sections of a systematic literature review

Turney, S. (2022, December 07). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved March 13, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter.

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess.

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write.

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an introduction , a body and a conclusion .

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Example of literature review outline structure

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you will and won’t be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies).

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

Webinar - how to write a literature review

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way.

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking) three options for organising your literature review.

The body section of your literature review is the where you'll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

Adopting the chronological structure allows you to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time.

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature, you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

The thematic structure allows you to organise your literature by theme or category – e.g. by independent variables.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question how existing research has been conducted, as opposed to what the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

The methodological structure allows you to organise your chapter by the analysis method used - e.g. qual, quant or mixed.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a theoretical framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

In the conclusion section, you’ll need to present the key findings of your literature review and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you'll need to make it clear what your study will add to the literature.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our research writing mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project.

You Might Also Like:

How To Read Journal Articles Quickly & Efficiently For Your Literature Review

22 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

Print Friendly

Writing An Introduction Of A Systematic Review Of Literature – A Quick Reference Table

Are Languages Still A Major Barrier To Global Science

English Language As A Barrier To Publish In High Impact Factor Journals – Quick Tips To Overcome

Systematic reviews are performed for synthesizing the evidence of multiple scientific investigations to answer a specific research question in a manner that is reproducible and transparent while seeking to include all published evidence on the topic followed evaluating the quality of this evidence. A Systematic review remains among the best forms of evidence and reduces the bias inherent in other methods. In the disciplines of public policy health and health sciences, systematic reviews have become the main methodology. Previously, some have provided that structure research ought to embrace the systematic review, but limited guidance is available. This section presented an overview of the various steps involved in performing a systematic review. This information should provide proper guidance for those who are conducting a systematic literature review (Davis, 2019 ).

Key characteristics of the systematic review

Identification of a research question, inclusion & exclusion criteria.

Different types of the systematic review

The systematic review mainly classified into three types, including (1) meta-analysis, (2) quantitative analysis and (3) qualitative analysis.

Meta-analysis: A meta-analysis utilizes statistical methods to incorporate appraisals of impact from relevant studies that are independent yet comparable and outline them.

Quantitative: To combine the results of 2 or more studies by using statistical analysis is called quantitative analysis.

Qualitative: The qualitative analysis generally defined as the results of the relevant studies are summarized but not combined statistically.

Steps to be followed before drafting a systematic review

The identification of the research question is significant before undertaking a systematic review of literature . For instance, for what reason is this survey essential? What question should be replying?. There are a variety of frameworks/tools available for supporting this process such as SPIDER, PICOS/PICO, SPICE and PEO criteria. These kinds of frameworks help to break down the question into relevant subcomponents and map them to concepts, to derive a formalized search criterion. This step is essential for finding literature relevant to the subject (Jahan et al., 2016 ).

It is important to determine the eligibility criteria before starting the systematic review, including methods, study design, set criteria for the topic and the methodological quality of studies.

Guidelines for systematic review

Researchers widely follow the PRISMA guidelines in writing a systematic review . The PRISMA guidelines guide researchers on how to write a systematic review and that comprises a flow diagram and a 27-item checklist. A protocol of PRISMA guidelines including (1) Databases to be searched and additional sources (2) Keywords to be used in the search strategy (3) Limits applied to the search (4) Limits enforced to the search (5) Screening process (6) Data to be extracted and (7) Summary of data to be reported.

Screening of the articles

Some vital web source for the article screening including PubMed (Biomedical and life sciences topic), Medline (Biomedical information and life sciences), Embase (Biomedical information), Web of Science (Multidiscipline science), Biosis (Life sciences and biomedical topics), PsycINFO (Behaviour and mental health), SCOPUS (Life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health science), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane Library (Database of systematic reviews ), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and OpenGrey (Grey literature).

Title and abstract screening: Initially, the title and abstract of the articles should be screened whether the title and abstract are relevant to the present research.

Full-text review: The remaining articles screened in a way mentioned above and the relevant sections are in their entire texts.

Data extraction: The essential data of the articles are extracted in a data extract sheet in a uniform and structured manner. The extraction sheets may differ based on the study’s purpose. Generally, the data extraction sheet containing the title of the article, study design, region, sample size, interventions and outcomes (Mueller et al., 2017 ).

Data analysis

The screened studies results can be analyzed by separating them based on the subthemes; themes often referred to as meta-synthesis (Siddaway et al., 2019 ).

The systematic review should be in the following structure

The abstract should contain a brief background, the aim of the study, a summary of the methodology, an overview of the results, conclusion and keywords.

Introduction

The chapter contains a brief background of the present study, followed by an overview of the aim and objectives of the research undertaken.

The methodology should be containing a full justification and explanation for the managing and searching steps. Specifically, the justification includes a thorough explanation about inclusion/exclusion criteria, search string, searching strategy, limitations, how studies were screened, data extraction protocol, method of quality assessment and statistical analysis .

The quantitative explanation and evidence must be given to the process of study exclusion/inclusion and summarized in a specific flow diagram. A characteristic of the study summary should be obtained, the sum of all studies, age range, mean/median and other characteristics.

To discuss the present study with the light of relevant research done in other studies. The main component of the discussion chapter should be focused on discussing and identifying the limitations of the studies included in the review.

The conclusion should be containing the summary of different aspects of the present study, and the results generated as well as the future scope of research and the findings derived from the present study.

Performing a systematic review of literature is quite complicated and time-consuming process which takes between 6 and 18 months on average depends on the study design. The guidelines mentioned above provide a good outline for conducting a systematic review of the literature. This framework especially is essential for early career researchers and medical students to enhance their writing knowledge on the systematic review of the literature.

Quick reference Table

Key points:

pubrica-academy

Which is appropriate to use fixed-effect or random effect statistical model while conducting meta-analyses?

PUB-Effective Strategies to Monitor Clinical Risks Using Biostatistics

Effective strategies to monitor clinical risks using biostatistics

Metasem: An R Package For Meta-Analysis Using Structural Equation Modelling

Comments are closed.

Select Your Services Medical Writing Services Regulatory Science Writing Editing & Translation Medical & Scientific Editing Writing in Clinical Research (CRO) Clinical (or Medical) Auditing Medical Animations Solutions Medical Translation Scientific & Academic Publishing Manuscript Artwork Preparation Impact Factor Journal Publication Scientific Research & Analytics Healthcare Data Science Projects Bio-Statistical & Meta Data Analytics Scientific Communication Medical Communication Services

Research and Writing Guides

Writing a paper? Don't get lost.

How to write a systematic literature review

What is a systematic literature review?

A systematic literature review is a summary, analysis, and evaluation of all the existing research on a well-formulated and specific question. Put simply, it’s a study of studies.

Where are systematic literature reviews used?

Systematic literature reviews can be utilized in various contexts, but they’re often relied on in clinical or healthcare settings.

Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their field, and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further research in an area. They can even be used as the starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines.

What types of systematic literature review are there?

A classic systematic literature review can take different approaches:

Writing a systematic literature review can feel like an overwhelming undertaking. After all, they can often take 6 to 18 months to complete. But, as with any documentation, we can break them down into the sections that should be included. Below we’ve prepared a step-by-step guide on how to write a systematic literature review.

1. Decide on your team

When carrying out a systematic literature review, you should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.

You may also need to team up with a librarian to help with the search, literature screeners, a statistician to analyze the data, and the relevant subject experts.

2. Formulate your question

Define your answerable question. Then ask yourself, “has someone written a systematic literature review on my question already?” If so, yours may not be needed. A librarian can help you answer this.

You should formulate a ‘Well-Built Clinical Question’ – this is the process of generating a good search question. To do this, run through PICO:

Now you need a detailed strategy for how you’re going to search for and evaluate the studies relating to your question.

The protocol for your systematic literature review should include:

For a full guide on how to systematically develop your protocol, take a look at the PRISMA checklist . PRISMA has been designed primarily to improve the reporting of systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses.

4. Search for the literature

When writing a systematic literature review, your goal is to find all of the relevant studies relating to your question, so you need to search thoroughly .

This is where your librarian will come in handy again. They should be able to help you formulate a detailed search strategy, and point you to all of the best databases for your topic.

The places to consider in your search are electronic scientific databases (the most popular are PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase), controlled clinical trial registers, non-English literature, raw data from published trials, references listed in primary sources, and unpublished sources known to experts in the field.

But don’t miss out on ‘grey literature’ sources – those sources outside of the usual academic publishing environment. They include non-peer-reviewed journals, pharmaceutical industry files, conference proceedings, pharmaceutical company websites, and internal reports. Grey literature sources are more likely to contain negative conclusions, so you’ll improve the reliability of your findings by including them.

You should document details such as:

This should be performed by your two reviewers, using the criteria documented in your research protocol. The screening is done in two phases:

Make sure reviewers keep a log of which studies they exclude, with reasons why.

6. Assess the quality of the studies

Your reviewers should evaluate the methodological quality of your chosen full-text articles. Make an assessment checklist that closely aligns with your research protocol, including a consistent scoring system, calculations of the quality of each study, and sensitivity analysis.

The kinds of questions you'll come up with are:

Every step of the data extraction must be documented for transparency and replicability. Create a data extraction form and set your reviewers to work extracting data from the qualified studies.

Here’s a free detailed template for recording data extraction, from Dalhousie University, Canada. It should be adapted to your specific question.

8. Analyze the results

Establish a standard measure of outcome which can be applied to each study on the basis of its effect size.

Measures of outcome for studies with:

Design a table and populate it with your data results. Draw this out into a forest plot , which provides a simple visual representation of variation between the studies. Then analyze the data for issues. These can include heterogeneity, which is when studies’ lines within the forest plot don’t overlap with any other studies.

Again, record any excluded studies here for reference.

9. Interpret and present the results

Consider different factors when interpreting your results. These include limitations, strength of evidence, biases, applicability, economic effects, and implications for future practice or research.

Apply appropriate grading of your evidence and consider the strength of your recommendations.

It’s best to formulate a detailed plan for how you’ll present your systematic review results – take a look at these guidelines from the Cochrane Institute.

Registering your systematic literature review

Before writing your systematic literature review, you can register it with OSF for additional guidance along the way.

Or, maybe you'd prefer to register your completed work with PROSPERO or TUScholarShare .

Frequently Asked Questions about writing a systematic literature review

Systematic literature reviews are often found in clinical or healthcare settings. Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their field and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further research in an area.

The first stage in carrying out a systematic literature review is to put together your team. You should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.

Your systematic review should include the following details:

A literature review simply provides a summary of the literature available on a topic. A systematic review, on the other hand, is more than just a summary. It also includes an analysis and evaluation of existing research. Put simply, it's a study of studies.

The final stage of conducting a systematic literature review is interpreting and presenting the results. It’s best to formulate a detailed plan for how you’ll present your systematic review results, guidelines can be found for example from the Cochrane institute .

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

Have you created a personal profile? sign in or create a profile so that you can create alerts, save clips, playlists and searches.

Welcome to Systematic Review

Video type: tutorial.

Download PDF opens in new window

(2020). Welcome to systematic review [Video]. Sage Research Methods. https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781529627183

"Welcome to Systematic Review." In Sage Video . : Muhammad Shakil Ahmad, 2020. Video, 00:10:01. https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781529627183.

, 2020. Welcome to Systematic Review , Sage Video. [Streaming Video] London: Sage Publications Ltd. Available at: <https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781529627183 & gt; [Accessed 16 Mar 2023].

Welcome to Systematic Review . Online video clip. SAGE Video. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 17 Nov 2022. doi: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781529627183. 16 Mar 2023.

Welcome to Systematic Review [Streaming video]. 2020. doi:10.4135/9781529627183. Accessed 03/16/2023

Please log in from an authenticated institution or log into your member profile to access the email feature.

Add this content to your learning management system or webpage by copying the code below into the HTML editor on the page. Look for the words HTML or </>. Learn More about Embedding Video icon link (opens in new window)

Sample View:

This is an image of a Sage Research Methods video on a Learning Management System

Overview of the systematic literature reviews course with a section-by-section breakdown of topics covered.

Chapter 1: Introduction to Systematic Literature Reviews

Chapter 2: Section-By-Section Breakdown of the Systematic Literature Review Course

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other SAGE platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

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.

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Methodology of a systematic review

Affiliations.

Context: The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid.

Acquisition of evidence: The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA).

Synthesis of the evidence: Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence.

Conclusions: A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Metaanálisis; Methodology; Metodología; Revisión sistemática; Systematic review.

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations

Research Materials

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Systematic Literature Reviews

The MDR forces manufacturers to set up processes for continuous literature reviews and reevaluation of the available clinical data. In May 2021, the European Medical Device Directive (93/42/EEC) was replaced with the Medical Device Regulation (MDR, 2017/745). Unlike MDD, the MDR considers clinical evaluation to take place during the entire lifecycle of medical devices, meaning clinical data must be updated continuously. Seeing as clinical data is usually sourced from clinical investigations, post-market surveillance, and literature reviews.

Literature reviews are fundamental to any scientific discipline, social sciences, medicine, or linguistics. Over the past 100 years, scientific documentation and sharing of new research have evolved into a labyrinthine field of publication databases, each housing thousands of articles, journals, research manuscripts, and conference summaries and abstracts. Yet, with all this knowledge at the tip of our fingers, how do we gather and select information for analyzing scientific queries, and how do we interpret the collected literature about our topic?

What is a Literature review?

Literature reviews are an analytical approach to investigating a specific topic or research question. For the scientist, they help gain insight into current knowledge, relevant theories and methods, and any gaps or missing exploration opportunities in the existing research. For the reader, they should help situate the research within the current body of knowledge and provide context to the exploration of the chosen research subject. A literature review comprises four steps; investigation of published literature on the chosen topic; summarizing the chosen literature and synthesizing its relevance to the chosen topic; analyzing and critically evaluating the selected literature; and; presenting the literature in a structured way. Literature reviews are performed for various scientific works, such as theses, dissertations, journal articles, books, conference manuscripts, scientific journalism, and patient brochures and instructions for use. Most importantly, literature reviews are vital in clinical evaluations of drugs and medical devices. The latter is the focus of this article. In medical devices and clinical evaluations, literature reviews aim to provide the reader with context and background for the chosen treatment or disease or act as a general overview of a topic. The systematic literature review is a type of literature review that aims to answer a specific clinical question. While literature reviews can take a few weeks to a few months by a single author, conducting a systematic review can take a team of up to five authors a year or more.

History of the systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses

The systematic literature review asks a specific clinical question about the effectiveness of an intervention or treatment. It seeks to answer it by critically summarizing and analyzing the current evidence for that intervention. It is considered the highest form of evidence-gathering for medical science. The systematic review process can be further elevated by using meta-analysis methods on data in the chosen literature, resulting in a completely objective evaluation of the research findings.

James Lind , a Scottish doctor preoccupied with helping sailors in the royal navy avoid scurvy, was the author of the first-ever systematic literature review, in which he published a paper providing a clear and unbiased review of the existing evidence on scurvy. Although his article A treatise of the scurvy , published in 1753, was practically ignored, he started science on a path of systematic literature review that is still underway.

Archie Cochrane

In 1972, archie cochrane wrote:.

“ It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organized a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomized controlled trials .”

Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smith

Research synthesis and analysis emerged formally in 1975 when Gene Glass and Mary Lee Smith coined the term meta-analysis in their research paper Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies 1. During the rise of evidence-based medicine in the late 1970s and early 1980s, systematic research analysis and synthesis were applied to medicine and health. For example, researchers in Oxford began a program of systematic literature reviews on the effectiveness of health interventions, thus paving the way for evidence-based medicine and committing to the principles of accumulative scientific knowledge.

Characteristics of a Systematic Literature Review protocols

Systematic reviews are frequently used in evidence-based healthcare, public health interventions, and evidence-based policy and practice. They are designed to provide a comprehensive and complete summary of the current literature on a specific topic and to minimize bias in the analysis and interpretation of the collected research.

Many systematic literature reviews include meta-analysis, which applies statistical analysis to the available research. In contrast, others focus on the qualitative synthesis of data or mixed-method reviews that have both.

The systematic literature review should display the following characteristics:

Clearly defined and specific research questions and objectives

What does PRISMA stand for?

The PRISMA framework (Preferred Rating for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was developed to ensure a standardized way of conducting a systematic review to ensure transparency and completeness. The framework is now required by more than 170 medical journals worldwide. In addition, it has been extended to support specific review types or aspects of the review process, for example, PRISMA-P for review protocols and PRISMA-ScR for scoping review.

What are the other tools used for Systematic Literature Review?

How to conduct systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses?

How to conduct a systematic literature review

Defining your study objective/research question

The definition of the research question and/or study objectives is the most important part of the systematic review. Without a clearly defined research question and quantifiable endpoints, the rest of the review can lack focus and accuracy, ultimately ending up with conclusions and weak and unfocused literature interpretations. Care should be taken to avoid research questions that are too wide or too narrow. For medical interventions and treatments, the PICO method is frequently used. The PICO framework helps develop search strategies focused on the patient, population, or problem (P); intervention (I); comparison, control, or comparator (C); and; outcome (O).

Lietrature Search Protocol

A clearly defined set of criteria must be set up to include or exclude research on the topic, and these criteria are included in the search protocol. The search protocol is your master document that guarantees transparency, repeatability, and audibility for your review. One of the most critical aspects of the systematic review is that it can be objectively evaluated for the accuracy of methods and search criteria, and the search protocol ensures that. The search protocol should be carefully planned according to the research question and explicitly documented before the review starts. It supports the review team, ensuring consistency and integrity in all the carried searches. Once the review is complete, you should be able to identify every paper you read and every piece of information you searched, critiqued, and defined. While doing all this, it is important to include everything – from the terms you used to search, strategies incorporated, and limitations you encountered along the way.

Literature Search Databases

Literature for clinical evaluations can be found in scientific journals, academic dissertations, books, bibliographic databases, and online databases. Most systematic reviews are based on 5-7 online publication sites, such as PubMed , Cochrane , and Embase (see below for more information), where publications are typically journal articles or conference abstracts. Literature can also be found in “gray” sources, such as dissertations, theses, fact sheets, government reports, and pre-prints of articles. Every source should be included, analyzed, synthesized, and acknowledged in a comprehensive literature review. It is also important to review multiple sources to avoid publication bias in the data interpretation. It is important to apply appropriate use of terminology when searching for literature. Unless a commonly accepted group of terminologies are used, a gap remains in data encryption – be it manual or automated. It is easy to find databases and thesauri highlighting common terminologies used in various fields. Furthermore, alternative spellings and similar conceptual roots should also be considered to ensure all relevant publications are included and evaluated. Boolean expressions can widen, focus, and improve search scope in almost all databases and should also be considered.

Data analysis and synthesis

Once you’ve done your searches, the eligibility criteria from your search protocol come into effect, and the methodological quality of your evaluation criteria is tested. Your data extraction from the literature should be performed precisely as established in the search protocol. In addition, it must be recorded so that it can be replicated faithfully by others in the future.

After selecting your data and literature, you are ready to start analyzing it. The more data is included in your review literature, the better and more unbiased your results will be. If appropriate and established in your search protocol, you can use meta-analysis (i.e., analyzing data from multiple sources through statistical methods) to analyze your data or other analytical tools, such as qualitative meta-synthesis, which is the synthesis of data from qualitative studies.

Data presentation

1.Abstract, 2. Intruduction, 3. Methods used, 4. Results, 5. Discussion, 6. Conclusion

These sections are followed by acknowledgments, references, and tables and figures (the latter may also be included in the general text, depending on the journal).

Cochrane is the largest, and arguably one of the most important, international organizations in medicine and health today. Cochrane consists of more than 37,000 specialists in healthcare fields who systematically review randomized trials. Cochrane reviews are published in the Cochrane Library , in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews section , and are a valuable resource for anyone looking to conduct a systematic literature review.

PubMed is a free publication resource, housing more than 32 million citations and abstracts of biomedical literature. Although PubMed does not provide full-text citations, they link their citations to the full text, often through the publisher’s website. The largest component of Pubmed is MEDLINE , which consists most significant actions from biomedical publications through the National Library of Medicine .

Embase is another comprehensive medical literature database, similar to Pubmed, where you can search for full-text content or abstracts. Embase is focused on supporting pharmacovigilance and regulatory authorities and includes biomedical and pharmacological publications from 1947.

PubMed and Embase are powerful search engines for retrieving biomedical and life science literature. However, both sites require a thorough knowledge of the optimization of their search engines, the use of BOOLEAN operators, and the indexation systems of Medical Subject Headings, MeSH .

Systematic literature reviews and the EU MDR

In May 2021, the European Medical Device Directive (93/42/EEC) was replaced with the Medical Device Regulation (MDR, 2017/745). Unlike MDD, the MDR considers clinical evaluation to take place during the entire lifecycle of medical devices, meaning clinical data must be updated continuously. Seeing as clinical data is usually sourced from clinical investigations, post-market surveillance, and literature reviews, the MDR forces manufacturers to set up processes for continuous literature reviews and reevaluation of the available clinical data. Several sections of the MDR propose using literature to support and source clinical data, such as for demonstrating equivalence, post-market clinical follow-up, clinical investigation plans, and investigators’ brochures. As such, systematic literature reviews are an invaluable part of sourcing clinical data for each clinical section in the MDR.

1) Smith, Mary & Glass, Gene. (1977). Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy Outcome Studies. The American psychologist. 32. 752-60. 10.1037//0003-066X.32.9.752.

Want more eu mdr and regulatory insights.

We send weekly emails with the latest regulatory developments, templates, and strategies straight to QA/RA Professionals like you. Sign up below to get access today.

Step 1 of 4

Want Access to Everything EU MDR?

Join over 3,000 Regulatory and Quality Directors, Engineers and Consultants who receive weekly industry Whitepapers, Templates, and EU MDR news right to their inbox

By signing up, you agree to receive email marketing

Systematic Review Discussion Example

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

What should be included in the discussion section of a systematic review.

There are a number of key elements that are included in a discussion section of a systematic review. Remember to use all these elements to ensure the quality of your review remains high, that your review is deemed useful to your peers, and that the validity of your systematic review cannot be questioned.

The first thing to do in your discussion is to summarize your most important findings. This can simply be identifying your key results. Be careful not to just repeat all the results you have outlined in your previous sections. Instead, once you have briefly mentioned them, go on to interpret them. The results from included studies are presented in a summary. The results are then compared among different studies, and the consistent themes, agreements, and contradictions among studies are identified. The consistencies are reported and reasons for contradictions are given. The themes and agreement among the studies are used to answer the research question. Your interpretations need to be backed up by evidence so that they make the intended impact. Interpretations can be based on your critical thinking. Your interpretations of study findings can be compared to the interpretation of another review on the same topic.

Another way to ensure that your review is as persuasive as possible is to discuss any strengths and weaknesses at this point, in your discussion. It is advisable to first talk about the most notable strengths and limitations of included studies. Afterward, you can show how the characteristics of individual included studies have affected the strengths and limitations of the review. Identifying weaknesses may not be immediately obvious for some writers of reviews. However, they are essential to include, especially in the discussion section, as it means you can explain them and examine why your findings are still valid, despite such weaknesses. Discussing strengths will support your view even further. By highlighting both strengths and weaknesses together, you can dismiss any negative criticism before it even begins.

Learn More About DistillerSR

(Article continues below)

How Long Should A Discussion Be In A Systematic Review?

When it comes to the length of a discussion section, there is never really a right or wrong answer. The length of the discussion section is a systematic review is usually determined by the number of included studies, the scope of the research question, and the ability of the author to analyze and synthesize data from the included studies. That being said, given the breadth and number of areas to be covered as mentioned above, it will never be just one paragraph. Examining the strengths and weaknesses of your review alone will often call for a couple of paragraphs of discussion. Then you assert your findings that will answer your research question and support your initial hypothesis. This will likely demand another paragraph or two at least.

The Importance of Systematic Review Discussion

Remember that the discussion section of your review is, arguably, the most important part of your work. It is where you can put your label on all previous studies conducted, and highlight why your research into the area has been a worthwhile process. It is an opportunity for you to set yourself apart, and have your paper be seen as evidence for the subject matter in question. Therefore, the importance of a systematic review discussion cannot be overstated. The discussion section of a review is your chance to present the results of your analysis, which takes into account all previous studies or research in the area.

3 Reasons to Connect

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Article Menu

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Infrastructural aspects of rain-related cascading disasters: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

1.1. challenges for analysing cascading disaster linkages, 1.2. cascading disaster models derived from literature reviews, definitions.

4. Discussion

5. conclusions, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Share and Cite

Huggins, T.J.; E, F.; Chen, K.; Gong, W.; Yang, L. Infrastructural Aspects of Rain-Related Cascading Disasters: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 5175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145175

Huggins TJ, E F, Chen K, Gong W, Yang L. Infrastructural Aspects of Rain-Related Cascading Disasters: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . 2020; 17(14):5175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145175

Huggins, Thomas J., Feiyu E, Kangming Chen, Wenwu Gong, and Lili Yang. 2020. "Infrastructural Aspects of Rain-Related Cascading Disasters: A Systematic Literature Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145175

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Library subject guides

Systematic reviews.

What to include

Introduction, discussion and conclusion, annotated example.

Suggested books

To help with the writing process try some books from the Library on:

In general, the writing process for a systematic review is similar to the process of writing any other kind of review.

A systematic review should provide an answer to the research question , it is not a broad overview of current trends and gaps in research. The review should show the reader how the answer was found, and provide the results you have identified.

A systematic review must have a detailed methodology that describes the search process and the selection process. This is why careful documentation of the methodology is important. A reader of the review should be able to critically interpret the findings- to understand why sources were chosen, how they were assessed, and how conclusions were reached.

The structure of the systematic review differs from the narrative review or the traditional literature review that allows you to organise it to best support your argument. A systematic review should reflect the stages outlined in the protocol . With a systematic review reporting guidelines should be followed that help you identify what should be included in each section of the review. One such standard approach is PRISMA .

Although much time is invested in developing a search strategy and screening results, a systematic review is valued by the critical reflection and interpretation of the findings . Focus on analysing, not summarising. Use a critical analysis tool to assess the studies.

Your systematic review needs to tell a story, and it needs to clearly articulate how it provides meaningful and original advancement of the field .

The abstract provides an overview of the systematic review. It usually covers the following:

Note that these points represent the general ‘story line’ seen in most systematic reviews: What we know (and perhaps what the gap is); what we set out to do; what we did; what we found; what this means.

The introduction provides an overview of the systematic review and enough contextual information for the reader to make sense of the remainder of the report. It usually covers the following:

Note however, that these points are not always in this order. Some writers prefer to begin with the research questions, followed by the context, building to the rationale.

The methods section can be divided up into two main sections.

The first section describes how the literature search was conducted. This section may contain any of the following information:

The second section discusses the criteria for including or excluding studies. This section may include any of the following information:

Details about the kind of systematic review undertaken, i.e. thematic analysis, might also be mentioned in the methods section.

Broadly speaking, in the results section, everything you have done so far needs to be presented. This can include any of the following:

Often, researchers will include tables in the Results section or Appendix to provide on overview of data found in the studies. Remember, tables in the Results section need to be explained fully.

A primary function of your discussion and conclusion is to help readers understand the main findings and implications of the review.

The following elements are commonly found in the discussion and conclusion sections. Note that the points listed are neither mandatory nor in any prescribed order.

Discussion:

Conclusion:

Separate or combined?

A key difference between a discussion and a conclusion relates to how specific or general the observations are. A discussion closely interprets results in the context of the review. A conclusion identifies the significance and the implications beyond the review. Some reviews present these as separately headed sections. Many reviews, however, present only one section using a combination of elements. This section may be headed either Discussion or Conclusion.

The following publication has been used to supply annotated examples of the abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion.

Jørgensen, C. R., Thomsen, T. G., Ross, L., Dietz, S. M., Therkildsen, S., Groenvold, M., Rasmussen, C. L., & Johnsen, A. T. (2018). What facilitates “patient empowerment” in cancer patients during follow-up: A qualitative systematic review of the literature. Qualitative Health Research, 28(2), 292-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317721477

IMAGES

How to Write A Systematic Literature Review?
Write Online: Literature Review Writing Guide
Write Online: Literature Review Writing Guide
How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review
Systematic Literature Review
-The process of a systematic literature review

VIDEO

What is Literature Review?
Gerstner Hodge Systematic 1a
International Non Degree Training
SEMINAR ONLINE RESEARCH SKILLS : SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW (SLR)
Systematic Literature Review by Dr Farooq
Lecture Series #3 How to Write a Systematic Literature Review Paper? (Dhanan S Utomo, PhD)

COMMENTS

Literature Review: Systematic literature reviews
A systematic literature review (SLR) identifies, selects and critically appraises research in order to answer a clearly formulated question (Dewey, A. & Drahota, A. 2016). The systematic review should follow a clearly defined protocol or plan where the criteria is clearly stated before the review is conducted.
Writing your systematic literature review
The following is a simple pattern to follow for writing your systematic quantitative literature review. Specific sections are detailed in each tab. As with all academic work, remember that all material should be referenced and permission to reproduce charts and images obtained. Introduction (15-20% of your total available word count)
Steps of a Systematic Review
Systematic Reviews - Chapters 1-7 Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews - Chapter 8 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews - Chapter 9 Umbrella Reviews - Chapter 10 Scoping Reviews - Chapter 11 Systematic Reviews of Measurement Properties - Chapter 12
How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature
This article provides a step-by-step approach to conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in the domain of healthcare design and discusses some of the key quality issues associated with SLRs. SLR, as the name implies, is a systematic way of collecting, critically evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from across ...
How to write the methods section of a systematic review
The methods section of your systematic review describes what you did, how you did it, and why. Readers need this information to interpret the results and conclusions of the review. Often, a lot of information needs to be distilled into just a few paragraphs.
Elements of a systematic review
These include structuring a research question, searching and appraising the literature, data extraction, analysis and synthesis, and reporting the results. It is this process that ensures reviews can be considered as a legitimate form of nursing research. Publication types Review Systematic Review
Easy guide to conducting a systematic review
A systematic review is a type of study that synthesises research that has been conducted on a particular topic. Systematic reviews are considered to provide the highest level of evidence on the hierarchy of evidence pyramid. Systematic reviews are conducted following rigorous research methodology.
How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for ...
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of e …
Systematic Review
The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example. Step 1: Formulate a research question Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will: Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction, body and conclusion. The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review. The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology, theme or methodology.
A young researcher's guide to a systematic review
A systematic review involves detailed scrutiny and analysis of a huge mass of literature. To ensure that your work is efficient and effective, you should follow a clear process: 1. Develop a research question 2. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria 3. Locate studies 4. Select studies 5. Assess study quality 6. Extract data 7.
Writing An Introduction Of A Systematic Review Of Literature
The systematic review mainly classified into three types, including (1) meta-analysis, (2) quantitative analysis and (3) qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis: A meta-analysis utilizes statistical methods to incorporate appraisals of impact from relevant studies that are independent yet comparable and outline them.
How to write a systematic literature review
A classic systematic literature review can take different approaches: Effectiveness reviews assess the extent to which a medical intervention or therapy achieves its intended effect. They're the most common type of systematic literature review.
PDF How to write a systematic literature review: a guide for medical students
A systematic literature review attempts 'to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that ... This section of the review must be written thoroughly, giving full explanation and justification for the searching and managing steps listed earlier. In particular, justification must be stated for the source of the
How to write a systematic review
Background: The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature. Purpose: To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal.
Welcome to Systematic Review
Overview of the systematic literature reviews course with a section-by-section breakdown of topics covered. Skip to main content. Menu. Menu close. Browse By . Discipline ... Chapter 2: Section-By-Section Breakdown of the Systematic Literature Review Course icon angle down. Start time: 00:03:54; End time: 00:10:01;
Methodology of a systematic review
A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. ... developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search ...
Systematic Literature Review
A literature review comprises four steps; investigation of published literature on the chosen topic; summarizing the chosen literature and synthesizing its relevance to the chosen topic; analyzing and critically evaluating the selected literature; and; presenting the literature in a structured way.
Systematic Review Discussion Example
The discussion section of a review is your chance to present the results of your analysis, which takes into account all previous studies or research in the area. To give you a helping hand in formulating the discussion, it can be useful to look at automating as much of the process as possible beforehand. Harnessing the power of DistillerSR can ...
Systematic review
A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. [1] A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, and summarizes interpretations into a refined conclusion.
IJERPH
This is followed by Section 2 detailing the systematic literature review process used by the current research, to review a wide range of rain-related disaster case studies. Section 3 outlines how literature review results were used to develop a conceptual matrix of documented linkages between natural hazards and infrastructural impacts during ...
Write
What to include. In general, the writing process for a systematic review is similar to the process of writing any other kind of review. A systematic review should provide an answer to the research question, it is not a broad overview of current trends and gaps in research. The review should show the reader how the answer was found, and provide ...