literature review in nursing research.ppt

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NURSING RESEARCH “THE LITERATURE REVIEW”

Published by Patience Merritt Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NURSING RESEARCH “THE LITERATURE REVIEW”"— Presentation transcript:

Critical Reading Strategies: Overview of Research Process

WRITING RESEARCH PAPERS Puvaneswary Murugaiah. INTRODUCTION TO WRITING PAPERS Conducting research is academic activity Research must be original work.

Research Methods for Business Students

Topics - Reading a Research Article Brief Overview: Purpose and Process of Empirical Research Standard Format of Research Articles Evaluating/Critiquing.

Spring 2008 Teresa Cortez The University of Texas at El Paso Spring 2008 The Literature Review.

The Dissertation/Research Proposal Guidelines are adapted from Yildirim’s “Student Handbook for Ph.D. Program”.

1 The Literature Review March 2007 (3). 2 The Literature Review The review of the literature is defined as a broad, comprehensive, in- depth, systematic,

Dr. Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam Department of Library and Information Studies, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch

Using Theories and Constructs to Search and Review Existing Scholarship Based on Your Research Question How to understand and evaluate what’s what! Abby.

Reporting & Ethical Standards EPSY 5245 Michael C. Rodriguez.

How to Write a Critical Review of Research Articles

Literature review Osama A Samarkandi, PhD, RN BSc, GMD, BSN, MSN, NIAC EMS 423; EMS Research and Evidence Based Practice.

Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Locating and Reviewing Related Literature Chapter 3 This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright.

Chapter 3 Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Locating and Reviewing Related Literature This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright.

1 Copyright © 2011 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. Chapter 6 Understanding the Literature Review in Published Studies.

Copyright ©2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ Foundations of Nursing Research, 5e By Rose Marie Nieswiadomy.

Chapter 5 Literature Reviews: Finding and Critiquing Evidence

IDENTIFYING A NURSING PROBLEM, PURPOSE, AND LITERATURE REVIEW AMENABLE TO QUALITATIVE RESEARCH STUDIES CLASS 3 JUDITH ANNE SHAW, Ph.D., R.N. September.

Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.26(5); 2021 Aug

Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers

Shannon dhollande.

Lecturer, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Sciences, CQ University Brisbane, Australia

Annabel Taylor

Professor, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Sciences, CQ University Brisbane, Australia

Silke Meyer

Associate Professor, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Australia

Emergency Consultant, Emergency Department, Caboolture Hospital, Australia

Integrative reviews within healthcare promote a holistic understanding of the research topic. Structure and a comprehensive approach within reviews are important to ensure the reliability in their findings.

This paper aims to provide a framework for novice nursing researchers undertaking integrative reviews.

Established methods to form a research question, search literature, extract data, critically appraise extracted data and analyse review findings are discussed and exemplified using the authors’ own review as a comprehensive and reliable approach for the novice nursing researcher undertaking an integrative literature review.

Providing a comprehensive audit trail that details how an integrative literature review has been conducted increases and ensures the results are reproducible. The use of established tools to structure the various components of an integrative review increases robustness and readers’ confidence in the review findings.

Implications for practice

Novice nursing researchers may increase the reliability of their results by employing a framework to guide them through the process of conducting an integrative review.

A literature review is a critical analysis of published research literature based on a specified topic ( Pluye et al., 2016 ). Literature reviews identify literature then examine its strengths and weaknesses to determine gaps in knowledge ( Pluye et al. 2016 ). Literature reviews are an integral aspect of research projects; indeed, many reviews constitute a publication in themselves ( Snyder, 2019 ). There are various types of literature reviews based largely on the type of literature sourced ( Cronin et al. 2008 ). These include systematic literature reviews, traditional, narrative and integrative literature reviews ( Snyder, 2019 ). Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) found more than 35 commonly used terms to describe literature reviews. Within healthcare, systematic literature reviews initially gained traction and widespread support because of their reproducibility and focus on arriving at evidence-based conclusions that could influence practice and policy development ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015 ). Yet, it became apparent that healthcare-related treatment options needed to review broader spectrums of research for treatment options to be considered comprehensive, holistic and patient orientated ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015 ). Stern et al. (2014) suggest that despite the focus in healthcare on quantitative research not all pertinent questions surrounding the provision of care can be answered from this approach. To devise solutions to multidimensional problems, all forms of trustworthy evidence need to be considered ( Stern et al. 2014 ).

Integrative reviews assimilate research data from various research designs to reach conclusions that are comprehensive and reliable ( Soares et al. 2014 ). For example, an integrative review considers both qualitative and quantitative research to reach its conclusions. This approach promotes the development of a comprehensive understanding of the topic from a synthesis of all forms of available evidence ( Russell, 2005 ; Torraco, 2005 ). The strengths of an integrative review include its capacity to analyse research literature, evaluate the quality of the evidence, identify knowledge gaps, amalgamate research from various research designs, generate research questions and develop theoretical frameworks ( Russell, 2005 ). Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) suggested that integrative reviews exhibit similar characteristics to systematic reviews and may therefore be regarded as rigorous.

Integrative reviews value both qualitative and quantitative research which are built upon differing epistemological paradigms. Both types of research are vital in developing the evidence base that guides healthcare provision ( Leppäkoski and Paavilainen, 2012 ). Therefore, integrative reviews may influence policy development as their conclusions have considered a broad range of appropriate literature ( Whittemore and Knafl, 2005 ). An integrative approach to evidence synthesis allows healthcare professionals to make better use of all available evidence and apply it to the clinical practice environment ( Souza et al. 2010 ). For example, Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) found in excess of 12 different types of reviews employed to guide healthcare practice. The healthcare profession requires both quantitative and qualitative forms of research to establish the robust evidence base that enables the provision of evidence-based patient-orientated healthcare.

Integrative reviews require a specific set of skills to identify and synthesise literature ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). There remains a paucity of literature that provides explicit guidance to novice nursing researchers on how to conduct an integrative review and importantly how to ensure the results and conclusions are both comprehensive and reliable. Furthermore, novice nursing researchers may receive little formal training to develop the skills required to generate a comprehensive integrative review ( Boote and Beile, 2005 ). Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) also emphasised the limited literature providing guidance surrounding integrative reviews. Therefore, novice nursing researchers need to rely on published guidance to assist them. In this regard this paper, using an integrative review conducted by the authors as a case study, aims to provide a framework for novice nursing researchers conducting integrative reviews.

Developing the framework

In conducting integrative reviews, the novice nursing researcher may need to employ a framework to ensure the findings are comprehensive and reliable ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ; Snyder, 2019 ). A framework to guide novice nursing researchers in conducting integrative reviews has been adapted by the authors and will now be described and delineated. This framework used various published literature to guide its creation, namely works by Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) , Nelson (2014), Stern et al. (2014) , Whittemore and Knafl (2005) , Pluye et al. (2009) , Moher et al., (2009) and Attride-Stirling, (2001) . The suggested framework involves seven steps ( Figure 1 ).

Integrative review framework ( Cooke et al. 2012 ; Riva et al. 2012 ).

Step 1: Write the review question

The review question acts as a foundation for an integrative study ( Riva et al. 2012 ). Yet, a review question may be difficult to articulate for the novice nursing researcher as it needs to consider multiple factors specifically, the population or sample, the interventions or area under investigation, the research design and outcomes and any benefit to the treatment ( Riva et al. 2012 ). A well-written review question aids the researcher to develop their research protocol/design and is of vital importance when writing an integrative review.

To articulate a review question there are numerous tools available to the novice nursing researcher to employ. These tools include variations on the PICOTs template (PICOT, PICO, PIO), and the Spider template. The PICOTs template is an established tool for structuring a research question. Yet, the SPIDER template has gained acceptance despite the need for further research to determine its applicability to multiple research contexts ( Cooke et al., 2012 ). Templates are recommended to aid the novice nursing researcher in effectively delineating and deconstructing the various elements within their review question. Delineation aids the researcher to refine the question and produce more targeted results within a literature search. In the case study, the review question was to: identify, evaluate and synthesise current knowledge and healthcare approaches to women presenting due to intimate partner violence (IPV) within emergency departments (ED). This review objective is delineated in the review question templates shown in Table 1 .

Comparison of elements involved with a PICOTS and SPIDER review question.

( Cooke et al. 2012 ; Riva et al. 2012 ).

Step 2: Determine the search strategy

In determining a search strategy, it is important for the novice nursing researcher to consider the databases employed, the search terms, the Boolean operators, the use of truncation and the use of subject headings. Furthermore, Nelson (2014) suggests that a detailed description of the search strategy should be included within integrative reviews to ensure readers are able to reproduce the results.

The databases employed within a search strategy need to consider the research aim and the scope of information contained within the database. Many databases vary in their coverage of specific journals and associated literature, such as conference proceedings ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). Therefore, the novice nursing researcher should consult several databases when conducting their searches. For example, search strategies within the healthcare field may utilise databases such as Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Healthcare Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus and PsychInfo ( Cronin et al. 2008 ). These databases among others are largely considered appropriate repositories of reliable data that novice researchers may utilise when researching within healthcare. The date in which the searches are undertaken should be within the search strategy as searches undertaken after this date may generate increased results in line with the publication of further studies.

Utilising an established template to generate a research question allows for the delineation of key elements within the question as seen above. These key elements may assist the novice nursing researcher in determining the search terms they employ. Furthermore, keywords on published papers may provide the novice nursing researcher with alternative search terms, synonyms and introduce the researcher to key terminology employed within their field ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). For example, within the case study undertaken the search terms included among others: ‘domestic violence’, ‘domestic abuse’, ‘intimate partner violence and/or abuse’. To refine the search to the correct healthcare environment the terms ‘emergency department’ and/or ‘emergency room’ were employed. To link search terms, the researcher should consider their use of Boolean operators ‘And’ ‘Or’ and ‘Not’ and their use of truncation ( Cronin et al. 2008 ). Truncation is the shortening of words which in literature searches may increase the number of search results. Medical subject headings (MeSH) or general subject headings should be employed where appropriate and within this case study the headings included ‘nursing’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘intimate partner violence’.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria allow the novice nursing researcher to reduce and refine the search parameters and locate the specific data they seek. Appropriate use of inclusion and exclusion criteria permits relevant data to be sourced as wider searches can produce a large amount of disparate data, whereas a search that is too narrow may result in the omission of significant findings ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). The novice nursing researcher needs to be aware that generating a large volume of search results may not necessarily result in relevant data being identified. Within integrative reviews there is potential for a large volume of data to be sourced and therefore time and resources required to complete the review need to be considered ( Heyvaert et al. 2017 ). The analysis and refining of a large volume of data can become a labour-intensive exercise for the novice nursing researcher ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ).

Stern et al. (2014) suggest various elements that should be considered within inclusion/exclusion criteria:

• the type of studies included;
• the topic under exploration;
• the outcomes;
• publication language;
• the time period; and
• the methods employed.

The use of limiters or exclusion criteria are an effective method to manage the amount of time it takes to undertake searches and limit the volume of research generated. Yet, exclusion criteria may introduce biases in the search results and should therefore be used with caution and to produce specific outcomes by the novice nursing researcher ( Hammerstrøm et al. 2017 ).

Whittemore and Knafl (2005) suggest that randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies, cross sectional studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses should all be included within the search strategy. Therefore, there are no biases based on the type of publication sourced ( Hammerstrøm et al. 2017 ).

There should be no restriction on the sample size within the studies recognising that qualitative studies generally have smaller sample sizes, and to capture the breadth of research available. There was no restriction on the date of publication within the case study as quality literature was limited. Scoping widely is an important strategy within integrative reviews to produce comprehensive results. A manual citation search of the reference list of all sourced papers was also undertaken by a member of the research team.

Literature may be excluded if those papers were published in a language foreign to the researcher with no accepted translation available. Though limiting papers based on translation availability may introduce some bias, this does ensure the review remains free from translational errors and cultural misinterpretations. In the case study, research conducted in developing countries with a markedly different healthcare service and significant resource limitations were excluded due to their lack of generalisability and clinical relevance; though this may have introduced a degree of location bias ( Nelson, 2014 ).

A peer review of the search strategy by an individual who specialises in research data searches such as a research librarian may be a viable method in which the novice healthcare researcher can ensure the search strategy is appropriate and able to generate the required data. One such tool that a novice nurse may employ is the Peer Review of the Search Strategy (PRESS) checklist. A peer review of the caste study was undertaken by a research librarian. All recommendations were incorporated into the search strategy which included removing a full text limiter, and changes to the Boolean and proximity operators.

After the search strategy has been implemented the researcher removes duplicate results and screened the retrieved publications based on their titles and abstracts. A second screening was then undertaken based on the full text of retrieved publications to remove papers that were irrelevant to the research question. Full text copies should then be obtained for critical appraisal employing validated methods.

Step 3: Critical appraisal of search results

The papers identified within the search strategy should undergo a critical appraisal to determine if they are appropriate and of sufficient quality to be included within the review. This should be conducted or reviewed by a second member of the research team, which occurred within this case study. Any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was achieved. A critical appraisal allows the novice healthcare researcher to appraise the relevance and trustworthiness of a study and, therefore, determine its applicability to their research (CASP, 2013). There are several established tools a novice nurse can employ in which to structure their critical appraisal. These include the Scoring System for Mixed-Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews developed by Pluye et al. (2009) and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2018) Checklists.

The review undertaken by the authors employed the scoring system for mixed-methods research and mixed-studies reviews developed by Pluye et al. (2009) . This scoring system was specifically designed for reviews employing studies from various research designs and therefore was utilised with ease ( Table 2 ).

The scoring system for mixed-methods research and mixed-studies reviews ( Pluye et al. 2009 ).

Using the CASP checklist aids the novice nursing researcher to examine the methodology of identified papers to establish validity. This critical appraisal tool contains 10 items. These items are yes or no questions that assist the researcher to determine (a) if the results of the paper are valid, (b) what the results are and (c) if it is relevant in the context of their study. For example, the checklist asks the researcher to consider the presence of a clear statement surrounding the aims of the research, and to consider why and how the research is important in regard to their topic (CASP, 2013). This checklist supports the nurse researcher to assess the validity, results and significance of research, and therefore appropriately decide on its inclusion within the review ( Krainovich-Miller et al., 2009 ).

Step 4: Summarise the search results

A summary of the results generated by literature searches is important to exemplify how comprehensive the literature is or conversely to identify if there are gaps in research. This summary should include the number of, and type of papers included within the review post limiters, screening and critical appraisal of search results. For example, within the review detailed throughout this paper the search strategy resulted in the inclusion of 25 qualitative and six quantitative papers ( Bakon et al. 2019 ). Many papers provide a summary of their search results visually in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015 ). PRISMA is a method of reporting that enables readers to assess the robustness of the results ( Leclercq et al. 2019 ; Moher et al. 2009 ). PRISMA promotes the transparency of the search process by delineating various items within the search process ( Leclercq et al. 2019 ; Moher et al. 2009 ). Researchers may decide how rigorously they follow this process yet should provide a rationale for any deviations ( Leclercq et al. 2019 ; Moher et al, 2009 ). Figure 2 is an example of the PRISMA flow diagram as it was applied within the case study.

Example PRISMA flow diagram ( Bakon et al. 2019 ; Moher et al. 2009 ).

Step 5: Data extraction and reduction

Data can be extracted from the critically appraised papers identified through the search strategy employing extraction tables. Within the case study data were clearly delineated, as suggested by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2010) , into extraction or comparison tables ( Table 3 ). These tables specify the authors, the date of publication, year of publication, site where the research was conducted and the key findings. Setting out the data into tables facilitates the comparison of these variables and aids the researcher to determine the appropriateness of the papers’ inclusion or exclusion within the review ( Whittemore and Knafl, 2005 ).

Example of a data extraction table.

Step 6: Analysis

Thematic analysis is widely used in integrative research ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). In this section we will discuss the benefits of employing a structured approach to thematic analysis including the formation of a thematic network. A thematic network is a visual diagram or depiction of the themes displaying their interconnectivity. Thematic analysis with the development of a thematic network is a way of identifying themes at various levels and depicting the observed relationships and organisation of these themes ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). There are numerous methods and tools available in which to conduct a thematic analysis that may be of use to the novice healthcare researcher conducting an integrative review. The approach used in a thematic analysis is important though a cursory glance at many literature reviews will reveal that many authors do not delineate the methods they employ. This includes the thematic analysis approach suggested by Thomas and Harden (2008) and the approach to thematic networking suggested by Attride-Stirling (2001) .

Thomas and Harden (2008) espouse a three-step approach to thematic analysis which includes: (a) coding, (b) organisation of codes into descriptive themes, and (c) the amalgamation of descriptive themes into analytical themes. The benefit of this approach lies in its simplicity and the ease with which a novice nurse researcher can apply the required steps. In contrast, the benefit of the approach suggested by Attride-Stirling (2001) lies in its ability to move beyond analysis and generate a visual thematic network which facilitates a critical interpretation and synthesis of the data.

Thematic networks typically depict three levels: basic themes, organising themes and global themes ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). The thematic network can then be developed. A thematic network is a visual depiction that appears graphically as a web like design ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). Thematic networks emphasise the relationships and interconnectivity of the network. It is an illustrative tool that facilitates interpretation of the data ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ).

The benefits of employing a thematic analysis and networking within integrative reviews is the flexibility inherent within the approach, which allows the novice nursing researcher to provide a comprehensive accounting of the data ( Nowell et al. 2017 ). Thematic analysis is also an easily grasped form of data analysis that is useful for exploring various perspectives on specific topics and highlighting knowledge gaps ( Nowell et al. 2017 ). Thematic analysis and networking is also useful as a method to summarise large or diversified data sets to produce insightful conclusions ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ; Nowell et al. 2017 ). The ability to assimilate data from various seemingly disparate perspectives may be challenging for the novice nursing researcher conducting an integrative review yet this integration of data by thematic analysis and networking was is integral.

To ensure the trustworthiness of results, novice nursing researchers need to clearly articulate each stage within the chosen method of data analysis ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ; Nowell et al. 2017 ). The method employed in data analysis needs to be precise and exhaustively delineated ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ; Nowell et al. 2017 ). Attride-Stirling (2001) suggests six steps within her methods of thematic analysis and networking. These steps include:

• code material;
• identify themes;
• construct thematic network;
• describe and explore the thematic network;
• summarise thematic network findings; and
• interpret patterns to identify implications.

In employing the approach suggested by Attride-Stirling (2001) within the case study the coding of specific findings within the data permitted the development of various themes ( Table 4 ). Inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative findings within the themes facilitated integration of the data which identified patterns and generated insights into the current care provided to IPV victims within ED.

Coding and theme formation.

Step 7: Conclusions and implications

A conclusion is important to remind the reader why the research topic is important. The researcher can then follow advice by Higginbottom (2015) who suggests that in drawing and writing research conclusions the researcher has an opportunity to explain the significance of the findings. The researcher may also need to explain these conclusions in light of the study limitations and parameters. Higginbottom (2015) emphasises that a conclusion is not a summary or reiteration of the results but a section which details the broader implications of the research and translates this knowledge into a format that is of use to the reader. The implications of the review findings for healthcare practice, for healthcare education and research should be considered.

Employing this structured and comprehensive framework within the case study the authors were able to determine that there remains a marked barrier in the provision of healthcare within the ED to women presenting with IPV-related injury. By employing an integrative approach multiple forms of literature were reviewed, and a considerable gap was identified. Therefore, further research may need to focus on the developing a structured healthcare protocol to aid ED clinicians to meet the needs of this vulnerable patient population.

Integrative reviews can be conducted with success when they follow a structured approach. This paper proposes a framework that novice nursing researchers can employ. Applying our stepped framework within an integrative review will strengthen the robustness of the study and facilitate its translation into policy and practice. This framework was employed by the authors to identify, evaluate and synthesise current knowledge and approaches of health professionals surrounding the care provision of women presenting due to IPV within emergency departments. The recommendations from the case study are currently being translated and implemented into the practice environment.

Key points for policy, practice and/or research

• Integrative literature reviews are required within nursing to consider elements of care provision from a holistic perspective.
• There is currently limited literature providing explicit guidance on how to undertake an integrative literature review.
• Clear delineation of the integrative literature review process demonstrates how the knowledge base was understood, organised and analysed.
• Nurse researchers may utilise this guidance to ensure the reliability of their integrative review.

Shannon Dhollande is a Lecturer, registered nurse and researcher. Her research explores the provision of emergency care to vulnerable populations.

Annabel Taylor is a Professorial Research Fellow at CQ University who with her background in social work explores methods of addressing gendered violence such as domestic violence.

Silke Meyer is an Associate Professor in Criminology and the Deputy Director of the Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre at Monash University.

Mark Scott is an Emergency Medical Consultant with a track record in advancing emergency healthcare through implementation of evidence-based healthcare.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics: Due to the nature of this article this article did not require ethical approval.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Shannon Dhollande https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3181-7606

Silke Meyer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-042X

• Attride-Stirling J. (2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research . Qualitative Research 1 ( 3 ): 385–405. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aveyard H, Bradbury-Jones C. (2019) An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: Findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis . BMC Medical Research Methodology 19 ( 1 ): 1–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakon S, Taylor A, Meyer S, et al. (2019) The provision of emergency healthcare for women who experience intimate partner violence: Part 1 An integrative review . Emergency Nurse 27 : 19–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boell S, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2010) Literature reviews and the Hermeneutic circle . Australian Academic & Research Libraries 41 ( 2 ): 129–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boell S, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2015) On being systematic in literature reviews . Journal of Information Technology 30 : 161–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote D, Beile P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher 34 ( 6 ): 3–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. (2012) Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis . Qualitative Health Research 22 ( 10 ): 1435–1443. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) (2018) CASP Checklists . casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.
• Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M. (2008) Undertaking a literature review: A step by step approach . British Journal of Nursing 17 ( 1 ): 38–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammerstrøm K, Wade A, Jørgensen A, et al. (2017) Searching for relevant studie . In: Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. (eds) Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews , Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 69–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P, et al. (2017) Introduction to MMRS literature reviews . In: Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. (eds) Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews , Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higginbottom G. (2015) Drawing conclusions from your research . In: Higginbottom G, Liamputtong P. (eds) Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health , London: SAGE, pp. 80–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krainovich-Miller B, Haber J, Yost J, et al. (2009) Evidence-based practice challenge: Teaching critical appraisal of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines to graduate students . Journal of Nursing Education 48 ( 4 ): 186–195. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, et al. (2019) Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 115 : 46–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leppäkoski T, Paavilainen E. (2012) Triangulation as a method to create a preliminary model to identify and intervene in intimate partner violence . Applied Nursing Research 25 : 171–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement . PLoS Med 6 ( 7 ): e1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson H. (2014) Systematic Reviews to Answer Health Care Questions , Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowell L, Norris J, White D, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis . International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 ( 1 ): 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pluye P, Gagnon M, Griffiths F, et al. (2009) A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews . International Journal of Nursing Studies 46 : 529–546. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pluye P, Hong Q, Bush P, et al. (2016) Opening up the definition of systematic literature review: The plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 73 : 2–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riva JJ, Malik KM, Burnie SJ, et al. (2012) What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians . The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 56 ( 3 ): 167–171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell C. (2005) An overview of the integrative research review . Progress in Transplantation 15 ( 1 ): 8–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder H. (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines . Journal of Business Research 104 : 333–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soares C, Hoga L, Peduzzi M, et al. (2014) Integrative review: Concepts and methods used in nursing . Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 48 ( 2 ): 335–345. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Souza M, Silva M, Carvalho R. (2010) Integrative review: What is it? How to do it? Einstein 8 ( 1 ): 102–106. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. (2014) Developing the review question and inclusion criteria . American Journal of Nursing 114 ( 4 ): 53–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Harden A. (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 : 45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torraco R. (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples . Human Resource Development Review 4 ( 3 ): 356–367. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittemore R, Knafl K. (2005) The integrative review: Updated methodology . Journal of Advanced Nursing 52 ( 5 ): 546–553. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Please log in to save materials. Log in

• Resource Library
• Literature Reviews
• Nursing Research

Literature Reviews for Nursing Research (Presentation)

Literature reviews for nursing research.

This presentation has been used in information literacy classes with YR 3 nursing science students in the NURS 344, Nursing Research, course. 

Objectives: 

• Discuss nature & purpose of literature reviews
• Review defining elements of research articles
• Discover approaches & strategies for your review of the literature  

Accompanying materials:  Worksheets for tracking searches, article analysis and research synthesis. 

Version History

Library Research Guides - University of Wisconsin Ebling Library

Uw-madison libraries research guides.

• Course Guides
• Subject Guides
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Research Guides
• Nursing Resources
• Conducting a Literature Review

Nursing Resources : Conducting a Literature Review

• Definitions of
• Professional Organizations
• Nursing Informatics
• Nursing Related Apps
• EBP Resources
• PICO-Clinical Question
• Types of PICO Question (D, T, P, E)
• Secondary & Guidelines
• Bedside--Point of Care
• Pre-processed Evidence
• Measurement Tools, Surveys, Scales
• Types of Studies
• Table of Evidence
• Qualitative vs Quantitative
• Types of Research within Qualitative and Quantitative
• Cohort vs Case studies
• Independent Variable VS Dependent Variable
• Sampling Methods and Statistics
• Systematic Reviews
• Review vs Systematic Review vs ETC...
• Standard, Guideline, Protocol, Policy
• Additional Guidelines Sources
• Peer Reviewed Articles
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
• Writing a Research Paper or Poster
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Levels of Evidence (I-VII)
• Reliability
• Validity Threats
• Threats to Validity of Research Designs
• Nursing Theory
• Nursing Models
• PRISMA, RevMan, & GRADEPro
• ORCiD & NIH Submission System
• Understanding Predatory Journals
• Nursing Scope & Standards of Practice, 4th Ed
• Distance Ed & Scholarships
• Assess A Quantitative Study?
• Assess A Qualitative Study?
• Find Health Statistics?
• Choose A Citation Manager?
• Find Instruments, Measurements, and Tools
• Write a CV for a DNP or PhD?
• Find information about graduate programs?
• Learn more about Predatory Journals
• Get writing help?
• Choose a Citation Manager?
• Other questions you may have
• Search the Databases?
• Get Grad School information?

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is an essay that surveys, summarizes, links together, and assesses research in a given field. It surveys the literature by reviewing a large body of work on a subject; it summarizes by noting the main conclusions and findings of the research; it links together works in the literature by showing how the information fits into the overall academic discussion and how the information relates to one another; it assesses the literature by noting areas of weakness, expansion, and contention. This is the essentials of literature review construction by discussing the major sectional elements, their purpose, how they are constructed, and how they all fit together.

All literature reviews have major sections:

• Introduction: that indicates the general state of the literature on a given topic;
• Methodology: an overview of how, where, and what subject terms used to conducted your search so it may be reproducable
• Findings: a summary of the major findings in that field;
• Discussion: a general progression from wider studies to smaller, more specifically-focused studies;
• Conclusion: for each major section that again notes the overall state of the research, albeit with a focus on the major synthesized conclusions, problems in the research, and even possible avenues of further research.

In Literature Reviews, it is Not Appropriate to:

• State your own opinions on the subject (unless you have evidence to support such claims).  
• State what you think nurses should do (unless you have evidence to support such claims).
• Provide long descriptive accounts of your subject with no reference to research studies.
• Provide numerous definitions, signs/symptoms, treatment and complications of a particular illness without focusing on research studies to provide evidence and the primary purpose of the literature review.
• Discuss research studies in isolation from each other.

Remember, a literature review is not a book report. A literature review is focus, succinct, organized, and is free of personal beliefs or unsubstantiated tidbits.

• Types of Literature Reviews A detailed explanation of the different types of reviews and required citation retrieval numbers

Outline of a Literture Review

• << Previous: Peer Reviewed Articles
• Next: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 3:12 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/nursing

Graduate Nursing

• Electronic Resources
• Finding Books
• Professional Organizations
• CRAAP Method
• APA Guide 7th Edition

Literature Review

• Copyright and Plagiarism

How to Search

Need more articles, but can't seem to find the right ones? Try these techniques!

Backwards searching: Once you find a relevant article, check the reference list at the end of the article. This will help you find other pertinent articles. 

Forward searching : Once you find a relevant article, look at whether it has been cited in more-recent research. If a researcher cited it, it is likely that their paper will also relate to your topic. ResearchGate is a community for students and researchers. It lists where each of their publications have been cited, if at all. This can be found under the "citations" tab that pops up when you click on any publication. 

When stuck, ask yourself, "What else is related to my topic?"

Get creative! You might find useful literature that you did not initially anticipate.

Fonseca, M. (2013, November 4) 5 tips to write a great literature review. https://www.editage.com/insights/5-tips-to-write-a-great-literature-review?refer=scroll-to-1-article&refer-type=article

What is a Literature Review?

"A literature review is a critical summary of all the published works on a particular topic" (Fonseca, 2013). A literature review provides background for your paper by quickly bringing the reader up-to-date on relevant findings, controversies, and dilemmas. It is the author's chance to "set the scene" and demonstrate why their topic is of interest to academia. In your literature review, you will describe "where your project comes from and how it fits in with existing knowledge" (Lloyd, 2017-2018). Further, you will provide "an argument for why your project makes a valuable contribution" (Lloyd, 2017-2018).

References: 

Lloyd, C.(2017-2018). Literature reviews for sociology senior theses . [PowerPoint Slides]. https://socthesis.fas.harvard.edu/files/socseniorthesis/files/pres-litreview.pdf

Step One: Define Your Research Question

What are you trying to determine for your literature review? What specifically do you want to learn more about? Choose a topic that you are genuinely interested in. Next, conduct a broad search on it. Determine what trending and popular research is available, then narrow your topic down. You can refine it by one or more of the following:

• Geographic location
• Time period
• Discipline/field of study, etc.

Research terms will help define your question.

• A broad question might be something like: What is the homeless population like?
• A narrow and specific question may include: What social and political factors have affected the growth of the middle-aged homeless population in Toronto within the past five years?

Once you have determined an appropriate research question/topic, move on to planning your approach.

Dermody, K., Literature Reviews. (2020, January 23). Retrieved from https://learn.library.ryerson.ca/literaturereview.

Step Two: Plan Your Approach 

After you have landed a research question, ask yourself "Which specific terms will I use, and where am I going to begin?" Determine what kind of literature you want to look at, whether it be journal articles, books, electronic resources, newspapers, or even other literature reviews on similar topics.

Your keywords are the main concepts or ideas of your paper.  For example, the keywords for a paper on “youth employment in Canada” would be:

Use synonyms: Often there are multiple ways to express the same concept. Make sure to use synonyms in your research. For instance, "employment" can be researched as:

Lastly, use “ AND ” and “ OR .” By bridging your truncated keywords and synonyms with the capitalized search words “AND” and “OR” (known as Boolean operators), you can search for multiple concepts effectively. For more information, visit the "electronic resources" tab of this research guide. There is a box on Boolean operators. 

Step Four: Analyze Material

When searching for material, it is important to analyze your sources for credibility, accuracy, currency, and authenticity. Ask these questions when analyzing a source:

• What is the purpose of the work?
• How current is it?
• Who is the author? 
• What are the author's biases?
• Is this work peer reviewed? 
• How accurate is this information? What facts/empirical evidence support it?
• What time frame are you looking at for your literature review, and does the work fall within that range?

Step Five: Manage Your Results 

After analyzing your research and determining what sources you want to use, it's important to keep track of what you have looked through. Keep a list of the following:

• What searches you have completed.
• Which ones were successful and unsuccessful.
• What databases you used.
• What sources you want to use for your literature review.
• What else you may want to search for next.

You can do this using software such as Zotero , Mendeley , and EndNote .

Congratulations! You are making progress towards an exceptional literature review.

Literature Review vs. Annotated Bibliography  Both a literature review (A.K.A. literature synthesis) and an annotated bibliography summarize the existing body of knowledge on a given topic.

What is the difference between a literature review and an annotated bibliography?  Unlike literature reviews, annotated bibliographies summarize entire research articles. An annotated bibliography looks like this:

Annotated Bibliography

•    Summarizes each article separately.

o    First, students discuss article one, then two, etc.  o    Topic: Blood Donation

• Paragraph 1: Bonnie and Clyde (2019) wrote "this" on blood donation.
• Paragraph 2: Rose and Jack (1997) wrote "this" on blood donation.
• Paragraph 3: Mary-Kate and Ashley (2001) wrote "this" on blood donation.
• Result: Multiple summaries of individual research articles (Lloyd, 2017-2018).

•    Describes the existing body of knowledge by integrating and synthesizing the literature to create something new.

o     Topic: Blood Donation

• Paragraph 1: Information/research findings on red blood cells pulled from multiple sources.
• Paragraph 2: Information/research findings on platelets pulled from multiple sources.
• Paragraph 3: Information/research findings on white blood cells pulled from multiple sources.
• Paragraph 4: Information/research findings on the drawbacks of donating blood from multiple sources (Lloyd, 2017-2018).
• Result: The author points out "themes, concepts, gaps and disagreements" between articles (Hofer, Hanick & Townsend, 2019, p. 216). Students use these to describe the existing body of knowledge on their topic one concept at a time. 

References:

Hofer, A. R., Hanick S. L., & Townsend, L. (2019). Designing activities for conceptual teaching. Transforming information literacy instruction: Threshold concepts in theory and practice. (p. 209-224). Libraries Unlimited.

• << Previous: APA Guide 7th Edition
• Next: Copyright and Plagiarism >>
• Last Updated: May 8, 2024 10:17 AM
• URL: https://libguide.umary.edu/GraduateNursing

Nursing: How to Write a Literature Review

Traditional or narrative literature review, other types of literature reviews.

• Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
• How to Write a Literature Review
• RESEARCH HELP

Research Librarian

For more help on this topic, please contact our Research Help Desk: [email protected] or 781-768-7303. Stay up-to-date on our current hours . Note: all hours are EST.

This Guide was created by Carolyn Swidrak (retired).

This guide addresses how to prepare a traditional or narrative literature review. 

Why is a literature review important?

“The primary purpose of a literature review is to summarize evidence on a topic – to sum up what is known and what is not known . ” ( Polit & Beck, 2018, p. 107)

Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2018). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer

A traditional or narrative review is one type of review.  Others include:

• systematic review
• integrative review
• scoping review

For more information on various types of reviews:

• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Next: How to Write a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.regiscollege.edu/nursing_litreview

Nursing: Literature Review

• Required Texts
• Writing Assistance and Organizing & Citing References
• NCLEX Resources
• Literature Review
• MSN Students
• Physical Examination
• Drug Information
• Professional Organizations
• Mobile Apps
• Evidence-based Medicine
• Certifications
• Recommended Nursing Textbooks
• DNP Students
• Conducting Research
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Distance Education Students
• Ordering from your Home Library

Good Place to Start: Citation Databases

Interdisciplinary Citation Databases:

A good place to start your research  is to search a research citation database to view the scope of literature available on your topic.

TIP #1: SEED ARTICLE Begin your research with a "seed article" - an article that strongly supports your research topic.  Then use a citation database to follow the studies published by finding articles which have cited that article, either because they support it or because they disagree with it.

TIP #2: SNOWBALLING Snowballing is the process where researchers will begin with a select number of articles they have identified relevant/strongly supports their topic and then search each articles' references reviewing the studies cited to determine if they are relevant to your research.

BONUS POINTS: This process also helps identify key highly cited authors within a topic to help establish the "experts" in the field.

Begin by constructing a focused research question to help you then convert it into an effective search strategy.

• Identify keywords or synonyms
• Type of study/resources
• Which database(s) to search
• Asking a Good Question (PICO)
• PICO - AHRQ
• PICO - Worksheet
• What Is a PICOT Question?

Seminal Works: Search Key Indexing/Citation Databases

• Google Scholar
• Web of Science

TIP – How to Locate Seminal Works

• DO NOT: Limit by date range or you might overlook the seminal works
• DO: Look at highly cited references (Seminal articles are frequently referred to “cited” in the research)
• DO: Search citation databases like Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar

Web Resources

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of published information on a subject area. Conducting a literature review demands a careful examination of a body of literature that has been published that helps answer your research question (See PICO). Literature reviewed includes scholarly journals, scholarly books, authoritative databases, primary sources and grey literature.

A literature review attempts to answer the following:

• What is known about the subject?
• What is the chronology of knowledge about my subject?
• Are there any gaps in the literature?
• Is there a consensus/debate on issues?
• Create a clear research question/statement
• Define the scope of the review include limitations (i.e. gender, age, location, nationality...)
• Search existing literature including classic works on your topic and grey literature
• Evaluate results and the evidence (Avoid discounting information that contradicts your research)
• Track and organize references
• How to conduct an effective literature search.
• Social Work Literature Review Guidelines (OWL Purdue Online Writing Lab)

What is PICO?

The PICO model can help you formulate a good clinical question. Sometimes it's referred to as PICO-T, containing an optional 5th factor. 

Search Example

• << Previous: NCLEX Resources
• Next: MSN Students >>

• Last Updated: Sep 25, 2024 12:34 PM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/Nursing

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2962
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research

Methodological considerations and defining characteristics.

Silva, Amina Regina MN; Padilha, Maria Itayra PhD; Petry, Stefany MN; Silva E Silva, Vanessa PhD; Woo, Kevin PhD; Galica, Jacqueline PhD; Wilson, Rosemary PhD; Luctkar-Flude, Marian PhD

School of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (Ms Silva and Drs Woo, Galica, Wilson, and Luctkar-Flude); School of Nursing, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, Brazil (Dr Padilha and Ms Petry); and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Dr Silva E Silva).

Correspondence: Amina Regina Silva, MN, School of Nursing, Queen's University, 99 University Ave, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada ( [email protected] ).

The authors acknowledge the support received from the School of Nursing at Queen's University in the development of this article.

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

Despite the availability of guidelines about the different types of review literature, the identification of the best approach is not always clear for nursing researchers. Therefore, in this article, we provide a comprehensive guide to be used by health care and nursing scholars while choosing among 4 popular types of reviews (narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic review), including a descriptive discussion, critical analysis, and decision map tree. Although some review methodologies are more rigorous, it would be inaccurate to say that one is preferable over the others. Instead, each methodology is adequate for a certain type of investigation, nursing methodology research, and research paradigm.

CURRENTLY, there is an information overload in the scientific literature, with millions of articles being published every year in peer-reviewed journals. 1 Although this abundance may signal advances in scientific inquiry, knowledge users in clinical practice and policy development are often overwhelmed by the volume of information available. Thus, different reviews are designed to follow structured and robust methodologies to select, collate, and synthesize existing findings to make evidence more meaningful and accessible. 2 , 3

The primary aims of conducting a review are to identify knowledge gaps, delineate an issue, and clarify concepts that are relevant to a particular question. 2 By bringing together a diversity of evidence for comparison, reviews are more reliable and powerful than single studies. 2 , 4 The various reviews are designed to respond to different research questions, and they can be distinguished by the rigor of methodological considerations. In addition, the philosophical stance that researchers embrace while conducting a review will influence the way they assemble, analyze, and interpret the data extracted from a heterogeneous body of literature to produce knowledge from that. 5 When there is an inappropriate fit between research question, review methodology, and/or philosophical stance, this can yield inconsistent results and conclusions; therefore, it is important that scholars are aware of the differences when deciding on the review methodology for their study. 6

There are several typologies of review, but the most commonly used literature reviews in nursing research are narrative, integrative, and systematic reviews. 7–9 In addition, another methodology that has been increasing in popularity and adding to the complexity of typologies of reviews is the scoping review. Currently, there is a lack of studies that assemble a comparative analysis of these 4 methodologies to provide a comprehensive guide for nursing and health care scholars to use when choosing among the different types of literature reviews. 9 , 10 Therefore, the purpose of this article is to contribute to existing knowledge by describing the defining characteristics of narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic reviews and provide a comparative analysis and decision tree for when each methodology could be appropriate. Finally, by detailing the main characteristics of these reviews, this article is to be used as a starting point for researchers when deciding which type of review could be appropriate for their topic.

Statements of Significance

What is known or assumed to be true about this topic?

Scientific data are published at a rapid rate; thus, literature reviews are increasing in popularity to collate and synthetize the literature and make it more accessible for health care professionals. In nursing research, the most commonly used review methodologies are narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic reviews. Despite the availability of guidelines about these reviews, the identification of the best approach is not always clear for nurse researchers, which can lead to inconsistencies in the choice of methodology and results. Also, there is a lack of studies approaching and analyzing to these 4 review methodologies together to provide guidance to researchers.

What this article adds:

In this article, we described 4 popular types of literature review in nursing research (narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic) and provided a discussion around their definition, indication, methodological characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. Although some review methodologies are more rigorous and transparent, each methodology is adequate for a certain type of investigation and research paradigm. Thus, we also provide examples, comparative analysis, and a decision map tree to offer a comprehensive guide to be used by nursing and health care scholars while choosing among the different types of literature reviews.

REVIEWS OF LITERATURE: DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS

In this article, different frameworks used in nursing and health care research are combined to examine, organize, synthesize, and present a discussion around the topic in a comprehensive way. Some examples of the frameworks used to guide our discussion are the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) standards for evidence synthesis, 3 Whittemore and Knafl, 11 Ganong, 12 Mendes et al, 13 Rozas and Klein, 14 and Rother, 15 among others.

Narrative reviews

Narrative reviews, also known as traditional reviews, can be defined as the generic approach used to collate, synthesize, and present an overview of a given subject. 15 This approach is the oldest type of review, and it has been widely used to give a synopsis of the evidence related to a certain topic in academic papers, thesis, and other works. 14 Narrative reviews are usually used as a source for research ideas and knowledge of practical and theoretical issues. This review can also be used to estimate the prospect of a study and provide specific information to identify research definitions, propositions, limitations, and hypotheses. 9 , 10 , 16

Methodological and philosophical underpinnings

There are no preestablished standards related to conducting a narrative review, nor specific strategies to be used to formulate the research question ( Table 1 ); the only requirement is having a topic of interest. 9 The methodological freedom allows the researcher to conduct the review in accordance with their individual preferences related to the review purpose and inclusion of studies. 14 However, narrative reviews do not usually present a methodology that allows the data to be reproduced or verified because of the lack of clarity related to the procedures in the search strategy and study selection. 14 , 17 The philosophical underpinnings can vary widely, but as narrative reviews aim to provide a generic overview of the topic rather than summarize evidence to guide practice, the use of a subjectivist view of the phenomenon is more common. 5 The subjectivist epistemology rejects the idea that a single, objective, and measurable truth exists to be discovered; instead, it defends the notion that there is an understanding about reality that is constructed on the basis of individuals' interactions with others and their surroundings. 5 Thus, the results of a narrative review are usually based upon an interactive process among researchers, phenomenon, and context.

Narrative reviews are commonly used as they provide breadth of literature coverage and flexibility to deal with evolving knowledge and are considered valuable depending on the purpose of the review and the resources available. 14 , 17 In addition, the narrative review continues to occupy a prominent place in the synthesis of knowledge and has a fundamental role in advancing knowledge as it provides a reasonably complete overview on a topic, allowing the reader to acquire and update knowledge in a short period of time. 14 , 15 , 18

Disadvantages

Traditional reviews are criticized as a less reliable approach because the methodology is subjective and carries a high risk of bias. 2 The absence of explicit and systematic criteria for searching, extracting, analyzing, and reporting the literature can result in significant methodological issues. 9 , 19 As the methods applied for searching process and study selection are not transparent and replicable, this can lead to bias in the researcher's interpretation and conclusions about the literature extracted, as they may not question the validity of the statements made. 2 , 9 , 20 In addition, authors may selectively include literature that supports their own argument and exclude evidence that is contradictory to their hypothesis. 10

Integrative reviews

Integrative reviews, also known as semi-systematic reviews, aim to collate the results of previous scientific studies with different methodological approaches and are widely used in evidence-based practice for nursing to determine the current knowledge on a specific theme. 11 Yet, a key differentiating aspect of integrative reviews is that they aim to integrate the results to develop a new knowledge instead of summarizing and presenting previous findings. 18 In addition, the integrative review is particularly useful when the review needs to be conducted using a systematic approach but within a shorter time frame (eg, when compared with systematic/scoping reviews) since its methodological approach involves fewer steps. 11 , 14 , 18

There are 3 main foci for integrative reviews: methodological (review and analysis of designs and methodologies), theoretical (review of theories on a particular topic), and empirical (review of empirical studies with analysis of results and relationships between variables). 11 To formulate the research question for integrative reviews, the PICo (Population, phenomena of Interest, Context) strategy is usually recommended ( Table 1 ). In addition, integrative reviews commonly use a subjectivist view of the phenomenon and an interactive process to provide an overview of a certain topic instead of offering an objective measurable result to guide practice. The process of developing an integrative review is well defined in the literature; however, different authors adopt different ways of subdividing that process, with minor modifications. 11–13

Overall, 6 distinct stages are mentioned that must be followed sequentially to guarantee the quality of evidence: (1) elaboration of the guiding question (using a clear strategy, eg, PICo); (2) survey or sampling of the literature (including all of the studies found or just a selection, and clearly stating and justifying the criteria for inclusion); (3) data collection (using a preestablished data extraction instrument); (4) critical analysis of the included studies (using an organized and predefined approach, which may or may not include a quality assessment); (5) discussion of results (interpretation and synthesis of the results); and (6) presentation of the integrative review (it must be clear and complete, integrating results and without omitting any related evidence). 11–13

Integrative reviews allow the researcher to collate and synthesize scientific literature using different methodological approaches and involve preestablished steps in the process of article searching and selection. The advantage of following a predetermined and well-described process is to ensure transparency and replicability. The model of the integrative review is usually defined as a consistent method for evidence synthesis as it has detailed methods for data collection and extraction. 11

Although integrative reviews have clear methods for data collection and extraction, aspects related to analysis and synthesis can be considered a weakness of this methodology as they are not well established and usually do not include a quality appraisal. 11 In addition, the complexity inherent in the combination of several methodologies can contribute to imprecision, prejudice, and a lack of rigor as the results extracted from scientific articles that use different methodologies can result in a large tangle of varied data. 2 , 11 , 21

Scoping reviews

Scoping reviews can be considered a novelty when compared with other types of reviews. 9 Alternative names for scoping reviews are “scoping studies” or “mapping reviews,” and this methodology allows the researcher to ask broader, yet precise, questions to map the literature around a certain topic. 22 Scoping reviews are indicated to clarify key concepts or knowledge gaps in the literature, provide a map of a certain topic, guide future research, and identify implications for practice and policy. 5 , 22 Scoping reviews are particularly useful for emerging fields, where the body of literature is relatively unknown or needs to be further and/or widely explored. 9

Scoping reviews originated in social sciences and can assemble evidence from different methodological approaches (eg, qualitative, quantitative, gray, and unpublished literature). 5 This review usually uses a subjectivist epistemology and is constructed on the basis of the interaction among researchers, phenomenon, and context of study to produce a subjective knowledge of the topic instead of a single objectivist answer. 5 Nonetheless, depending on the aim of the review and the results yielded, objective answers can be part of the results of a scoping review. 22 To formulate the research question, the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy is usually recommended, although the PICo strategy can also be used ( Table 1 ).

In health care research, the JBI framework proposed by Peters et al 23 identifies 9 steps to be followed in the conduct of scoping reviews: (1) define and align the objectives and research questions; (2) develop and align the inclusion criteria with the objectives and research questions; (3) describe the evidence behind the approach used for searching strategy, data selection and extraction, and demonstration of evidence; (4) search for evidence; (5) select evidence; (6) extract evidence; (7) analyze evidence; (8) present the results; and (9) summarize the evidence aligned with the purpose of the review, presenting conclusions, and reporting the implication of findings for future practice, policy, and research. 23

In addition, another important methodological consideration in the conduct of scoping reviews is the development of a protocol prior to the execution of the review. 23 An effective review protocol should give a clear introduction to the topic, key concepts, aims, research questions, inclusion criteria, types of sources, search strategy, information sources, study selection, data extraction, and data presentation, and it can/should be published (for instance, at JBI evidence synthesis or other peer-reviewed journals). 22 The protocol guides the review process and is a key aspect in the differentiation of reviews with a systematic approach, such as scoping and systematic reviews, from other less rigorous methodologies, such as narrative and integrative reviews. 24 To avoid the conduct of duplicate reviews, the title page and review should also be registered (eg, at JBI, Open Science Framework, or Figshare).

In addition, at least 2 reviewers are required to minimize bias in the data selection and extraction for scoping reviews. 3 , 25 The final report of a scoping review should include any deviation from the protocol and, although scoping reviews are not aimed at reporting implications for practice, this can be included if there are substantial findings. 22 Scoping reviews usually do not include a quality appraisal but if relevant to the topic of interest, this step can be justified and included. Finally, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) should be used to help guide and report scoping review processes. 26 , 27

The scoping review is a rigorous and systematic methodology that promotes a broad perspective on a given topic and allows the researcher to include a wide range of literature (eg, opinion papers, articles from peer-reviewed journals, and gray literature). 5 , 9 , 22 This methodology is iterative instead of linear, as scholars need to be engaged and reflect on each step of the process and, if necessary, repeat the steps to ensure that the literature is covered in a comprehensive way. 16

Scoping reviews can be time-consuming due to the wide range of literature and the broader approach involved. This methodology does not usually include a quality appraisal of the literature, which can result in potential bias in the final report and concluding statements. 9 , 10 In addition, scoping reviews have an exploratory nature and are not aimed at producing a summary finding; consequently, they usually do not directly promote clinical practice changes or guidance, which can limit the applicability of their results. 9 , 10

Systematic reviews

Systematic reviews aim to provide a comprehensive and unbiased review on a given topic using a systematic, rigorous, and transparent methodology to find “all” literature relevant to the purpose of the review by means of a precise research question and an international perspective. 28 Systematic reviews involve a narrow and well-established topic of interest and are particularly effective in confirming or refuting the evidence behind a given practice, establishing the quality of practice or evidence, and addressing any level of uncertainty that may occur around a certain topic. 3 , 4 , 9

Systematic reviews usually use an objectivist view of the phenomena as they are constantly attempting to find an objective truth and use it to guide practice. 5 , 29 , 30 The objectivist epistemology denies knowledge as a product that interacts or is influenced by social context; instead, it defends the idea that knowledge is an objective truth to be discovered. 31 Therefore, findings of systematic reviews aim to synthesize many studies together in a linear, comprehensive, and unbiased way in order to produce a finding summary. 5 , 28

According to JBI, there are 8 different types of systematic reviews: (1) qualitative evidence; (2) effectiveness; (3) text and opinion; (4) prevalence and incidence; (5) economic evidence; (6) etiology and risk; (7) mixed methods; and (8) diagnostic test accuracy. 19 , 28 Each of these review types involves different strategies to formulate the research question ( Table 1 ). Moreover, although there are different types of systematic reviews, the systematic review process generally includes 8 steps: (1) formulate a research question; (2) define inclusion criteria; (3) locate studies through an extensive search; (4) select studies for inclusion; (5) assess the quality of studies; (6) extract the data; (7) analyze and synthesize the data; and (8) present, interpret, and report the results using an evaluation of the certainty evidence (eg, GRADE). 3 , 28

In addition, there are some terms used in the context of systematic reviews, such as “meta-analysis” and “meta-aggregation,” that can cause a certain level of confusion among scholars. 28 Meta-analysis refers to the use of a rigorous, quantitative, statistical synthesis that may or may not be included in a systematic review, depending on the review purpose and whether the data allow this type of statistical approach. 32 Meta-aggregation (or meta-synthesis) also may or may not be included in a systematic review and refers to the use of a rigorous analysis of qualitative studies to discover the essential elements and translate the primary results into a final product, resulting in (re)conceptualizations of the original conclusions. 3 , 33

Another type of systematic review approach is the umbrella review. Also known as the review of reviews, this methodology uses a systematic analysis approach to provide a comprehensive appraisal of results from other reviews. An umbrella review is particularly indicated for areas of research where there is a large body of literature and high-quality reviews, as the researcher can compare and contrast results from different systematic studies and address quality or the persistence of any uncertainty or variation of practice. 34 , 35

A recommended standard report that can be used to help guide systematic review processes is the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). 27 In addition, the conduct of systematic reviews requires a protocol (similar to that required for scoping reviews) and at least 2 reviewers to screen and select the studies, extract and analyze the data, perform an appraisal, and summarize the results. 9

Systematic reviews strive to uncover all relevant literature on the topic to provide a trustworthy overview of the specific topic of interest and are therefore ranked as the highest level of evidence. 3 , 4 , 9 This review involves a critical appraisal of the literature using predetermined tools (eg, CAPS, JBI, MMAT), which help endorse the quality of the evidence extracted. In addition, systematic reviews aim to provide a finding summary and orientation for practice, which can confirm or refute the evidence behind a given practice and give clear orientation for health care providers. 3 , 4 , 9

The narrow and objectivist approach of systematic reviews can result in limited overviews of the given topic and the loss of information about important outcomes. 36 In addition, systematic reviews usually require a substantial period of time and high costs, and, if the methodology is not rigorously followed according to the preestablished criteria of the study and protocol, the data may be collated incorrectly.

REVIEWS OF THE LITERATURE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The different approaches to conduct reviews of the literature can cause confusion among researchers. 9 But related to methodological aspects, there are some defining characteristics that can differentiate the types of reviews. To help clarify and address these main methodological differences, the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework has been used. 10 The SALSA framework was created in a previous study 10 to identify the characteristics of the main phases involved in each review type. These main phases are (1) the searching process, (2) quality appraisal of the evidence, (3) synthesis of the evidence, and (4) the analysis process. The use of the SALSA framework in this article will help scholars easily recognize the similarities of and differences among the steps of each review methodology; these can be found in Table 2 . 10 Furthermore, because of some similarities in methods, common confusion among health scholars is usually related to the differentiation between narrative and integrative reviews, integrative and scoping reviews, and scoping and systematic reviews; therefore, a comparative analysis that can help clarify these differentiations is presented in the following text. 7–10

Narrative versus integrative reviews

Narrative and integrative reviews usually use a subjectivist view of the phenomenon in order to provide an overview of the topic rather than summarize evidence to guide practice. However, the methodology of both types of reviews can be easily differentiated, as narrative reviews do not use an organized and transparent search method as do integrative reviews. In addition, narrative reviews collate studies within specific topics of interest to provide an overview while integrative reviews collate and analyze the results of studies on the same topic to trace an interpretation of its meaning and importance, providing an integrated new knowledge as a result.

Integrative versus scoping reviews

Both of these review types have similar research indications, which may include providing an overview of the literature and even signaling potential gaps. As well, they share similar research paradigms that include a subjectivist view of the phenomenon. Integrative and scoping reviews include a systematic and organized method of searching and extracting research results; yet, the scoping review has a more rigorous process of search strategy development and is guided by a preestablished protocol. Moreover, integrative reviews include only published scientific material while scoping reviews accept published literature and nonscientific and unpublished reports. Finally, scoping reviews group the data to present the results but do not integrate and synthesize the data to produce a new knowledge as do integrative reviews.

Scoping versus systematic reviews

Authors who conduct scoping reviews do not necessarily perform a critical appraisal of the included studies, nor do they provide a summary finding, whereas both are required for systematic reviews. 3 In addition, scoping reviews ask broader questions and are more useful for topics where the literature needs to be uncovered to provide a map, clarify concepts or knowledge gaps, or even guide future researchers. 3 , 9 , 22 In contrast, systematic reviews ask more precise and specific questions, looking to uncover “all” literature on a certain topic using an international perspective and providing a summary of findings focused on an objective truth. 9 , 22 , 28 Therefore, one could say that scoping reviews provide a macroscopic lens through a subjectivist epistemology on a given topic while systematic reviews provide a microscopic lens with an objectivist epistemology of the topic. 3 , 5

The decision tree

To help authors decide the most appropriate review type according to the purpose of the study, a fundamental decision tree has been developed. The decision tree is presented in the Figure and should be combined with other considerations (eg, paradigm of research, resources available, and desired outcomes) to facilitate the choice of the appropriate methodology of review.

Reviews of literature are essential to summarize evidence, provide a more comprehensive and synthesized literature for health care professionals, and facilitate the interpretation of research used in clinical practice. Even with the existence of guidelines for the different types of reviews, deciding the best approach is not straightforward. Although some methodologies are more rigorous and transparent, it would be inaccurate to say that one methodology is preferable over the others. Instead, each methodology of review is appropriate for a certain type of investigation and research paradigm. Therefore, in choosing the best option among narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic reviews, researchers should consider the different types of review against the purpose of their study and the resources available.

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• PubMed | CrossRef |
• View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef |
• View Full Text | PubMed |

nursing; nursing methodology research; review literature; systematic review

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Satisfaction outcomes in women who “choose to go flat” after mastectomy: an..., integrity of databases for literature searches in nursing: avoiding predatory..., an analysis and evaluation of the theory of planned behavior using fawcett and..., time to revisit heart failure self-care: a concept analysis, caring in the context of risk: moving beyond duty.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Nursing Research Review of Literature

Jan 06, 2020

280 likes | 1.12k Views

Nursing Research Review of Literature. Professor Dr. Ali K. Al- Juboori. Review of Literature: Major Goal. To develop a strong knowledge base to carry-out research and other educational and clinical practice activities. Objectives.

Share Presentation

• completing review
• research design
• literature review concentrate
• literature review fit purpose

Presentation Transcript

Nursing ResearchReview of Literature Professor Dr. Ali K. Al-Juboori

Review of Literature: Major Goal • To develop a strong knowledge base to carry-out research and other educational and clinical practice activities

Objectives • (1) To determine what is known & unknown about a problem, subject or concept • (2) To determine gaps, consistencies and inconsistencies • (3)To answer unanswered questions • (4)To identify conceptual frameworks used to examine problems

(5) To generate useful research ?’s & hypotheses of interest to nursing • (6) Todetermines appropriate research design, methodology, & analysis based on earlier reports • (7) To determine if there is a need for replication of study • (8) To synthesize strengths & weaknesses of earlier reports in a concise manner

literature review concentrate on the following: • 1.When the problem/ concept was identified • 2.When was it 1st investigated • 3.How was it previously investigated • 4.By whom was it investigated (individual, multi-site, WHO etc) • 5.Gaps & inconsistencies identified (provides directions for future research)

Steps For Reviewing The Literature: • (1) Determine concept/ issue/ topic/ problem of interest • (2) Identify key words, variables, and terms • (3) Conduct print (recent reviews) & computer searches of abstracts (e.g., PUBMED, MEDLINE) • (4) Print-out key abstracts & organize sources for retrieval للمراجعة (e.g., organize by journal name, year etc) • (5) get relevant articles (current reviews as a starting point)

Steps For Reviewing The Literature: • (6) Select articles & weed-out all irrelevant articles • (7) Copy all relevant, classical & ground-breaking articles (who’s quoting نقل عن who?) • (8) Review articles systematically (abstract, background, researches, methods, results, discussion) • (9) Synthesize critical summaries (e.g., chronologically زمنيا, according to type etc) • (10) Summarize & systematically critique each source

Critiquing Criteria for Review of Literature: after completing review • (1) Does literature review fit purpose(s) of the current proposed study ? • (2) Are all relevant concepts & variables included in the review? • (3) Do summaries reflect essential components of the study (e.g., study design, results, instruments, validity, reliability issues, etc) • (4) Does critique include strengths, weaknesses, limitations with design, etc? • (5) What are gaps or inconsistencies?

(6) Are primary & current sources used mostly?(e.g., chronologically زمنيا ? • (7)How does the review reflect critical thinking?

Questions??

• More by User

Review of Literature

Review of Literature. (Research Paper). Review of Literature. Must be 3-5 pages in length (ONLY 12 font/ double-spaced) and contain 8-12 sources/ references.

491 views • 7 slides

Nursing Literature Review

Nursing Literature Review. Spring 2007 Helen Hough, BA, BS, M.L.S. Skilled professionals. Integrate information from a variety of sources Nursing &amp; healthcare science, social sciences, current events behavior, and attitudes to participate as full partners in the nation’s health.

1.2k views • 34 slides

Literature Review and Research Problems

Literature Review and Research Problems. 9810009m Lisa 9810010m Angela. Outline. Major Reasons for Doing Literature Reviews The Search Process (Step 1 ~ 9 ) Critical Analysis of Literature Reviews Publication Bias Variable Quality in the Primary Research Studies

638 views • 39 slides

Research &amp; Literature Review

Research &amp; Literature Review. Prepared by: Kemal Akkaya &amp; Nezih Pala Presented by: Ahmed Ibrahim ([email protected]) Electrical &amp; Computer Engineering Florida International University. Overview of the Research Process. Topic 1. 2.

1.16k views • 21 slides

LITERATURE REVIEW IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH

LITERATURE REVIEW IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH. BEING A WORKSHOP PRESENTATION FOR CAPACITY BUILDING T O PG STUDENTS By Dr. Muhammad I. Bello Department of Geography Faculty of Social Sciences UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI March 28 th , 2019. PURPOSEFUL READING OR PURPOSEFUL WASTING TIME.

479 views • 25 slides

Nursing Leadership: Literature Review

Nursing Leadership: Literature Review. Summer 2008 Helen Hough, BA, BS, M.L.S. [email protected]. Nursing administrators. Integrate nursing science, business principles, organizational behavior, and resource management to participate as full partners

426 views • 17 slides

Research Problem and Literature Review

Research Problem and Literature Review. Outline. Learn how to define a research problem in CS field. Learn how to conduct a L iterature Review. How to Find Research Problems.

577 views • 46 slides

Review of literature

Review of literature. ENG 102 – 3/17/2014. purpose. Review of literature is a genre that summarizes and evaluates sources Since much of this was addressed in your bibliographies, we will be incorporating a much shorter version in your papers. objectives. Condense Summarize Group

290 views • 10 slides

Review of Literature . 9 th -11 th grade. 9 th grade literature. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Other: American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang The Pearl by John Steinbeck . Of Mice and Men. Author: John Steinbeck

570 views • 43 slides

A Critical review of the research literature

A Critical review of the research literature. Qualitative research design. Evidence based practice. Not doing research, using research Critical thinking - utilising up to date best evidence to inform us Links with clinical reasoning and reflective practice

453 views • 9 slides

Research Problem and Literature Review . Outline . Learn how to define a research problem in CS field. Learn how to conduct a L iterature Review. How to Find Research Problems.

598 views • 46 slides

Review of Literature. 9 th -11 th grade. 9 th grade literature. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Other: American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang The Pearl by John Steinbeck. Of Mice and Men. Author: John Steinbeck

565 views • 43 slides

A Means to an End: Weight Training and Muscle Dysmorphia. Introduction. Review of Literature.

131 views • 1 slides

Purpose of a Literature Review Potential Research Sources Writing a Literature Review

Purpose of a Literature Review Potential Research Sources Writing a Literature Review. Purpose of a Literature Review. A literature is a body of related work on a topic.

415 views • 7 slides

Review of Literature. The second chapter of a research study is the Review of Literature The purpose of the review of literature is to make the readers aware of the extent of the research problem under investigation This is not a book report on each lit review item obtained.

313 views • 7 slides

Review of Literature. Islamic University Nursing College. Review of Literature. A literature review involves the systematic identification, location, search, and summary of written materials that contain information on a research problem. Purposes of A literature Review

562 views • 20 slides

http://www.litreview.net/ Stop searching for topics on your literature review, because we've gathered the best ones for you, check out our website!

92 views • 2 slides

Review of literature. A literature review involves the systematic identification, location, scrutiny, and summary of written materials that contain information on a research problem. Purposes of A literature Review Source of research ideas.

550 views • 17 slides

Research Proposal Review of the Literature

Research Proposal Review of the Literature.

198 views • 7 slides

Review of Literature. Announcement: Today’s class location has been rescheduled to TEC 112 Next Week: Bring four questions (15 copies) to share with your classmates. Two definitional questions and two short answer. The Value of a Literature Review.

151 views • 10 slides