was performed, and individual studies were excluded to assess their impact on heterogeneity. Subgrouping analysis based on patients’ metabolic status and dietary habits was also conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity further and refine the study’s findings. According to the current statistical data, most lipid measurements, including cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, lipoprotein triglycerides, and LDL, showed significant changes between fasting and nonfasting testing protocols [ 35 ]. .

Strengths and limitations of the study

First, this study identified eight studies involving a large sample size of 244,665 participants, matched by age and sex, and reported separate measurements of lipid parameters under fasting and nonfasting conditions; these studies allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the differences in lipid profiles between fasting and nonfasting states. Second, it is important to note that the smaller trials did not show any variation between fasting and nonfasting patients. However, a larger study with a larger sample size revealed a significant difference, which aligns with the study’s findings. This study has two limitations: a restricted number of included studies due to stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria and significant heterogeneity observed among studies regarding triglycerides and LDL cholesterol.

A meta-analysis of lipid profiles revealed significant differences between fasting and nonfasting states, emphasizing the importance of fasting for consistent results. Fasting status strongly influences cholesterol, HDL, triglyceride, and LDL levels, which are crucial for cardiovascular risk assessment. Clinicians must consider fasting status when interpreting lipid tests, especially in metabolic conditions such as diabetes, to guide therapy effectively. This study underscores the need for fasting-specific lipid testing guidelines for personalized cholesterol therapy and improved cardiovascular risk management.

Data availability

The data in the current paper are publicly available since this is a meta-analysis conducted based on the cited literature.

Abbreviations

Cholesterol

Confidence interval

High-density lipoprotein cholesterol

Inconsistency

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

Standard mean difference

Triglycerides

Chi-square test

Jackson KG, Poppitt SD, Minihane AM. Postprandial lipemia and cardiovascular disease risk: interrelationships between dietary, physiological and genetic determinants. Atherosclerosis. 2012;220:22–33.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Acevedo-Fani A, Singh H. Biophysical insights into modulating lipid digestion in food emulsions. Prog Lipid Res. 2022;85:101129.

Lopez-Miranda J, Williams C, Larion D. Dietary, physiological, genetic and pathological influences on postprandial lipid metabolism. Br J Nutr. 2007;98:458–73.

Vors C, Pineau G, Drai J, Meugnier E, Pesenti S, Laville M, et al. Postprandial endotoxemia linked with chylomicrons and lipopolysaccharides handling in obese versus lean men: a lipid dose-effect trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:3427–35.

Cartier LJ, Collins C, Lagacé M, Douville P. Comparison of fasting and non-fasting lipid profiles in a large cohort of patients presenting at a community hospital. Clin Biochem [Internet]. 2018;52:61–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.11.007 .

Mora S. Nonfasting for routine lipid testing from evidence to action. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1005–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Nordestgaard BG, Langsted A, Mora S, Kolovou G, Baum H, Bruckert E, et al. Fasting is not routinely required for determination of a lipid profile: clinical and laboratory implications including flagging at desirable concentration cut-points - a joint consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Fede. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1944–58.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nordestgaard BG, Benn M, Schnohr P, Tybjærg-Hansen A. Nonfasting triglycerides and risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, and death in men and women. JAMA. 2007;298:299–308.

Bansal S, Buring JE, Rifai N, Mora S, Sacks FM, Ridker PM. Fasting compared with nonfasting triglycerides and risk of cardiovascular events in women. JAMA. 2007;298:309–16.

Dubois C, Armand M, Azais-Braesco V, et al. Effects of moderate amounts of emulsified dietary fat on postprandial lipemia and lipoproteins in normolipid_emic adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;60:374–82.

Sidhu D, Naugler C. Fasting time and lipid levels in a community-based population: a cross-sectional study. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1707–10.

Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG. Nonfasting versus fasting lipid profile for cardiovascular risk prediction. Pathology. 2019;51:131–41.

Yang D, Cai Q, Qi X, Zhou Y. Postprandial lipid concentrations and daytime biological variation of lipids in a healthy Chinese population. Ann Lab Med. 2018;38:431–9.

Schaefer EJ, Audelin MC, McNamara JR, Shah PK, Tayler T, Daly JA, et al. Comparison of fasting and postprandial plasma lipoproteins in subjects with and without coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88:1129–33.

Langsted A, Freiberg JJ, Nordestgaard BG. Fasting and nonfasting lipid levels influence of normal food intake on lipids, lipoproteins, apolipoproteins, and cardiovascular risk prediction. Circulation. 2008;118:2047–56.

Dyce E. Non-fasting versus fasting cholesterol measurement. Nurse Pract. 2018;43:16–20.

Mirbolouk M, Blaha MJ. ACC/AHA lipid guidelines: personalized care to prevent cardiovascular disease. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020;87:231.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tr MD. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ.

Higgins. JP GSC handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: cochrane book series. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv Cochrane B Ser. 2008.

National Heart, Lung and BI. Study Quality Assessment Tools | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Natl Institutes Heal US Dep Heal Hum Serv. 2018.

Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315:629–34.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

McGrath S, Sohn H, Steele R, Benedetti A. Meta-analysis of the difference of medians. Biometrical J. 2020;62:69–98.

Article   Google Scholar  

Szternel L, Krintus M, Bergmann K, Derezinski T, Sypniewska G. Non-fasting lipid profile determination in presumably healthy children: impact on the assessment of lipid abnormalities. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0198433.

Umakanth M, Ibrahim M. Fasting and non-fasting lipid Profile among Health Care Workers at Teaching Hospital Batticaloa SriLanka. J Biosci Med. 2018;06:15–22.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Liu M-M, Peng J, Cao Y-X, Guo Y-L, Wu N-Q, Zhu C-G et al. The difference between fasting and non-fasting lipid measurements is not related to statin treatment. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9.

Kovar J, Havel RJ. Sources and properties of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins containing apoB-48 and apoB-100 in postprandial blood plasma of patients with primary combined hyperlipidemia. J Lipid Res. 2002;43:1026–34.

Nakajima K, Nakano T, Tokita Y, Nagamine T, Inazu A, Kobayashi J, et al. Postprandial lipoprotein metabolism: VLDL vs chylomicrons. Clin Chim Acta. 2011;412:1306–18.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Feingold KR. Lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Endocrinol Metab Clin. 2022;51:437–58.

Stahel P, Xiao C, Nahmias A, Lewis GF. Role of the gut in diabetic dyslipidemia. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:116.

Kumari A, Kristensen KK, Ploug M, Winther A-ML. The importance of lipoprotein lipase regulation in atherosclerosis. Biomedicines. 2021;9:782.

Gugliucci A. Triglyceride-Rich Lipoprotein metabolism: key regulators of their flux. J Clin Med. 2023;12:4399.

Goyal RK, Guo Y, Mashimo H. Advances in the physiology of gastric emptying. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;31:e13546.

Farukhi Z, Mora S. Assessing the dyslipidemias: to fast or not to fast? Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2021;28:97.

Wilson PWF, Jacobson TA, Martin SS, Jackson EJ, Le N-A, Davidson MH, et al. Lipid measurements in the management of cardiovascular diseases: practical recommendations a scientific statement from the national lipid association writing group. J Clin Lipidol. 2021;15:629–48.

Tada H, Nomura A, Yoshimura K, Itoh H, Komuro I, Yamagishi M, et al. Fasting and non-fasting triglycerides and risk of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients under statin therapy. Circ J. 2020;84:509–15.

Download references

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The current work has not received any form of financing from any institution or funding body.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Pathology, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Shibin Elkom, 32511, Egypt

Mona G El-Abd & Sara A. Saied

Department of Clinical Microbiology, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Shibin Elkom, 32511, Egypt

Samah M. Awad

Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Shibin Elkom, 32511, Egypt

Shimaa K. Almahdy

Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Aswan Office, Aswan, 81511, Egypt

AbdulRahman A Saied

Department of Microbiology, Animal Health Research Institute, Shibin Elkom, 32511, Egypt

Helmy S. Saleh

Department of Clinical Pathology, National Liver Institute Hospital, Menoufia Univerisity, Shebin Elkoom, Egypt

Ahmed B. Zaid, Alshimaa M. Elmalawany & Hind S. AboShabaan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation, ABZ and HSS; Methodology, all authors; Validation, ABZ, AME, and SKA; Software, ABZ, MGE, and SMA; Formal analysis, ABZ, SAS, and HSS; Resources, all authors; Data curation, ABZ, AME, and MGE; Writing-original draft preparation, all authors; Visualisation, SKA and SMA; Supervision, HSS. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ahmed B. Zaid or AbdulRahman A Saied .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022376871.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3.

Supplementary Material 4

Supplementary material 5.

Supplementary Material 6

Supplementary material 7, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zaid, A.B., Awad, S.M., El-Abd, M.G. et al. Unraveling the controversy between fasting and nonfasting lipid testing in a normal population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 244,665 participants. Lipids Health Dis 23 , 199 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02169-y

Download citation

Received : 22 February 2024

Accepted : 29 May 2024

Published : 27 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02169-y

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

• Lipid profile testing
• Healthy population

Lipids in Health and Disease

ISSN: 1476-511X

• General enquiries: [email protected]