literature review science

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.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

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 April 9, 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, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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

7 Writing a Literature Review

Hundreds of original investigation research articles on health science topics are published each year. It is becoming harder and harder to keep on top of all new findings in a topic area and – more importantly – to work out how they all fit together to determine our current understanding of a topic. This is where literature reviews come in.

In this chapter, we explain what a literature review is and outline the stages involved in writing one. We also provide practical tips on how to communicate the results of a review of current literature on a topic in the format of a literature review.

7.1 What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide a synthesis and evaluation  of the existing literature on a particular topic with the aim of gaining a new, deeper understanding of the topic.

Published literature reviews are typically written by scientists who are experts in that particular area of science. Usually, they will be widely published as authors of their own original work, making them highly qualified to author a literature review.

However, literature reviews are still subject to peer review before being published. Literature reviews provide an important bridge between the expert scientific community and many other communities, such as science journalists, teachers, and medical and allied health professionals. When the most up-to-date knowledge reaches such audiences, it is more likely that this information will find its way to the general public. When this happens, – the ultimate good of science can be realised.

A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method.

In the article Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Marco Pautasso explains the importance of literature reviews:

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way (Pautasso, 2013, para. 1).

An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1.

Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]

Watch this video created by Steely Library at Northern Kentucky Library called ‘ What is a literature review? Note: Closed captions are available by clicking on the CC button below.

Examples of published literature reviews

• Strength training alone, exercise therapy alone, and exercise therapy with passive manual mobilisation each reduce pain and disability in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
• Traveler’s diarrhea: a clinical review
• Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

7.2 Steps of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a very challenging task. Figure 7.2 summarises the steps of writing a literature review. Depending on why you are writing your literature review, you may be given a topic area, or may choose a topic that particularly interests you or is related to a research project that you wish to undertake.

Chapter 6 provides instructions on finding scientific literature that would form the basis for your literature review.

Once you have your topic and have accessed the literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Next, we look at these important cognitive skills student scientists will need to develop and employ to successfully write a literature review, and provide some guidance for navigating these stages.

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are three essential skills required by scientists  and you will need to develop these skills if you are to write a good literature review ( Figure 7.3 ). These important cognitive skills are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The first step in writing a literature review is to analyse the original investigation research papers that you have gathered related to your topic.

Analysis requires examining the papers methodically and in detail, so you can understand and interpret aspects of the study described in each research article.

An analysis grid is a simple tool you can use to help with the careful examination and breakdown of each paper. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of  an analysis grid. When filling in the grid, the aim is to draw out key aspects of each research paper. Use a different row for each paper, and a different column for each aspect of the paper ( Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show how completed analysis grid may look).

Before completing your own grid, look at these examples and note the types of information that have been included, as well as the level of detail. Completing an analysis grid with a sufficient level of detail will help you to complete the synthesis and evaluation stages effectively. This grid will allow you to more easily observe similarities and differences across the findings of the research papers and to identify possible explanations (e.g., differences in methodologies employed) for observed differences between the findings of different research papers.

Table 7.1: Example of an analysis grid

Table 7.3: Sample filled-in analysis grid for research article by Ping and colleagues

Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.

Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.

You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.

A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.

Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).

Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).

During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.

When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.

When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.

7.3 Writing your literature review

Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).

The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.

Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.

The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.

In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:

This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.

Introduction

The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review

Body of literature review

The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.

It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.

It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.

Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.

Copyright note:

• The quotation from Pautasso, M 2013, ‘Ten simple rules for writing a literature review’, PLoS Computational Biology is use under a CC-BY licence. 
• Content from the annotated article and tables are based on Schubert, MM, Astorino, TA & Azevedo, JJL 2013, ‘The effects of caffeinated ‘energy shots’ on time trial performance’, Nutrients, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2062–2075 (used under a CC-BY 3.0 licence ) and P ing, WC, Keong , CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41 (used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence ). 

Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.

How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Junior Group Leader Position at IMBA - Institute of Molecular Biotechnology

The Institute of Molecular Biotechnology (IMBA) is one of Europe’s leading institutes for basic research in the life sciences. IMBA is located on t...

Austria (AT)

IMBA - Institute of Molecular Biotechnology

Open Rank Faculty, Center for Public Health Genomics

Center for Public Health Genomics & UVA Comprehensive Cancer Center seek 2 tenure-track faculty members in Cancer Precision Medicine/Precision Health.

Charlottesville, Virginia

Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia

Husbandry Technician I

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Lead Researcher – Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation & Cellular Therapy

Researcher in the center for in vivo imaging and therapy.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Research in the Biological and Life Sciences: A Guide for Cornell Researchers: Literature Reviews

• Books and Dissertations
• Databases and Journals
• Locating Theses
• Resource Not at Cornell?
• Citing Sources
• Staying Current
• Measuring your research impact
• Plagiarism and Copyright
• Data Management
• Literature Reviews
• Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews
• Writing an Honors Thesis
• Poster Making and Printing
• Research Help

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )

Writing a Literature Review

The literature review is the section of your paper in which you cite and briefly review the related research studies that have been conducted. In this space, you will describe the foundation on which  your  research will be/is built. You will:

• discuss the work of others
• evaluate their methods and findings
• identify any gaps in their research
• state how  your  research is different

The literature review should be selective and should group the cited studies in some logical fashion.

If you need some additional assistance writing your literature review, the Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines offers a  Graduate Writing Service .

Demystifying the Literature Review

For more information, visit our guide devoted to " Demystifying the Literature Review " which includes:

• guide to conducting a literature review,
• a recorded 1.5 hour workshop covering the steps of a literature review, a checklist for drafting your topic and search terms, citation management software for organizing your results, and database searching.

Online Resources

• A Guide to Library Research at Cornell University
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students North Carolina State University 
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting Written by Dena Taylor, Director, Health Sciences Writing Centre, and Margaret Procter, Coordinator, Writing Support, University of Toronto
• How to Write a Literature Review University Library, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Review of Literature The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Print Resources

• << Previous: Writing
• Next: Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Oct 25, 2023 11:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/bio

How to Write a Good Scientific Literature Review

Nowadays, there is a huge demand for scientific literature reviews as they are especially appreciated by scholars or researchers when designing their research proposals. While finding information is less of a problem to them, discerning which paper or publication has enough quality has become one of the biggest issues. Literature reviews narrow the current knowledge on a certain field and examine the latest publications’ strengths and weaknesses. This way, they are priceless tools not only for those who are starting their research, but also for all those interested in recent publications. To be useful, literature reviews must be written in a professional way with a clear structure. The amount of work needed to write a scientific literature review must be considered before starting one since the tasks required can overwhelm many if the working method is not the best.

Designing and Writing a Scientific Literature Review

Writing a scientific review implies both researching for relevant academic content and writing , however, writing without having a clear objective is a common mistake. Sometimes, studying the situation and defining the work’s system is so important and takes equally as much time as that required in writing the final result. Therefore, we suggest that you divide your path into three steps.

Define goals and a structure

Think about your target and narrow down your topic. If you don’t choose a well-defined topic, you can find yourself dealing with a wide subject and plenty of publications about it. Remember that researchers usually deal with really specific fields of study.

It is time to be a critic and locate only pertinent publications. While researching for content consider publications that were written 3 years ago at the most. Write notes and summarize the content of each paper as that will help you in the next step.

Time to write

Check some literature review examples to decide how to start writing a good literature review . When your goals and structure are defined, begin writing without forgetting your target at any moment.

Related: Conducting a literature survey? Wish to learn more about scientific misconduct? Check out this resourceful infographic.

Here you have a to-do list to help you write your review :

• A scientific literature review usually includes a title, abstract, index, introduction, corpus, bibliography, and appendices (if needed).
• Present the problem clearly.
• Mention the paper’s methodology, research methods, analysis, instruments, etc.
• Present literature review examples that can help you express your ideas.
• Remember to cite accurately.
• Limit your bias
• While summarizing also identify strengths and weaknesses as this is critical.

Scholars and researchers are usually the best candidates to write scientific literature reviews, not only because they are experts in a certain field, but also because they know the exigencies and needs that researchers have while writing research proposals or looking for information among thousands of academic papers. Therefore, considering your experience as a researcher can help you understand how to write a scientific literature review.

Have you faced challenges while drafting your first literature review? How do you think can these tips help you in acing your next literature review? Let us know in the comments section below! You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to copyrights answered by our team that comprises eminent researchers and publication experts.

Thank you for your information. It adds knowledge on critical review being a first time to do it, it helps a lot.

yes. i would like to ndertake the course Bio ststistics

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

• Manuscripts & Grants

Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!

Literature review is both a process and a product. It involves searching within a defined…

• AI in Academia

How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time — Why not do it with an AI-based article summarizer?

Researcher 1: “It’s flooding articles every time I switch on my laptop!” Researcher 2: “Why…

How to Master at Literature Mapping: 5 Most Recommended Tools to Use

This article is also available in: Turkish, Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Your Chances of Publication in International Peer-reviewed Journals

Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines

How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time —…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling Udemy Course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 11, 2024 1:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

What is a literature review, traditional (narrative) literature review, integrative literature review, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, scoping review.

• Developing a Research Question
• Selection Criteria
• Database Search
• Documenting Your Search
• Organize Key Findings
• Reference Management

Ask Us! Health Sciences Library

The health sciences library.

Call toll-free:  (844) 352-7399 E-mail:   Ask Us More contact information

Related Guides

• Systematic Reviews by Roy Brown Last Updated Oct 17, 2023 387 views this year
• Write a Literature Review by John Glover Last Updated Oct 16, 2023 2227 views this year

A literature review provides an overview of what's been written about a specific topic. There are many different types of literature reviews. They vary in terms of comprehensiveness, types of study included, and purpose. 

The other pages in this guide will cover some basic steps to consider when conducting a traditional health sciences literature review. See below for a quick look at some of the more popular types of literature reviews.

For additional information on a variety of review methods, the following article provides an excellent overview.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.

• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-review

8 Tips for Writing a Scientific Literature Review Article

A scientific literature review article provides a thorough overview of the current knowledge on a certain topic. The main goal is to consider the difficulties or knowledge gaps in the field and help to fill them out. To write one requires lots of reading, but it can be an intensely satisfying process and produce a work that will be referenced and serve as a resource for students and young researchers.

Unlike an original research article, a literature review usually does not present results, such as from surveys or experiments. It’s mainly based on the combination of a thorough literature survey of published work together with the author’s critical discussion on the subject.

There are different types of literature reviews , like systematic, scoping, and conceptual, but overall, they’re all extremely valuable and useful for the scientific community, in their own way.

The eight steps below will give a simple how on writing a review.

Why to write a scientific literature review

One final note on the why before the how regarding reviews, 8 tips on how to write a scientific literature review (and a good one), 1. define a relevant question or questions that you intend to answer with the review (critical step), 2. do a literature survey, 3. create a datasheet to organize all the important information contained in each material collected, 4. define a structure for the text, 5. add context to your work, 6. extract relevant information from the literature material you selected, 7. add critical discussion, 8. make sure the english is sharp, clear, and well-edited.

There are plenty of reasons to take on the task of writing a review rather than conducting novel research.

First, as a review’s author, you can improve your knowledge of the theme and be on top of the recent findings. You can start to more closely follow the work of leading researchers and get new insights for your own research. And you position yourself as a thought-leader and knowledge-leader in the area. For an up-and-coming area, this is extremely useful.

For example, this review of the remote work literature by Charalampous et al. has been very valuable to me when I completed my dissertation. I connected with the lead author on ResearchGate. and I value our interaction .

If you’re a master’s or PhD candidate, by writing a review you’ll be producing starting material to be used on your dissertation or thesis, not to mention, obviously, that you’ll learn about the review-writing process.

And as mentioned, a good literature review article garners recognition and a considerable number of citations.

Reviews are the mark of a true scholar.

Research studies can be classified as qualitative or quantitative and whether your literature review is focused on one of these classes or the other will have an influence on its design.

The following tips below generally fit both qualitative and quantitative articles, although adaptations can be made in specific topics.

These tips don’t necessarily need to follow the exact order. Reviews can be iterative, and you’ll naturally happen across new references .

That will be your scope. Importantly, keep lists of topics that are and are not within your scope. This will help to determine what you’ll ultimately include in your initial survey.

Search for articles on the theme using appropriate keywords (research terms) and filters.

Include keywords associated with concepts or variables of your interest and also list synonyms or related terms.

For example, let’s say you want to write about drug abuse among college students. You can use the keywords such as “drug abuse”, “substance abuse”, “college students”, “university students”, and “undergraduate students”.

You can add filters to select articles in a specific language (e.g., English or Spanish) or that have been published recently (e.g., last 5 years), for example.

As we see with “college” and “university”, there are commonly different ways to say the same thing, and Boolean operators will help you here. Specifics are given below.

You can do the search directly on publishers’ and journals’ websites, on the reference lists of relevant papers, and using.

For these databases, ideally, you’ll have a good online library to use. There are also ways to find research articles for free .

You can choose from multidisciplinary sources (e.g., Google Scholar , Scopus , Web of Science ), or sources specific to a given area (e.g., Open Edition for social sciences, PubMed for biomedical sciences).

To complement the review, look for materials other than research articles by visiting government websites, international organization websites, and credible newspaper articles.

However you do your search, keep the following in mind:

• Check that there are no similar recent reviews addressing the very same question. Otherwise, there’s obviously no point in going further unless you’re taking a different angle.
• Consider if there’s enough research material to write about. Available literature can vary significantly from topic to topic. Try to examine if there are sufficient articles to make a robust discussion, contrast results and ideas, or make any conclusion. If there is no previous literature review on the subject, even a small number of papers may be OK. If other reviews have already been published, investigate what else has emerged since it was released.
• If your survey results in too many articles, narrow it down by adding new keywords or filters that match the specifications you consider most important. Look for topics that haven’t yet been thoroughly reviewed or for which there are conflicting data worthy of discussion.
• Use Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”, “NOT”, etc.) together with the keywords to filter the results. Let’s take the same example on drug abuse among college students and imagine you don’t want alcohol to be included as a type of drug abuse in your search. In this case, you can combine keywords and operators this way: “drug abuse” OR “substance abuse” AND “college students” NOT alcohol.

Do a first selection of the articles by reading their titles and abstracts. If that doesn’t provide enough information for you, read the results and conclusions. There’s usually no need to get into the introduction or methods until later.

Eliminate works that don’t match the scope of the review. Then, organize the final data in a way to facilitate the writing process later on.

A based way to do this is using an Excel or Google Sheets spreadsheet. The rows represent each article and columns represent important groups of information such as authors, year of publication, methodology, main findings, etc.

Even better can be to use referencing software such as Mendeley to label and organize the works you download.

Although a literature review’s structure may vary based on journal guidelines and your preferences, it should at least contain a title, keywords, abstract, introduction, main text, discussion, conclusion, and references.

If you’re working on a systematic review, you can add a Methods section to describe the criteria you’ve used to select articles to review. You may also end the review with Future Perspectives for the field, considering your knowledge of the theme.

At this point, you can start considering journals for submission.

As there are many journal options out there, you may find it helpful to use journal finder tools like those at Elsevier , Springer , Wiley , and others .

Carefully read the instructions for authors and the formatting requirements of the journal you choose. Not all journals accept review articles, but there are some journals exclusively dedicated to them.

If publication time is important for you, check the journal or inquire directly to find the normal time for publication.

Start by creating an introduction, ideally not too long, addressing the main concepts and the current state of the field.

Call attention to the relevance of the theme and make clear why a review is needed and how it can be helpful. Then specify the goals of the review and what exactly the reader will find in your text.

If you are doing a more rigorous review, mention data sources and research methods used to select articles and define inclusion and exclusion criteria.

See this systematic literature review about social media and mental health problems in adolescents.

Note that already in the introduction the authors explore the scenario of mental health in adolescents, explain the concept of social media and contextualize what is known and what are the gaps regarding the relationship between social media and mental health problems in adolescents.

As a rigorous systematic literature review, a Methods section gives full details on how the survey was conducted.

In the main text, write about the articles’ findings, including the methods and parameters used. Does this especially if your review is focused on quantitative studies.

When dealing with qualitative studies, you may present the sampling methods applied.

Extract enough information to answer your research questions. You can group articles with similar characteristics and split the text on subheadings accordingly.

You also have the option to mention articles chronologically, if that’s relevant to the work.

Remember to summarize information so the text is objective and clear. You can work with appropriate graphical schemes, images, and tables – these can help the reader to better understand and memorize the important information.

See this literature review on the detection of depression and mental illness signs using social media . The authors divided the main text into subtopics according to the methods used by the analyzed articles to detect signs of mental illness.

A figure is provided to illustrate each method and the number of articles that used it. The review also presents a table summarizing important information from the articles.

Include your point of view and indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the works you wrote about. Address debate on conflicting results, when necessary.

This fits interestingly into the discussion of contrasting concepts, theories, and assumptions presented in different qualitative studies, for instance. Also, recognize the limitations of your own work.

Provide the main conclusion of your literature review. In this final section of the review, it may be interesting to make suggestions for future research.

See this review about the associations between maternal nutrition and breast milk composition . In the subheadings of the main text (“Main results” section), the authors discuss the results of the articles investigated and emphasize conflicting information among studies.

A final discussion is provided addressing the limitations of the studies. The main conclusions obtained from the literature review are presented in the final paragraph.

See this review about maternal obesity and breastfeeding characteristics . The authors present the findings of their literature survey and a “Discussion” section with explanations and possible confounding factors involved.

An individual topic is dedicated to the limitations of their review (for example, the authors say that “9 of the 18 studies included used self-reported maternal weight and height. Such estimates are not completely accurate with the possible risk of misclassification of BMI categories” [Turcksin et al., 2014, p. 180). Special sections approaching the implications of their findings for future research and for clinical practice are also provided.

Check for spelling and grammar mistakes and add all the references correctly. Use reference management software to avoid wasting time with formatting. There are free and user-friendly options to do so (e.g., Zotero , Mendeley ).

Better is to get a professional scientific edit . There are options available for editing. Choose the one that works for you, and make sure they’re capable and qualified.

Good luck with your review!

Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review . Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24 (2):218i234.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2):91-108.

Turcksin, R., Bel, S., Galjaard, S., & Devlieger, R. (2014). Maternal obesity and breastfeeding intention, initiation, intensity and duration: a systematic review.  Maternal & Child Nutrition ,  10 (2), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8709.2012.00439.x

Wee,  B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper? Transport Reviews, 36 (2), 278-288.

Privacy Overview

Privacy Policy - Terms and Conditions

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

How to Write a Literature Review

Start drafting.

It’s time to start drafting your paper. Follow the structure from your outline and start filling in the missing parts. Get out your notes and remind yourself of the sources you plan to talk about. You don’t have to write your paper from beginning to end in order–you can go to the parts that feel the easiest and start there. Here are some places you can start:

Bullet-Point Draft

With a Bullet-Point draft you take the ideas you’ve been outlining and fill them in with more details but only in bullet-point form. The beauty of bullet points is that they keep you from getting caught up in the language and style and allow you to focus simply on your main points. You can smooth out the sentences and transitions later, but for now, just get your ideas on the page.

Write the Introduction

Another way to get started is to write the Introduction. You already have a thesis statement, so now you can start introducing your topic and its importance, setting up your literature review.

Write a Body Paragraph

Or a third place to start is to jump into writing a body paragraph that synthesizes your sources. Use your notes and outline, and choose one set to talk about in paragraph form.

Don’t think too hard about getting things perfect when you’re drafting–that’s what revision is for. Just focus on getting started. If you get stuck, do some brainstorming activities to get your creative juices flowing. Once you have something written, I suggest seeking feedback to make sure you’re going in the right direction. In fact, I recommend getting as much feedback as possible along the way.

As you create a draft, try to incorporate several sources into each paragraph to be sure that you’re synthesizing and not just summarizing or listing without making connections. Your color-coded notes can help you be sure that you’re synthesizing.

Add Metacommentary

Metacommentary is the key to synthesis. Metacommentary (aka metadiscourse) is a type of commentary that guides your reader and helps them interpret the sources and evidence you’re presenting. Think of it as really powerful transitions.

Transition words act like signposts–they guide your reader through your points. They can also glue your ideas together so they feel more cohesive. Beware that transitions can definitely be overdone, but most students in general could use more transitions in their papers rather than fewer.

You might think you can just stop at transition words, but metacommentary is much more than just sprinkling some “therefores” and “howevers” throughout your paper–metacommentary actually takes your synthesis to the next level. What do you comment on? You can either interpret why a source is important, highlight its significance, or connect it with other sources. This is your chance to point out the answers to the four questions you looked for in your note-taking:

What do researchers agree and disagree about?

How are researchers narrowing or changing their focus to create new information?

What are each study’s limitations and strengths?

What’s the next step in research—what should be studied in the future? (The research gap)

You can think of metacommentary as a sandwich with your name on it. If my student’s name were Alisa, here’s what and Alisa sandwich would look like:

ALISA-SOURCE-ALISA

First, Alisa starts with a claim about what’s happening in the field or about a particular subsection or focus of the field. This could serve as a topic sentence for a paragraph, for example.

Second, she sets up the source with guiding language like transitions and references to her past points or sources.

Third, she writes about the source itself and summarizes pertinent information.

Lastly, Alisa comments on the source and/or connects it to her main point or to next source.

This type of sandwich can occur several times in a paragraph as you synthesize your sources. Here’s a sample paragraph from Chris, a Public Health student, who wrote a paper called “The Causes of a Behavioral Pandemic: Screen-time Addiction and Consequent Depression Among Adolescents.” I’ve bolded the metacommentary Chris included to guide his readers and to connect his points.

Even though there have been far fewer studies on adolescents than adults , adolescent studies have consistently shown that those who are more physically active experience less depressive and associated symptoms, as well as a greater overall state of well-being (Kremer, 2014). These studies have also shown that low levels of vigorous exercise in youth can independently cause depressive symptoms. One longitudinal study revealed that over 30% of children who participate in high levels of screen-time use experience moderate to high levels of depressive symptoms (Kremer, 2014). Additionally, another study of children in the United States demonstrated that those who participated on a sports team were less likely to exceed recommended screen-time limits established by the US Department of Health. This study also demonstrated that as the number of total physical activity sessions increased among youth, both during free time and at organized events, children were less likely to exceed recommended screen-time limits (Carlson, 2010). In this study, children who were more physically active consistently showed lower rates of depression and other emotional disorders. Therefore, evidence across multiple studies suggests that participating in screen-time activity may not be the direct cause of depressive symptoms, but rather the sedentary lifestyle and lack physical activity it causes among youth. With this recent evidence, experts are beginning to search for ways to replace screen-time participation of adolescents with physical activities.

Note how the last few sentences of this paragraph consist entirely of metacommentary–points that connect to the bigger picture of Chris’s literature review. Also notice how Chris uses transition words and phrases to glue his points together so it doesn’t come out of the blue when he brings up a new study. Also, Chris discusses more than one study in this paragraph, demonstrating his ability to synthesize and not just summarize. Without the metacommentary, it would be much harder to see the connections between the studies and how they fit into the bigger picture. Finally, Chris indicates the implications of these studies and points to what researchers are doing next . This has a duel purpose of reminding readers why this topic is important as well as indicating where he will go in his next paragraph (about physical activities). Metacommentary is powerful!

Metacommentary takes practice, but you can do it! And it will not only make your points stronger, it will make it easier for your audience to read and understand–which should always be your goal.

If You Get Stuck

Literature reviews can be hard. If you get stuck, I have a little trick I tell my students. For your first draft, try starting every sentence with “Researchers . . .” I know this seems formulaic, but if you can keep your focus on what particular researchers did or what they agree or disagree on, you’ll avoid the most common pitfalls of literature reviews: sounding like a typical argumentative research paper. If your focus is always on what researchers are doing or what they’ve found, then at the very least you’ll stay in the realm of the literature review genre. Later you can go back through and change up your sentence structure, but I’ve found that this is an easy way for students to get through a first draft.

A Word on Verb Tense

The Real Last Step: Revise (and Revise and Revise)

Fantastic BYU Family Science professor Julie Haupt offers the following suggestions for doing four purposeful revisions–two global and two local.

GLOBAL REVISION–The Forest

Level 1: structural review (global).

Purpose: The structural review examines the document as a whole to see if all requirements are met and the document’s organization is sound.

Meet Assignment Requirements. Ask yourself if your paper meets all the requirements of the assignment? Look at your structure and make sure you have all necessary sections such as the following:

• Introduction (with Thesis Statement and/or Organizing Statement)

Body with Headings

Conclusion/Discussion

Include a Thesis and an Organizing Statement. Does the current version of the thesis statement match the tone, scope, and organization of the body text? Does an organizing statement after the thesis introduce the major topics and the order they will appear in the body (e.g., “This review will first discuss . . . then . . . and finally . . .)

Use Headings. Is the body text subdivided in a logical way with evidence-based information located in appropriate sections? Are the major sections roughly symmetrical (in terms of length)? Are the headings brief, yet descriptive? If subheadings are used, does the major section contain at least two? Are all levels of headings separated by text?

Level 2 (Global): Paragraph/Logic Review

Purpose: The Paragraph/Logic Review is designed to review each paragraph for cohesion and compliance to the CEC (Claim/Evidence/Commentary) format.

Sequence Paragraphs Effectively. When reading only the first sentence of each paragraph, does the logical pattern of the paper emerge? Do the claims made in these topic sentences coordinate well with the thesis of the paper?

Check Topic Sentences and Cohesion. Does the topic sentence or claim provide an effective overview of the information that is located in the paragraph? Is the claim supported by several points of synthesized evidence, rather than a single study? Does each paragraph seem well directed and cohesive? Do the sentences build one upon another within the paragraph in a logical way?

Evaluate Paragraph Length. Are any paragraphs too long (longer than approximately ½ page)? Are any paragraphs too short (approximately three sentences or less)? Do paragraphs transition well from one to the next and use transitional words to connect ideas?

LOCAL REVISION–The Tree

Level 3 (local): apa formatting review.

Purpose: The APA Formatting Review is designed to make sure all APA conventions are explicitly followed to help the paper reflect a high level of professionalism.

Check Document Formatting. Do the body text and reference page appear in the correct page formatting as required? (Use the APA Manual if you have questions.)

Examine the Reference List Closely. Are all references in the reference list ordered alphabetically? Is the reference list double spaced entirely (with no extra gaps between paragraphs)? Are all references (e.g., journal articles, internet resources, or books) listed in the correct format? Is every reference on the reference list cited at least once in the body and does each in-text citation have a corresponding reference in the reference list?

Make a Final Check of the In-Text Citations. Is all information properly cited with an in-text citation when needed? Do all in-text citations include the year next to the author(s)? When more than one citation is listed within parentheses are they separated by semi-colons and ordered alphabetically by first author’s last name? If included in parentheses, do studies with multiple authors use ampersands (“&” rather than the word “and”) before listing the last author?

Level 4 (Local): Finishing Review

Purpose: The Finishing Review is an opportunity to look closely at sentence construction, language, hedging , and grammar/punctuation.

Review Phrasing with a Read-Aloud Session. Since having to read a sentence twice to get its meaning or “tripping over” phrasing can be an indication of awkward construction, are all sentences easily read aloud? Are any sentences so long that they have become difficult to comprehend, but could be split without changing the meaning?

Use Non-Biased, Non-Absolute Language. Do all references to people comply with the “people first” designation and avoid inappropriate uses of terms for various groups? Are the findings and summary statements in the review properly “ Hedged ”?

Check Punctuation and Grammar. Are all commas, semicolons, colons, hyphens, and other punctuation used correctly throughout the document (including the reference page)? Are common grammar mistakes, such as parallelism, subject-verb agreement, incorrect misuse of pronouns, and other grammatical issues corrected?

*Bonus Video

If you’re still confused or would like more guidance on writing a literature review, here is an optional 25-minute video that thoroughly goes through the entire process of writing a literature review. As an extra bonus, it’s made by Michael Paye from the University of Dublin who has an awesome Irish accent. Enjoy!

Charles, C.C. (2020). How to write a literature review. In C.C. Charles (ed.), Writing in the Social Sciences. Edtech books. https://edtechbooks.org/writing/literature_review_2

Writing and the Sciences: An Anthology Copyright © 2020 by Sara Rufner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

Ask Yale Library

My Library Accounts

Find, Request, and Use

Help and Research Support

Visit and Study

Explore Collections

Political Science Subject Guide: Literature Reviews

• Political Science
• Books & Dissertations
• Articles & Databases
• Literature Reviews
• Senior Essay Resources
• Country Information

More Literature Review Writing Tips

• Thesis Whisperer- Bedraggled Daisy Lay advice on writing theses and dissertations. This article demonstrates in more detail one aspect of our discussion

Books on the Literature Review

What is a literature review?

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. [...] In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries."

(from "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Writing It," http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Strategies for conducting your own literature review

1. Use this guide as a starting point. Begin your search with the resources linked from the political science subject guide. These library catalogs and databases will help you identify what's been published on your topic.

2. What came first? Try bibliographic tracing. As you're finding sources, pay attention to what and whom these authors cite. Their footnotes and bibliographies will point you in the direction of additional scholarship on your topic.

3. What comes next? Look for reviews and citation reports. What did scholars think about that book when it was published in 2003? Has anyone cited that article since 1971? Reviews and citation analysis tools can help you determine if you've found the seminal works on your topic--so that you can be confident that you haven't missed anything important, and that you've kept up with the debates in your field. You'll find book reviews in JSTOR and other databases. Google Scholar has some citation metrics; you can use Web of Science ( Social Sciences Citation Index ) for more robust citation reports.

4. Stay current. Get familiar with the top journals in your field, and set up alerts for new articles. If you don't know where to begin, APSA and other scholarly associations often maintain lists of journals, broken out by subfield . In many databases (and in Google Scholar), you can also set up search alerts, which will notify you when additional items have been added that meet your search criteria.

5. Stay organized. A citation management tool--e.g., RefWorks, Endnote, Zotero, Mendeley--will help you store your citations, generate a bibliography, and cite your sources while you write. Some of these tools are also useful for file storage, if you'd like to keep PDFs of the articles you've found. To get started with citation management tools, check out this guide . 

How to find existing literature reviews

1. Consult Annual Reviews.  The Annual Review of Political Science consists of thorough literature review essays in all areas of political science, written by noted scholars. The library also subscribes to Annual Reviews in economics, law and social science, sociology, and many other disciplines.

2. Turn to handbooks, bibliographies, and other reference sources. Resources like Oxford Bibliographies Online and assorted handbooks ( Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics , Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior , etc.) are great ways to get a substantive introduction to a topic, subject area, debate, or issue. Not exactly literature reviews, but they do provide significant reference to and commentary on the relevant literature--like a heavily footnoted encyclopedia for specialists in a discipline. 

3. Search databases and Google Scholar.   Use the recommended databases in the "Articles & Databases" tab of this guide and try a search that includes the phrase "literature review."

4. Search in journals for literature review articles.  Once you've identified the important journals in your field as suggested in the section above, you can target these journals and search for review articles. 

5. Find book reviews.  These reviews can often contain useful contextual information about the concerns and debates of a field. Worldwide Political Science Abstracts is a good source for book reviews, as is JSTOR . To get to book reviews in JSTOR, select the advanced search option, use the title of the book as your search phrase, and narrow by item type: reviews. You can also narrow your search further by discipline.

6. Cast a wide net--don't forget dissertations.  Dissertations and theses often include literature review sections. While these aren't necessarily authoritative, definitive literature reviews (you'll want to check in Annual Reviews for those), they can provide helpful suggestions for sources to consider.

• << Previous: News
• Next: Senior Essay Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 12:55 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/politicalscience

Site Navigation

P.O. BOX 208240 New Haven, CT 06250-8240 (203) 432-1775

Yale's Libraries

Bass Library

Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

Classics Library

Cushing/Whitney Medical Library

Divinity Library

East Asia Library

Gilmore Music Library

Haas Family Arts Library

Lewis Walpole Library

Lillian Goldman Law Library

Marx Science and Social Science Library

Sterling Memorial Library

Yale Center for British Art

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

@YALELIBRARY

Yale Library Instagram

Accessibility       Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion      Giving       Privacy and Data Use      Contact Our Web Team    

© 2022 Yale University Library • All Rights Reserved

Political Science Research Methods

• Best Practices

Overviews and Background--Reference Materials

New search feature: what is articles+, literature sources, other useful databases.

• Citation Checking and Tracing
• Citation Tools/Building Your Bibliography
• Managing All These Citations?
• Assistance with Methods
• Data Support and Contacts

Reference works and handbooks are an important means to help you gather some initial resources, identify concepts, approaches, terminology, and theories, and refine your topic before delving into more detailed research.

• Routledge Handbooks
• Oxford Research Encyclopedias
• Oxford Handbooks
• Oxford Bibliographies
• Annual Reviews

What is a literature review?

A literature review provides an overview of the scholarly literature (e.g. books, articles, dissertations, proceedings) relevant to an area of research or theory. The review typically will include a summary of the major questions in a area and critical evaluations of work that has already been done. Literature reviews are also helpful for their comprehensive bibliographies. This  webpage by the UC Santa Cruz Library  does a good job of explaining lit reviews.

Literature reviews typically include these components:

• An overview of the subject
• Organization of relevant publications into subtopics, theoretical areas, or key debate
• An analysis and discussion of how various works relate to one another the the relevant questions
• A discussion of unresolved questions or future directions
• Some will also include discussions of key data collection and analysis methodologies

Another good way to think about literature reviews:

• Relevant literature
• Seminal literature
• Narrative and literature development
• Branches/schools of thought
• Self-placement (where does my literature fit?)

[Borrowed from Nordyke and Yacobucci (2021) "Beyond the Annotated Bibliography: Improving Student Literature Reviews through Structured Heuristics" in Teaching Research Methods in Political Science , Jeffrey Bernstein, ed. Edward Elgar.]

What is Articles+?

Articles+ provides Emory users with access to millions of scholarly e-resources including articles, images, conference proceedings, audio-visual materials, books, and dissertations. Search Articles+ by selecting the header on Library Search or by following the link in your search results.

Political Science Complete

 Political Science Complete contains full text for over 450 journals, and indexing and abstracts for nearly 2,100 titles, (including top-ranked scholarly journals). The database also features 330 full-text reference books and monographs, and over 35,000 full-text conference papers. A pro tip is to search for specific methodologies or data sources in your search terms, and fully utilize the filters.

• Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature with bibliometric tools to track, analyze and visualize research. It contains over 19,500 titles from more than 5,000 publishers around the world, covering the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities.
• Full text for more than 400 publications including titles from the American economic Association such as: American Economic Review, Journal of Economic Literature, and Journal of Economic Perspectives . Can search concurrently with Sociological Abstracts and Political Science Complete.
• Covers major international literature (journals, books, book chapters, book reviews, dissertations and conference papers) in sociology and related disciplines.  Can search concurrently with Econlit and Political Science Complete
• << Previous: Best Practices
• Next: Citation Checking and Tracing >>
• Last Updated: Sep 6, 2023 1:09 PM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/political_science_methods

Forensic neuropathology in the past decade: a scoping literature review

• Open access
• Published: 13 July 2023

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Petteri Oura 1 , 2 ,
• Antti Hakkarainen 1 , 2 &
• Antti Sajantila 1 , 2  

1120 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

While there has been notable research activity in the field of clinical neuropathology over the recent years, forensic approaches have been less frequent. This scoping literature review explored original research on forensic neuropathology over the past decade (January 1, 2010, until February 12, 2022) using the MEDLINE database. The aims were to (1) analyze the volume of research on the topic, (2) describe meta-level attributes and sample characteristics, and (3) summarize key research themes and methods. Of 5053 initial hits, 2864 fell within the target timeframe, and 122 were included in the review. Only 3–17 articles were published per year globally. Most articles originated from the Europe (39.3%) and Asia (36.1%) and were published in forensic journals (57.4%). A median sample included 57 subjects aged between 16 and 80 years. The most common research theme was traumatic intracranial injury (24.6%), followed by anatomy (12.3%) and substance abuse (11.5%). Key methods included immunotechniques (31.1%) and macroscopic observation (21.3%). Although a number of novel findings were reported, most were of preliminary nature and will require further validation. In order to reach breakthroughs and validate novel tools for routine use, more research input is urged from researchers across the world. It would be necessary to ensure appropriate sample sizes and make use of control groups.

Similar content being viewed by others

Forensic neurology: a distinct subspecialty at the intersection of neurology, neuroscience and law

R. Ryan Darby, Ciaran Considine, … William C. Darby

Forensic Pathology Historical Roots and Modern Evolution

Research on the Potential Biomarkers of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: a Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis

Yishu Liu, Chudong Wang, … Jifeng Cai

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Neurological diseases [ 1 ] and trauma to the central nervous system (CNS) [ 2 ] are common causes of death globally. A comprehensive postmortem examination of the CNS often requires particular expertise and sophisticated tissue processing techniques [ 3 , 4 ]. Neuropathological expertise is therefore of high value in both clinical [ 5 ] and forensic pathology [ 3 ]. While there has been notable research activity in the field of clinical neuropathology over the recent years [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], forensic approaches appear less frequent [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. However, the role of CNS remains important in the medico-legal practice [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], as CNS-related findings may have pivotal significance in cause-of-death investigation [ 3 ] and legal proceedings [ 25 , 26 ].

Literature reviews aid in the efficient utilization of current knowledge. Systematic approaches are needed to summarize and disseminate research findings and identify gaps in the existing literature [ 27 ]. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no broad-scoped overviews summarizing literature on forensic neuropathology, at least from the past decade. This scoping literature review explored literature on forensic neuropathology from January 1, 2010, until February 12, 2022. The aims were to (1) analyze the volume of research on the topic, (2) describe meta-level attributes and sample characteristics, and (3) summarize key research themes and methods.

Materials and methods

Research questions.

Scoping reviews are exploited to determine the scope and volume of literature on a given topic and to identify key concepts [ 28 , 29 ]. In contrast to systematic reviews, scoping reviews are particularly useful when the research question is broad and the body of literature has not been comprehensively reviewed before. We conducted a MEDLINE-based scoping review to explore scientific literature on forensic neuropathology published over the past decade.

The following research questions were formulated in accordance with the general aims of the study:

Volume of research

What is the volume of original research on forensic neuropathology per year?

Meta-level attributes and sample characteristics

Which journals publish studies on forensic neuropathology in terms of subspecialty and impact?

What is the geographical distribution of publications?

What kind of samples are used in terms of size and age distribution?

Research themes and methods

What are the key concepts, i.e., main research themes and methodological approaches in forensic neuropathology?

Are there knowledge gaps?

This review did not aim to summarize or classify particular findings of the studies; however, these are addressed in the supplementary material .

Search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria

The search strategy was developed by the first author (P.O.) and reviewed by the last author of the paper (A.S.). Table  1 presents the specific search terms used in MEDLINE. Figure  1 is a flowchart demonstrating the article selection process with exclusions.

Flowchart demonstrating the article selection process with exclusions

We aimed to find peer-reviewed, original articles that addressed a neuropathological method or finding related to a medico-legal or forensic question in a human sample. A neuropathological method was defined as a macroscopic, microscopic, or other laboratory technique used to examine a tissue sample obtained from the CNS or intracranial structures including vasculature. We focused on English-language articles that were published and indexed in MEDLINE between January 1, 2010, and the database search date. Short communications, retrospective summaries of autopsy findings, and other similar publication types were included if they were original articles based on authentic human samples. Studies that solely focused on postmortem imaging, analysis of body fluids, human identification, or skull fractures without the use of neuropathological methods were excluded.

The search was conducted in the MEDLINE database February 12, 2022. First, P.O. screened all hits on the basis of titles, abstracts, and full texts, if necessary. Each hit was assigned with a rationale for inclusion or exclusion to be later validated by A.S.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction was performed with the help of an Excel spreadsheet. Table  2 presents the variables collected in the data extraction process. The spreadsheet was a priori planned by P.O. and reviewed by A.S.; an internal pilot was carried out in the beginning of data collection (20 hits from the year 2010). Data extraction was performed on the basis of full texts and potential supplementary material of the articles. While P.O. was primarily responsible for extracting the data, the spreadsheet was reviewed and commented by A.S. A formal risk of bias assessment was not performed, as it is not customary in scoping reviews [ 28 ], and was not considered necessary in relation to the present research questions.

Data synthesis was conducted in accordance with the predefined research questions. The distributions of publication year, journal characteristics, geographical location, sample characteristics, primary research theme, and methodological approach were tabulated using frequencies with percentages or medians with interquartile ranges, as appropriate. In addition to these summary statistics, a supplementary table containing the extracted data of individual studies was constructed.

• Literature search

Of 5053 initial hits, 2864 fell within the target timeframe, and 122 were finally included in the review [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 ], corresponding to 4.3% of hits within timeframe (Fig.  1 ). Most exclusions were due to wrong context (e.g., forensic psychiatry) or article type (i.e., not original article). Individual summaries of the 122 included articles, together with aims and main findings, are presented in Supplementary Table  1 .

Meta-level attributes

Table  3 shows the annual distribution of publications over the review period; 3 to 17 articles were published per year globally. Table  4 is a bibliographic and geographic summary of the studies. Forensic journals were the most common publication channel (57.4%), followed by clinical journals (e.g., general medicine, neurology, or pediatric journals; 23.0%), and pathology journals (8.2%). Median impact factor was 2.3, while 11.5% of studies were published in journals without an Impact Factor. As for geographical distribution, Europe (39.3%) and Asia (36.1%) were the two most common study regions.

• Sample characteristics

Table  5 is a summary of sample characteristics. A median sample included 57 subjects (interquartile range 29–101; full range 4–1222), which included both cases and controls, if applicable. Control groups were utilized in less than half of the studies (43.4%). Medians of minimum and maximum ages were 16 and 80 years, respectively. A total of 30.3% of studies were based on adult-only samples, another 30.3% had both adults and minors, and 12.3% were based on minors. Subject ages were not stated in over a quarter of the studies (27.0%).

Lists of research themes and methodological approaches are presented in Table  6 . Individual summaries of the articles, together with aims and main findings, are presented in Supplementary Table  1 .

The most common research theme was traumatic intracranial injury (24.6%), which comprised focal and diffuse traumatic brain injuries [ 30 , 31 , 39 , 43 , 54 , 55 , 64 , 83 , 85 , 86 , 94 , 106 , 107 , 115 , 116 , 120 , 123 , 130 , 132 , 139 , 150 ] and traumatic intracranial hemorrhages [ 30 , 47 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 65 , 83 , 87 , 99 , 113 , 114 , 130 , 141 , 150 ]. Studies often used immunotechniques to identify traumatic changes and estimate the age of injury [ 39 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 94 , 106 , 107 , 115 , 120 , 132 , 139 ]. While some studies described macroscopic injury patterns and combinations in accident and assault scenarios [ 30 , 47 , 65 , 99 , 114 , 116 , 130 , 141 ], others used conventional histology [ 57 , 58 , 113 ] or several methods [ 31 , 43 , 54 , 55 , 64 , 83 , 150 ] to address varying research questions.

The second most common entity was anatomy (12.3%). While most studies described the anatomical variants of vasculature [ 41 , 68 , 75 , 105 , 126 , 127 , 135 ] and other intracranial structures [ 44 , 73 , 74 , 151 ], some aimed to generate reference values for brain weight in various populations [ 69 , 98 , 102 , 125 ]. The main techniques were macroscopic observation, conventional histology, and weight measurement. Moreover, one study evaluated the biomechanical properties of the dura mater [ 151 ].

Substance abuse was the primary entity in 11.5% of the studies. Both chronic and acute abuse were represented. The selection of substances included alcohols [ 38 , 52 , 82 ], opioids [ 38 , 100 , 109 , 117 , 118 , 119 ], stimulants [ 38 , 53 , 81 , 136 , 147 ], and other or multiple substances [ 48 , 50 , 117 , 118 ]. Immunotechniques [ 38 , 48 , 50 , 117 , 118 , 147 ], genetic techniques [ 81 ], or the two together [ 119 , 136 ] were often utilized to identify brain damage and distinguish substance abuse from other causes of death. Some studies primarily reported macroscopic observations [ 52 , 53 , 82 , 109 ] or brain weight [ 100 ] among substance abusers.

Laboratory methods were the main focus in 7.4% of the studies [ 45 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 97 , 111 , 133 , 138 , 148 ]. The studies showed notable heterogeneity, addressing technical aspects of, e.g., formalin pigment deposition [ 45 ], immunohistochemistry [ 133 ], DNA extraction [ 67 ], and freezing preparation of putrefied brain tissue [ 97 ].

Sudden unexpected deaths in infancy and childhood were addressed in 6.6% of the studies [ 33 , 40 , 51 , 61 , 66 , 79 , 84 , 91 ]. Immunotechniques [ 33 , 40 , 79 ], genetic techniques [ 51 ], conventional histology [ 91 ], and brain weight measurement [ 61 ] were used to uncover underlying mechanisms and identify brain tissue markers in these cases. Moreover, one study suggested an optimal neuropathologic examination protocol for these deaths in a medico-legal setting [ 66 ].

Other research themes were rarely addressed (< 5% each). Neurodegenerative diseases in medico-legal settings were approached using immunotechniques [ 128 , 143 , 144 ], image analysis [ 129 ], or a combination of several methods [ 104 , 112 ]. As for suicide, immunotechniques [ 32 , 89 ], genetic techniques [ 62 , 88 ], and brain weight measurement [ 146 ] were applied to identify factors that differentiate suicide victims from controls. Brain tissue markers of hypothermia and hyperthermia were studied by means of immunotechniques [ 78 , 140 , 145 ] and genetic techniques [ 60 ]. Studies that aimed to improve the estimation of postmortem interval were mainly based on immunotechniques [ 42 , 92 ] and genetic techniques [ 134 ]. Asphyxia and brain hypoxia [ 35 , 77 , 108 ], brain edema [ 36 , 37 , 96 ], brain tissue identification [ 95 , 121 , 122 ], drowning [ 34 , 71 ], and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [ 63 , 149 ] were addressed in two to three individual studies each.

One article studied the markers of traumatic brain injury and mechanical asphyxiation using genetic techniques [ 49 ], while another focused on the potential markers of hypothermia, hyperthermia, and intoxication using immunotechniques and genetic techniques [ 59 ]. Finally, the following entities had one study each: sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome [ 46 ], pediatric subdural hemosiderin deposits [ 56 ], iron in fetal and infant leptomeninges [ 80 ], DNA identification based on brain tissue swab [ 76 ], zinc in brain tissue [ 90 ], intracranial aneurysms and dissections [ 101 ], age estimation [ 103 ], electrocution [ 124 ], insulin homicide [ 131 ], fire fatalities [ 137 ], phosphine poisoning [ 93 ], and carbon monoxide poisoning [ 142 ].

Main findings

This scoping review identified 122 original articles on forensic neuropathology from the years 2010–2022. Only 3–17 articles were published per year globally. Most articles originated from the Europe and Asia and were published in forensic journals. A median sample included 57 subjects aged between 16 and 80 years. The most common research theme was traumatic intracranial injury, followed by anatomy and substance abuse. Main methods included immunotechniques and macroscopic observation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first scoping review to systematically explore literature on forensic neuropathology over the past decade.

Meta-level considerations

The annual volume of research output was relatively low, which may indicate rather mild research activity in the field globally. It is obvious that breakthroughs will require consistent scientific effort and active involvement of forensic pathologists in research projects. Clinical neuropathology may have outpowered the forensic branch, possibly due to stronger translational potential and active interplay with clinicians [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Neuropathology is an interdisciplinary field, touching upon neighboring fields such as neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry, legal medicine, and general pathology. Forensic neuropathology is aligned in the midway between clinical and forensic pathology, often requiring particular expertise from a general forensic pathologist [ 22 ]. Interdisciplinary cooperation may thus be the key to increasing research activity in the field.

Articles were widely distributed between journals of various disciplines, which underlines the intersectoral nature of the field. In general, articles were published in international, field-specific journals with a median impact factor of 2.3. However, it is noteworthy that over a tenth of the articles were published in journals with no impact factor whatsoever; anatomic reports appeared to be overrepresented in this subgroup. As for geographical distribution, the vast majority of articles were from European and Asian researchers. Notably, articles from American groups were less common, and only two African articles were published over the entire review period. In order to expedite the development and implementation of forensic neuropathology globally, research input is needed from medico-legal units across the world. Unfortunately, achieving this objective may prove difficult due to resource- and policy-related barriers. It would be important to ensure sufficient personnel resources, methodological expertise, access to research funding, and comprehensible research permit policies for medico-legal data.

Sample-related considerations

Sample sizes were moderate, with a median of 57 subjects; this included both cases and potential controls. Two articles appeared to lack a clear indication of sample size. Despite the relatively small sample sizes, statistical power calculations were rarely presented. In quantitative studies, power calculations guide sample collection and corroborate the statistical approach [ 152 ]. Of note is also the fact that over a half of the studies did not have a control group, which implies that most articles were descriptive in nature. A comparative design is a prerequisite for many scientifically relevant conclusions [ 153 ].

Age ranges were generally wide, which increased the generalizability of findings across age groups. However, taking into account the moderate sample sizes, the level of heterogeneity within samples may significantly increase with widening age spans. Over a quarter of studies appeared to lack a clear statement of the minimum and maximum ages of the sample; some reported standard deviations and interquartile ranges instead.

Research themes, methods, and future directions

Traumatic intracranial injury was the most common research theme. Research activity around the topic is easy to comprehend as traumatic brain injury and intracranial hemorrhages are complex and deadly entities that often present themselves to a forensic pathologist [ 2 , 21 ]. As neuropathology may have a pivotal role in a cause-of-death investigation [ 3 ] or legal proceedings [ 25 , 26 ], novel tools are needed to identify traumatic changes and estimate the age of injury. However, significant breakthroughs are yet to come.

Alongside traumatic intracranial injury, the top-three research themes included anatomy and substance abuse. Somewhat surprisingly, macroscopic and microscopic anatomy of intracranial structures were among the most popular research themes. Many of these studies reported important findings for neurosurgeons, for example, but appeared to make a minor contribution to the field of forensic neuropathology. Substance abuse, which indeed is a central medico-legal entity [ 154 ], was approached from a variety of perspectives method- and substance-wise. However, more research input will be needed to identify substance-specific markers in brain tissue and differentiate substance abuse and intoxication from other causes of death.

Neurodegenerative diseases were addressed in a handful of studies. In spite of the vast research activity in clinical neuropathology, studies in medico-legal samples are also important, as neurodegenerative diseases appear to increase the risk of unnatural deaths [ 155 ]. Providing medico-legal units with diagnostic methods that have been validated in medico-legal samples will be of utmost importance. As for sudden unexplained deaths among infants and children, studies have kept chasing potential mechanisms and biomarkers, but again, significant breakthroughs are yet to come.

Although suicide is a major and diverse entity in forensic pathology [ 156 ], only a few studies addressed the topic. Considering the obscurity behind predisposing and underlying factors, there should be a lot to achieve mechanism- and prevention-wise. Medico-legal samples may have significant translational potential in this regard. Moreover, only a few studies addressed asphyxia, drowning, hypothermia, hyperthermia, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, and estimation of postmortem interval. Higher research activity should be directed toward these themes in order to improve postmortem diagnostics.

Immunotechniques, i.e., immunohistochemistry and immunoblotting, were commonly applied to detect potential changes in brain tissue. Genetic techniques were exploited in various approaches such as brain tissue identification and gene expression analysis. A minority of studies used conventional histology as the main method. Although a number of novel findings were reported, most were of preliminary nature and will require further validation. Macroscopic observation of intracranial structures was a common method, but the studies often merely described injury patterns or anatomic variations. The crude measurement of brain weight was also used in some studies, but these often had null findings.

Limitations of the review

This scoping review had several limitations that should be considered. First, the scope of the literature search was notably broad, and conventional search terms were covered. However, articles that used specific or uncommon terminology may have been omitted. A large number of initial hits were obtained and manually evaluated, which may have reduced the risk of omitting in-scope articles. Second, as the review focused on original articles, emerging research themes may not have been fully covered. Moreover, there is a large body of research that may not be captured in this review even though it is relevant to forensic neuropathologists (e.g., CNS infections and emerging concepts in neurodegenerative diseases). Future reviews are expected to cover these aspects. Finally, as the aim was to explore and summarize original research in the field, there were no particular restrictions on scientific rigor, and no formal bias assessment was performed.

This scoping literature review explored original research on forensic neuropathology over the years 2010–2022. A total of 122 original articles were eventually included in the synthesis. Traumatic intracranial injury was the most common research theme, immunotechniques being the most commonly applied method. Only 3–17 articles were published per year globally. Although a number of novel findings were reported, most were of preliminary nature and will require further validation. In order to reach breakthroughs and validate novel tools for routine use, more research input is urged in forensic neuropathology from researchers across the world. Interdisciplinary cooperation may be the key to increasing research activity in the field. Researchers should ensure appropriate sample sizes and make use of comparative designs whenever possible.

Knowledge of diseases and trauma related to the central nervous system has high value in forensic pathology

This scoping review explored literature on forensic neuropathology from 2010 to 2022

A total of 122 original articles were included, corresponding to 3–17 publications per year globally

4.The most common research theme was traumatic intracranial injury (24.6%), followed by anatomy (12.3%) and substance abuse (11.5%). Key methods included immunotechniques (31.1%) and macroscopic observation (21.3%)

To reach breakthroughs and validate tools for routine practice, more research input is needed from researchers across the world

Availability of data and material

This is a review of published literature. The dataset generated and analysed during the study is presented in Supplementary Table 1 .

Code availability

Not applicable.

GBD 2016 Neurology Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18:459–80.

Rubiano AM, Carney N, Chesnut R, Puyana JC. Global neurotrauma research challenges and opportunities. Nature. 2015;527:S193–7.

Kalimo H, Saukko P, Graham D. Neuropathological examination in forensic context. Forensic Sci Int. 2004;146:73–81.

Bruner JM, Louis DN, McLendon R, Rosenblum MK, Archambault WT, Most S, et al. The utility of expert diagnosis in surgical neuropathology: Analysis of consultations reviewed at 5 national comprehensive cancer network institutions. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2017;76:189–94.

Iacono D, Geraci-Erck M, Peng H, Bouffard JP. Symmetric bihemispheric postmortem brain cutting to study healthy and pathological brain conditions in humans. J Vis Exp. 2016;118:54602.

Trejo-Lopez JA, Yachnis AT, Prokop S. Neuropathology of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurotherapeutics. 2022;19:173–85.

Kon T, Tomiyama M, Wakabayashi K. Neuropathology of Lewy body disease: Clinicopathological crosstalk between typical and atypical cases. Neuropathology. 2020;40:30–9.

Koga S, Sekiya H, Kondru N, Ross OA, Dickson DW. Neuropathology and molecular diagnosis of synucleinopathies. Mol Neurodegener. 2021;16:83.

Lassmann H. The contribution of neuropathology to multiple sclerosis research. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29:2869–2877.

Clark HB. The neuropathology of autoimmune ataxias. Brain Sci. 2022;12:257.

Fetit R, Hillary RF, Price DJ, Lawrie SM. The neuropathology of autism: A systematic review of post-mortem studies of autism and related disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;129:35–62.

Cole BL. Neuropathology of pediatric brain tumors: A concise review. Neurosurgery. 2022;90:7–15.

von Spreckelsen N, Kesseler C, Brokinkel B, Goldbrunner R, Perry A, Mawrin C. Molecular neuropathology of brain-invasive meningiomas. Brain Pathol. 2022;32:e13048.

Seilhean D. Infections of the central nervous system: Neuropathology. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2019;175:431–5.

Maiese A, Manetti AC, Bosetti C, del Duca F, la Russa R, Frati P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 and the brain: A review of the current knowledge on neuropathology in COVID-19. Brain Pathol. 2021;31:e13013.

Mavroudis I, Kazis D, Chowdhury R, Petridis F, Costa V, Balmus I-M, et al. Post-concussion syndrome and chronic traumatic encephalopathy: Narrative review on the neuropathology, neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:740.

Zhang L, Lucassen PJ, Salta E, Verhaert PDEM, Swaab DF. Hippocampal neuropathology in suicide: Gaps in our knowledge and opportunities for a breakthrough. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;132:542–52.

Patodia S, Somani A, Thom M. Review: Neuropathology findings in autonomic brain regions in SUDEP and future research directions. Auton Neurosci. 2021;235:102862.

McGuone D, Crandall LG, Devinsky O. Sudden unexplained death in childhood: A neuropathology review. Front Neurol. 2020;11:582051.

Zwirner J, Kulakofsky R, Fitzek A, Schröder AS, Bohnert S, Franke H, et al. Forensic biomarkers of lethal traumatic brain injury. Int J Legal Med. 2022;136:871–86.

Bertozzi G, Maglietta F, Sessa F, Scoto E, Cipolloni L, di Mizio G, et al. Traumatic brain injury: A forensic approach: A literature review. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2020;18:538–50.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stewart W, Black M, Kalimo H, Graham DI. Non-traumatic forensic neuropathology. Forensic Sci Int. 2004;146:125–47.

Balestrini S, Iacono D, Devinsky O, Mcguone D, Crandall LG. Sudden unexplained death in childhood: A neuropathology review. Front Neurol. 2020;11:582051.

MacKenzie JM. Examining the decomposed brain. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2014;35:265–70.

Kresak JL, Zehe S, Reichard RR. What every neuropathologist needs to know: Neuropathology and the US legal system. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2019;78:291–3.

Whitwell H, Milroy C, du Plessis D. Forensic Neuropathology. 2nd Ed. London: CRC Press; 2021.

Book   Google Scholar  

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, Mcewen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.

Aghakhani K, Heidari M, Ameri M, Mehrpisheh S, Memarian A. Characteristics of traumatic brain injury among accident and falling down cases. Acta Med Iran. 2015;53:652–5.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Al-Sarraj S, Fegan-Earl A, Ugbade A, Bodi I, Chapman R, Poole S, et al. Focal traumatic brain stem injury is a rare type of head injury resulting from assault: A forensic neuropathological study. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012;19:144–51.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alvarado-Esquivel C, Mendoza-Larios LA, García-Dolores F, Sánchez-Anguiano LF, Antuna-Salcido EI, Hernández-Tinoco J, et al. Association between Toxoplasma gondii infection in brain and a history of depression in suicide decedents: A cross-sectional study. Pathogens. 2021;10:1313.

Ambrose N, Waters KA, Rodriguez ML, Bailey K, Machaalani R. Neuronal apoptosis in the brainstem medulla of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), and the importance of standardized SUDI classification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2018;14:42–56.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

An J-L, Ishida Y, Kimura A, Kondo T. Immunohistochemical examination of intracerebral aquaporin-4 expression and its application for differential diagnosis between freshwater and saltwater drowning. Int J Legal Med. 2011;125:59–65.

Bartschat S, Fieguth A, Könemann J, Schmidt A, Bode-Jänisch S. Indicators for acute hypoxia-An immunohistochemical investigation in cerebellar Purkinje-cells. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;223:165–70.

Bauer M, Deigendesch N, Wittig H, Scheurer E, Lenz C. Tissue sample analysis for post mortem determination of brain edema. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;323:110808.

Bauer M, Gerlach K, Scheurer E, Lenz C. Analysis of different post mortem assessment methods for cerebral edema. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;308:110164.

Bohnert S, Georgiades Kosmas, ·, Monoranu C-M, Bohnert · Michael, Büttner A, Ondruschka B. Quantitative evidence of suppressed TMEM119 microglial immunohistochemistry in fatal morphine intoxications. Int J Legal Med. 2021;135:2315–22.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bohnert S, Seiffert A, Trella S, Bohnert M, Distel L, Ondruschka B, et al. TMEM119 as a specific marker of microglia reaction in traumatic brain injury in postmortem examination. Int J Legal Med. 2020;134:2167–76.

Bright FM, Byard RW, Vink R, Paterson DS. Medullary serotonin neuron abnormalities in an Australian cohort of sudden infant death syndrome. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2017;76:864–73.

Bruno-Mascarenhas MA, Ramesh VG, Venkatraman S, Mahendran J v., Sundaram S. Microsurgical anatomy of the superior sagittal sinus and draining veins. Neurol India. 2017;65:794–800.

Campell ZK, Kwon I, Finley SJ, Lee Y, Javan GT. Talin: A potential protein biomarker in postmortem investigations. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;44:188–91.

Castellani RJ, Smith M, Bailey K, Perry G, Dejong JL. Neuropathology in consecutive forensic consultation cases with a history of remote traumatic brain injury. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;72:683–91.

Cavdar S, Solmaz B, Tanis Ö, Guler O, Dalcik H, Aydogmus E, et al. Anatomic variations of the human falx cerebelli and its association with occipital venous sinuses. Br J Neurosurg. 2021;35:306–12.

Chatzopoulos K, Treeck B van, Venable E, Serla V, Wirth T, Amirahmadi F, et al. Formalin pigment artifact deposition in autopsy tissue: predisposing factors, patterns of distribution and methods for removal. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2020;16:435–41.

Chen Z, Mu J, Chen X, Dong H. Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome in Central China (Hubei): A 16-year retrospective study of autopsy cases. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:1–6.

Cheshire EC, Biggs MJP, Hollingbury FE, Fitzpatrick-Swallow VL, Prickett TRA, Malcomson RDG. Frequency of macroscopic intradural hemorrhage with and without subdural hemorrhage in early childhood autopsies. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2019;15:184–90.

Chindemi C, Cirielli V, Cima L, Danzi O, Raniero D, Tagliaro F, et al. Autophagy pathways in drug abusers after forensic autopsy: LC3B, ph-mTOR and p70S6K analysis. Med Sci Law. 2019;59:49–56.

Chung U, Seo J-S, Kim Y-H, Hoon Son G, Hwang J-J. Quantitative analyses of postmortem heat shock protein mRNA profiles in the occipital lobes of human cerebral cortices: Implications in cause of death. Mol Cells. 2012;34:473–80.

Cirielli V, Cima L, Chindemi C, Danzi O, Ghimenton C, Eccher A, et al. Cortical expression of the polysialylated isoform of the neural cell adhesion molecule on brain tissue to recognize drug-related death. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2018;39:8–13.

Danusso R, Alfonsi G, Ferrero S, Lavezzi AM, Lattuada D. Mitochondrial DNA content: A new potential biomarker for sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Res. 2022;92:1282–1287.

Darke S, Duflou J, Forensic Pathologist C, Torok M, Officer R, Prolov T, et al. Toxicology, circumstances and pathology of deaths from acute alcohol toxicity. J Forensic Leg Med. 2013;20:1122–5.

Darke S, Lappin J, Kaye S, Duflou J. Clinical characteristics of fatal methamphetamine-related stroke: A national study. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63:735–9.

Davceva N, Janevska V, Ilievski B, Petrushevska G, Popeska Z. The occurrence of acute subdural haematoma and diffuse axonal injury as two typical acceleration injuries. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012;19:480–4.

Davceva N, Janevska V, Ilievski B, Spasevska J, Jovanovic R. The importance of the detail forensic-neuropathological examination in the determination of the diffuse brain injuries. Soud Lek. 2012;57:2–6.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

del Bigio MR, Phillips SM. Retroocular and subdural hemorrhage or hemosiderin deposits in pediatric autopsies. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2017;76:313–22.

Delteil C, Kolopp M, Capuani C, Humez S, Boucekine M, Leonetti G, et al. Histological dating of subarachnoid hemorrhage and retinal hemorrhage in infants. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;303:109952.

Delteil C, Humez S, Boucekine M, Jouvet A, Hedouin V, Fanton L, et al. Histological dating of subdural hematoma in infants. Int J Legal Med. 2019;133:539–46.

Du SH, Tan XH, Zhao R, Zhao D, Xue Y, Wang HJ, et al. Molecular pathology of cerebral TNF-α, IL-1β, iNOS and Nrf2 in forensic autopsy cases with special regard to deaths due to environmental hazards and intoxication. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2017;13:409–16.

Du Y, Xu J-T, Jin H-N, Zhao R, Zhao D, Du S-H, et al. Increased cerebral expressions of MMPs, CLDN5, OCLN, ZO1 and AQPs are associated with brain edema following fatal heat stroke. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1691.

Elliott JA, Vink R, Jensen L, Byard RW. Brain weight-body weight ratio in sudden infant death syndrome revisited. Med Sci Law. 2012;52:207–9.

Erbay L, Karhdag R, Oruc M, Cigremis Y, Celbis O. Association of BDNF/TRKB and NGF/TRKA levels in postmortem brain with major depression and suicide. Psychiatr Danub. 2021;33:491–8.

Esen Melez İ, Arslan M, Melez D, Şanli AN, Koç S. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: A retrospective autopsy study of 112 epileptic patients. Arch Neuropsychiatry. 2017;54:225–33.

Florou C, Zorilă A, Zorilă M, Marinescu M, Andrei C, Păvăloiu R, et al. Clinico-statistical and morphological aspects of severe traumatic brain injuries. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2016;57:391–400.

Flugt A, Frost L, Søndergaard C, Milidou I. Lethal abusive head trauma in infancy in Denmark from 2000 to 2011. Dan Med J. 2021;68:AO8200604.

Google Scholar  

Folkerth RD, Nunez J, Georgievskaya Z, McGuone D. Neuropathologic examination in sudden unexpected deaths in infancy and childhood: Recommendations for highest diagnostic yield and cost-effectiveness in forensic settings. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2017;7:182–99.

Funabashi KS, Barcelos D, Visoná I, e Silva SM, Almeida ML, e Sousa PO, et al. DNA extraction and molecular analysis of non-tumoral liver, spleen, and brain from autopsy samples: The effect of formalin fixation and paraffin embedding. Pathol Res Pract. 2012;208:584–91.

García Corredor N, Forero Porras P, Ballesteros Acuña L. Morphological evaluation of the distal medial striated artery. A study with cadaverous material. Colomb Med (Cali). 2020;51:e204440.

Gholamzadeh S, Zarenezhad M, Montazeri M, Zareikordshooli M, Sadeghi G, Malekpour A, et al. Statistical analysis of organ morphometric parameters and weights in South Iranian adult autopsies. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6447.

Gielda L, Rigg S. Extraction of amplifiable DNA from embalmed human cadaver tissue. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:737.

Girela-López E, Beltran-Aroca CM, Dye A, Gill JR. Epidemiology and autopsy findings of 500 drowning deaths. Forensic Sci Int. 2022;330:111137.

Hanson E, Ballantyne J. Human organ tissue identification by targeted RNA deep sequencing to aid the investigation of traumatic injury. Genes (Basel). 2017;8:319.

Haque MA, Khalil M, Khalil M, Sultana SZ, Mannan S, Rahman M, et al. Morphometry of Purkinje cell body of cerebellum in Bangladeshi cadaver. Mymensingh Med J Bangladesh. 2010;19:504–9.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Haque MA, Khalil M, Sultana SZ, Mannan S, Uddin MM, Hossain M, et al. Morphometric study of dentate nucleus of cerebellum in Bangladeshi cadaver. Mymensingh Med J Bangladesh. 2015;24:25–33.

Hashemi R, Mahmoodi R, Amirjamshidi A. Variations in the anatomy of the Willis’ circle: A 3-year cross-sectional study from Iran (2006–2009). Are the distributions of variations of circle of Willis different in different populations? Result of an anatomical study and review of literature. Surg Neurol Int. 2013;4:65.

Helm K, Matzenauer C, Neuhuber F, Monticelli F, Meyer H, Pittner S, et al. Suitability of specific soft tissue swabs for the forensic identification of highly decomposed bodies. Int J Legal Med. 2021;135:1319–27.

Hu Y, Tian L, Ma K, Han L, Li W, Hu L, et al. ER stress-related protein, CHOP, may serve as a biomarker of mechanical asphyxia: a primary study. Int J Legal Med. 2022;136:1091–104.

Ishikawa T, Yoshida C, Michiue T, Große Perdekamp M, Pollak S, Maeda H. Immunohistochemistry of catecholamines in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system with special regard to fatal hypothermia and hyperthermia. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2010;12:121–7.

Jack E, Haas E, Haddix TL. Evaluation of the presence and distribution of leptomeningeal inflammation in SIDS/SUDI cases and comparison with a hospital-based cohort. Childs Nerv Syst. 2019;35:2391–7.

Jack E, Fennelly NK, Haddix T. The inflammatory cellular constituents of foetal and infant leptomeninges: A survey of hospital-based autopsies without trauma. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:911–7.

Johnson MM, David JA, Michelhaugh SK, Schmidt CJ, Bannon MJ. Increased heat shock protein 70 gene expression in the brains of cocaine-related fatalities may be reflective of postdrug survival and intervention rather than excited delirium. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57:1519–23.

Karayel F, Turan A, Sav A, Pakis I, Akyildiz E, Ersoy G. Methanol intoxication. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2010;31:34–6.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kibayashi K, Shimada R, Nakao KI, Ro A. Analysis of pituitary lesions in fatal closed head injury. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2012;33:206–10.

Kinney HC, Cryan JB, Haynes RL, Paterson DS, Haas EA, Othon, et al. Dentate gyrus abnormalities in sudden unexplained death in infants: Morphological marker of underlying brain vulnerability. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129:65–80.

Kobek M, Jankowski Z, Szala J, Gąszczyk-Ozarowski Z, Pałasz A, Skowronek R. Time-related morphometric studies of neurofilaments in brain contusions. Folia Neuropathol. 2016;54:50–8.

Krohn M, Drebler J, Bauer M, Schober K, Franke H, Ondruschka B. Immunohistochemical investigation of S100 and NSE in cases of traumatic brain injury and its application for survival time determination. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:430–40.

Krywanczyk A, Bundock EA. Quantifying macrophages and hemosiderin in pediatric dura mater. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63:902–5.

Krzyzanowska M, Steiner J, Karnecki K, Kaliszan M, Brisch R, Wiergowski M, et al. Decreased ribosomal DNA transcription in dorsal raphe nucleus neurons differentiates between suicidal and non-suicidal death. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016;266:217–24.

Kurtulus Dereli A, Demırci GN, Dodurga Y, Özbal S, Cankurt U, Boz B, et al. Evaluation of human pineal gland acetylserotonin O-methyltransferase immunoreactivity in suicide: A preliminary study. Med Sci Law. 2018;58:233–8.

Lech T, Sadlik J. Zinc in postmortem body tissues and fluids. Biol Trance Elem Res. 2011;142:11–7.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Leitner DF, McGuone D, William C, Faustin A, Askenazi M, Snuderl M, et al. Blinded review of hippocampal neuropathology in sudden unexplained death in childhood reveals inconsistent observations and similarities to explained paediatric deaths. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2022;e12746.

Lesnikova I, Schreckenbach MN, Kristensen MP, Papanikolaou LL, Hamilton-Dutoit S. Usability of immunohistochemistry in forensic samples with varying decomposition. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2018;39:185–91.

Liang Y, Tong F, Huang F, Liu Y, Zhu L, le Grange JM, et al. Pathological changes induced by phosphine poisoning: A study on 8 children. Int J Legal Med. 2020;134:217–28.

Lier J, Ondruschka B, Bechmann I, Dreßler J. Fast microglial activation after severe traumatic brain injuries. Int J Legal Med. 2020;134:2187–93.

Lindenbergh A, van den Berge M, Oostra R-J, Cleypool C, Bruggink A, Kloosterman A, et al. Development of a mRNA profiling multiplex for the inference of organ tissues. Int J Legal Med. 2013;127:891–900.

Lundesgaard Eidahl JM, Opdal SH, Rognum TO, Stray-Pedersen A. Postmortem evaluation of brain edema: An attempt with measurements of water content and brain-weight-to-inner-skull-circumference ratio. J Forensic Leg Med. 2019;64:1–6.

Matoba K, Hyodoh H, Murakami M, Matoba T, Saito A, Feng F, et al. Freezing preparation for macroscopic forensic investigation in putrefied brain. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2017;26:6–10.

Mehrpour O, Sheikhazadi A, Hasan Ghadyani M, Hooshyar H. Brain weight of Iranian population; The first report. J Forensic Leg Med. 2010;17:426–31.

Mohd Saman SA, Jothee S, Nor FM, Shafie MS. The pattern of injuries among motorcyclists in fatal road traffic accidents: An autopsy-based study. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2021;42:141–6.

Molina D, Vance K, Coleman M, Hargrove V. Testing an age-old adage: Can autopsy findings be of assistance in differentiating opioid versus cardiac deaths? J Forensic Sci. 2020;65:112–6.

Mori S, Takahashi S, Hayakawa A, Saito K, Takada A, Fukunaga T. Fatal intracranial aneurysms and dissections causing subarachnoid hemorrhage: An epidemiological and pathological analysis of 607 legal autopsy cases. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27:486–93.

Mubbunu L, Bowa K, Petrenko V, Silitongo M. Correlation of internal organ weights with body weight and body height in normal adult Zambians: A case study of Ndola Teaching Hospital. Anat Res Int. 2018;2018:4687538.

Naue J, Sänger T, Hoefsloot HCJ, Lutz-Bonengel S, Kloosterman AD, Verschure PJ. Proof of concept study of age-dependent DNA methylation markers across different tissues by massive parallel sequencing. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;36:152–9.

Nishida N, Yoshida K, Hata Y, Arai Y, Kinoshita K. Pathological features of preclinical or early clinical stages of corticobasal degeneration: a comparison with advanced cases. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2015;41:893–905.

Nyasa C, Mwakikunga A, Tembo LH, Dzamalala C, Ihunwo AO. Anatomical variations and morphometric properties of the circulus arteriosus cerebri in a cadaveric Malawian population. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2021;80:820–6.

Oerter S, Förster C, Bohnert M. Validation of sodium/glucose cotransporter proteins in human brain as a potential marker for temporal narrowing of the trauma formation. Int J Legal Med. 2019;133:1107–14.

Olczak M, Poniatowski Ł, Kwiatkowska M, Samojłowicz D, Tarka S, Wierzba-Bobrowicz T. Immunolocalization of dynein, dynactin, and kinesin in the cerebral tissue as a possible supplemental diagnostic tool for traumatic brain injury in postmortem examination. Folia Neuropathol. 2019;57:51–62.

Olczak M, Chutorański D, Kwiatkowska M, Samojłowicz D, Tarka S, Wierzba-Bobrowicz T. Bystin (BYSL) as a possible marker of severe hypoxic-ischemic changes in neuropathological examination of forensic cases. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2018;14:26–30.

Pelletier DE, Andrew TA. Common findings and predictive measures of opioid overdoses. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2017;7:91–8.

Pelletti G, Garagnani M, Barone R, Boscolo-Berto R, Rossi F, Morotti A, et al. Validation and preliminary application of a GC–MS method for the determination of putrescine and cadaverine in the human brain: a promising technique for PMI estimation. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;297:221–7.

Preusse-Prange A, Modrow J-H, Schwark T, von Wurmb-Schwark N. Detection of constitutive and inducible HSP70 proteins in formalin fixed human brain tissue. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;235:62–7.

Priemer DS, Folkerth RD. Dementia in the forensic setting: Diagnoses obtained using a condensed protocol at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, New York City. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2021;80:724–30.

Rao M, Singh D, Vashista R, Sharma S. Dating of acute and subacute subdural haemorrhage: A histo-pathological study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:HC01–7.

Rebollo-Soria MC, Arregui-Dalmases C, Sánchez-Molina D, Velázquez-Ameijide J, Galtés I. Injury pattern in lethal motorbikes-pedestrian collisions, in the area of Barcelona, Spain. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;43:80–4.

Romero Tirado M, Pampin JMB, Gómez RG. Dating of traumatic brain injury in forensic cases using immunohistochemical markers (I): Neurofilaments and β-amyloid precursor protein. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2018;39:201–7.

Rungruangsak K, Poriswanish N. Pathology of fatal diffuse brain injury in severe non-penetrating head trauma. J Forensic Leg Med. 2021;82:102226.

Sadat-Shirazi MS, Soltani H, Nikpour N, Haghshenas M, Khalifeh S, Mokri A, et al. Alteration of orexin-A and PKCα in the postmortem brain of pure-opioid and multi-drug abusers. Neuropeptides. 2020;83:102074.

Sadat-Shirazi M-S, Zarrindast M-R, Ashabi G. Oxidative stress enzymes are changed in opioid abusers and multidrug abusers. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;72:365–8.

Sadat-Shirazi MS, Zarrindast MR, Daneshparvar H, Ziaie A, Fekri M, Abbasnezhad E, et al. Alteration of dopamine receptors subtypes in the brain of opioid abusers: A postmortem study in Iran. Neurosci Lett. 2018;687:169–76.

Sakai K, Fukuda T, Iwadate K. Immunohistochemical analysis of the ubiquitin proteasome system and autophagy lysosome system induced after traumatic intracranial injury: Association with time between the injury and death. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2014;35:38–44.

Samsuwan J, Muangsub T, Yanatatsaneejit P, Mutirangura A, Kitkumthorn N. Combined bisulfite restriction analysis for brain tissue identification. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;286:42–5.

Sauer E, Extra A, Caché P, Courts C. Identification of organ tissue types and skin from forensic samples by microRNA expression analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017;28:99–110.

Schober K, Ondruschka B, Dreßler J, Abend M. Detection of hypoxia markers in the cerebellum after a traumatic frontal cortex injury: A human postmortem gene expression analysis. Int J Legal Med. 2015;129:701–7.

Shaha KK, Joe AE. Electrocution-related mortality: A retrospective review of 118 deaths in Coimbatore, India, between January 2002 and December 2006. Med Sci Law. 2010;50:72–4.

Sheikhazadi A, Shahabeddin Sadr S, Hasan Ghadyani M, Kazem Taheri S, Asghar Manouchehri A, Nazparvar B, et al. Study of the normal internal organ weights in Tehran’s population. J Forensic Leg Med. 2010;17:78–83.

Siddiqi H, Tahir M, Lone K. Variations in cerebral arterial circle of Willis in adult Pakistani population. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013;23:615–9.

Sultana N, Khalil M, Khan MK, Kabir A, Farjan S, Ismatsara M, et al. Variation in the position and diameter of basilar artery in different ages of Bangladeshi people. Mymensingh Med J. 2018;27:504–7.

Takayama M, Kashiwagi M, Matsusue A, Waters B, Hara K, Ikematsu N, et al. Quantification of immunohistochemical findings of neurofibrillary tangles and senile plaques for a diagnosis of dementia in forensic autopsy cases. Leg Med (Tokyo). 2016;22:82–9.

Takayama M, Kashiwagi M, Matsusue A, Waters B, Hara K, Ikematsu N, et al. Quantification of neuropathological findings by image data for the diagnosis of dementia in forensic autopsy cases. J Med Invest. 2016;63:114–8.

Tolescu S, Zorila M, Serbanescu M, Kamal K, Zorila G, Dumitru I, et al. Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI)-A seven-year comparative study in a Department of Forensic Medicine. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2020;61:95–103.

Tong F, Wu R, Huang W, Yang Y, Zhang L, Zhang B, et al. Forensic aspects of homicides by insulin overdose. Forensic Sci Int. 2017;278:9–15.

Trautz F, Franke H, Bohnert S, Hammer N, Müller W, Stassart R, et al. Survival-time dependent increase in neuronal IL-6 and astroglial GFAP expression in fatally injured human brain tissue. Sci Rep. 2019;9:11771.

Trautz F, Dreßler J, Stassart R, Müller W, Ondruschka B. Proposals for best-quality immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded brain tissue slides in forensics. Int J Legal Med. 2018;132:1103–9.

van den Berge M, Wiskerke D, Gerretsen R, Tabak J, Sijen T. DNA and RNA profiling of excavated human remains with varying postmortem intervals. Int J Legal Med. 2016;130:1471–80.

Vasović L, Trandafilović M, Jovanović I, Ugrenović S, Vlajković S. Vertebral and/or basilar dolichoectasia in human adult cadavers. Acta Neurochir. 2012;154:1477–88.

Wang Q, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Zhu B-L, Guan D-W, Maeda H. Molecular pathology of brain matrix metalloproteases, claudin5, and aquaporins in forensic autopsy cases with special regard to methamphetamine intoxication. Int J Legal Med. 2014;128:469–74.

Wang Q, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Zhu B-L, Guan D-W, Maeda H. Molecular pathology of brain edema after severe burns in forensic autopsy cases with special regard to the importance of reference gene selection. Int J Legal Med. 2013;127:881–9.

Wang Q, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Zhu B-L, Guan D-W, Maeda H. Stability of endogenous reference genes in postmortem human brains for normalization of quantitative real-time PCR data: Comprehensive evaluation using geNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper. Int J Legal Med. 2012;126:943–52.

Wang Q, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Zhu B-L, Guan D-W, Maeda H. Quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of human brain basic fibroblast growth factor, glial fibrillary acidic protein and single-stranded DNA expressions following traumatic brain injury. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;221:142–51.

Wang Q, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Zhu B-L, Guan D-W, Maeda H. Evaluation of human brain damage in fatalities due to extreme environmental temperature by quantification of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), S100b and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) immunoreactivities. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;219:259–64.

Wong B, Ong BB, Milne N. The source of haemorrhage in traumatic basal subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Forensic Leg Med. 2015;29:18–23.

Yarid NA, Harruff RC. Globus pallidus necrosis unrelated to carbon monoxide poisoning: Retrospective analysis of 27 cases of basal ganglia necrosis. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60:1484–7.

Yoshida K, Hata Y, Ichimata S, Nishida N. Tau and amyloid-β pathology in Japanese forensic autopsy series under 40 years of age: Prevalence and association with APOE genotype and suicide risk. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;72:641–52.

Yoshida K, Hata Y, Kinoshita K, Takashima S, Tanaka K, Nishida N. Incipient progressive supranuclear palsy is more common than expected and may comprise clinicopathological subtypes: A forensic autopsy series. Acta Neuropathol. 2017;133:809–23.

Yoshida C, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Quan L, Maeda H. Postmortem biochemistry and immunohistochemistry of chromogranin A as a stress marker with special regard to fatal hypothermia and hyperthermia. Int J Legal Med. 2011;125:11–20.

Zedler B, Flaig B, Ackermann H, Parzeller M, Bratzke H. Brain weight in completed suicide and other cases of death-comparison of recent and previous studies. Int J Legal Med. 2014;128:295–301.

Zhang Z, Gong Q, Feng X, Zhang D, Quan L. Astrocytic clasmatodendrosis in the cerebral cortex of methamphetamine abusers. Forensic Sci Res. 2017;2:139–44.

Zhang H, Zhang P, Ma K, Lv Y, Li W, Luo C, et al. The selection of endogenous genes in human postmortem tissues. Sci Justice. 2013;53:115–20.

Zhuo L, Zhang Y, Zielke HR, Levine B, Zhang X, Chang L, et al. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: Evaluation of forensic autopsy cases. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;223:171–5.

Zorilă A, Zorilă M, Marinaş M, Ţolescu R, Zorilă G, Florou C, et al. Evaluation of brain injuries in children deceased due to head trauma. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2017;58:1417–28.

Zwirner J, Scholze M, Neil Waddell J, Ondruschka B, Hammer N. Mechanical properties of human dura mater in tension-An analysis at an age range of 2 to 94 years. Sci Rep. 2019;9:16655.

Wade A. Fear or favour? Statistics in pathology. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:16–8.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Compared to what? Finding controls for case-control studies. Lancet. 2005;365:1429–33.

Büttner A. Review: The neuropathology of drug abuse. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2011;37:118–34.

An JH, Lee KE, Jeon HJ, Son SJ, Kim SY, Hong JP. Risk of suicide and accidental deaths among elderly patients with cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2019;11:32.

Byard RW, Austin A. The role of forensic pathology in suicide. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2010;7:1–2.

Download references

Open Access funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 21, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland

Petteri Oura, Antti Hakkarainen & Antti Sajantila

Forensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FI-00271, Finland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology: PO and AS. Formal analysis and investigation: PO and AS. Writing—original draft preparation: PO, AH, and AS. Writing—review and editing: PO, AH, and AS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petteri Oura .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 396 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Oura, P., Hakkarainen, A. & Sajantila, A. Forensic neuropathology in the past decade: a scoping literature review. Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00672-9

Download citation

Accepted : 22 June 2023

Published : 13 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00672-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Neuropathology
• Meta-level attribute
• Research theme
• Methodology
• Medico-legal
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 19 March 2021

Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity

• Ross C. Brownson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4260-2205 1 , 2 ,
• Shiriki K. Kumanyika 3 ,
• Matthew W. Kreuter 4 &
• Debra Haire-Joshu 5  

Implementation Science volume  16 , Article number:  28 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

200 Citations

98 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 31 January 2022

There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice in the USA and worldwide. Health equity, a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) to one that is positive about what society can achieve, is becoming more prominent in health research that uses implementation science approaches. Equity begins with justice—health differences often reflect societal injustices. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate impact to improve health equity.

We propose a vision and set of action steps for making health equity a more prominent and central aim of implementation science, thus committing to conduct implementation science through equity-focused principles to achieve this vision in U.S. research and practice. We identify and discuss challenges in current health disparities approaches that do not fully consider social determinants. Implementation research challenges are outlined in three areas: limitations of the evidence base, underdeveloped measures and methods, and inadequate attention to context. To address these challenges, we offer recommendations that seek to (1) link social determinants with health outcomes, (2) build equity into all policies, (3) use equity-relevant metrics, (4) study what is already happening, (5) integrate equity into implementation models, (6) design and tailor implementation strategies, (7) connect to systems and sectors outside of health, (8) engage organizations in internal and external equity efforts, (9) build capacity for equity in implementation science, and (10) focus on equity in dissemination efforts.

Conclusions

Every project in implementation science should include an equity focus. For some studies, equity is the main goal of the project and a central feature of all aspects of the project. In other studies, equity is part of a project but not the singular focus. In these studies, we should, at a minimum, ensure that we “leave no one behind” and that existing disparities are not widened. With a stronger commitment to health equity from funders, researchers, practitioners, advocates, evaluators, and policy makers, we can harvest the rewards of the resources being invested in health-related research to eliminate disparities, resulting in health equity.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

There is an urgent call to address issues of equity, health, and social justice in the USA—driven in part by greater awareness of striking increases in economic inequality and the visibility and impacts of structural racism and associated societal problems.

Implementation science is an area of research with high potential to accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals in both public health and healthcare.

We provide 10 recommendations to advance health equity as a priority of implementation science to address challenges in building the evidence base, developing new measures and methods, and addressing context.

Actions to address ours and other recent recommendations are likely to further health equity and implementation science.

There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice [ 1 , 2 ], which is driven by greater awareness of decades-long increases in income and wealth inequality [ 3 ] and the visibility and impacts of structural racism and associated societal problems [ 4 ]. Longstanding socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in numerous health outcomes are prominent among these societal challenges and are now exacerbated by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 5 ]. The focus on equity is spreading quickly across many sectors and in very public ways [ 6 ]. A renewed focus on social and structural determinants of health, including racism and discrimination, is also advancing within the scientific community [ 7 ].

Health equity is a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) to one that is positive about what society can achieve [ 8 ]. Beginning in Europe, there has been growing attention on health equity—the commitment to reduce and ultimately eliminate health disparities [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In the UK, Whitehead framed health inequities as not only avoidable but also unjust [ 13 ]. Braveman and colleagues pointed out that achieving health equity involves closing health gaps between those less and those more advantaged while also improving the health of the population overall [ 9 ]. Health inequity is addressed through a range of approaches: changing large-scale policies to offset historical injustices, changing policies and practices within healthcare settings, and changing organizational or community contexts that influence health.

A clear distinction is needed between systems, programs, or policies that are equitable , that is, accounting for systematic social disadvantage and injustice, and those that might seem fair because they use the language of equality . Viewing everyone equally assumes, incorrectly, that all population groups have similar circumstances, resources, and opportunities for achieving good health. For example, changing policies that target longstanding injustices fosters equity by improving social and economic conditions, such as poverty and the opportunity structure for education, housing, employment, and access to healthcare.

Implementation science is an area of research with particular potential to accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals [ 14 ]. Implementation science seeks to understand and influence how scientific evidence is put into practice for health improvement [ 15 ]. It offers an explicit response to the decades of scientific progress that generally have not translated into equitable improvements in population health [ 16 ]. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate improvement of health equity. Moreover, a greater emphasis on health equity could attract new and more diverse scientific talent to fully invest in implementation science solutions.

Although a focus on disparities and/or health equity has long been an emphasis of implementation science, a more explicit priority on health equity is timely [ 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Elements of health equity are now being more prominently considered in implementation science models (aka, frameworks, theories), in the context of implementation of interventions, and in study methods. Recent conceptual models, such as the Health Equity Implementation Framework [ 20 ], have begun to examine more deeply a broad array of social determinants of health, rather than simply adding a disparities component to the large set of existing implementation science frameworks [ 21 ]. Incorporating a strong equity focus in implementation science requires not only a deliberate emphasis on the needs, culture, and history of the populations and communities [ 22 , 23 ], but also more critical analyses and deeper understanding of systems and policies, including care delivery and provider attitudes from which inequities might arise. Equity-centered research relies on meaningful engagement and partnership with multiple stakeholders, builds on existing resources, develops shared goals, and integrates knowledge and action that lead to a fairer distribution of power and the benefits of an intervention for all partners [ 23 , 24 , 25 ].

In this article, we propose a vision for making health equity the highest priority in implementation science, and thus a central indicator of the field’s success. This means actively seeking and positively addressing issues of diversity and disadvantage to improve the relevance, effectiveness, equity, and impact of implementation science. We identify and discuss challenges in current approaches to addressing health disparities in the context of implementation science and provide recommendations to move the field forward to achieve health equity. While our article is focused largely on public health and health equity challenges in the USA, we draw upon literature and experiences from other regions of the globe.

Key challenges

Here, we address three important challenges for health equity in implementation science. We propose that each can be overcome, and provide a set of recommendations with specific steps to address them.

To identify relevant literature for this article, a review of reviews was conducted using searches for English-language documents published between January 2015 and February 2021. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar. Keywords included “health equity,” “heath disparities,” “health inequalities,” “implementation,” and “social determinants of health.” Following screening of titles and abstracts, full papers were reviewed and examined for the following information: focus of the study; type of review (i.e., narrative review, review of systematic reviews, scoping review, systematic review, umbrella review); and selected findings of relevance to health equity and implementation science.

Limitations of the evidence base

There are at least two important limitations of current scientific evidence that must be overcome to achieve health equity goals: (1) too few evidence-based interventions (EBIs) adequately include a systems approach or address upstream social determinants and (2) the lack of diversity in study samples and settings limits applicability of research findings in ways that unintentionally benefit some populations more than others, potentially exacerbating health inequities.

In implementation research, an EBI is central [ 26 ]—often addressing some well-established risk factor (e.g., tobacco use, lack of cancer screening) [ 27 , 28 ]. However, the origins of many risk behaviors and exposures are shaped by adverse social determinants of health and root causes of inequities (e.g., structural racism, unjust allocation of power and resources). Even though we have a deep literature on the importance of social determinants [ 8 , 10 , 29 , 30 ], most repositories of EBIs are organized around downstream diseases and risk factors, with inadequate attention to upstream factors and solutions [ 31 ].

Approaches for developing EBIs characteristically follow a reductionist tradition, where the objective is to reconstruct reality by its linear, cause and effect parts [ 32 ], not acknowledging or attending to broader systems in which the risk behavior is embedded [ 33 ]. Typically, EBI deployment involves developing and testing an intervention by researchers in a specific population, identifying discordance between where and with whom the EBI was originally tested and a new setting and population of interest (contextual differences), and then adapting the EBI to fit [ 34 ]. A more practice-based, systems approach is needed for achieving equity. For example, a health equity approach recognizes that race-based discrimination through one system (e.g., housing) is reinforced in other interlocking systems (e.g., transportation, education) and identifies how these systems can undercut the effectiveness, in real-world practice, of an intervention developed in a best-case, controlled efficacy study. A systems-based approach identifies the leverage points within and across societal sectors with the highest potential for impact on health equity [ 35 , 36 ].

There is also evidence for an “inverse prevention law,” which suggests that those in most need of benefiting from an EBI may be the least likely to receive it [ 37 ]. When an EBI improves health across the general population, it may have an unintended consequence of increasing health inequities for some groups (e.g., low-income populations, certain minority groups) who were less likely to be reached or reached effectively [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Widening of disparities is a clear indication of the failure of science, practice, and policy to adequately achieve equity. In a review of public health interventions in high-income countries, Lorenc and colleagues found that certain interventions (media campaigns, workplace smoking bans) showed evidence of increasing inequities affecting lower socioeconomic groups [ 37 ]. In a policy-focused umbrella review, Thomas and colleagues studied a wide range of policy approaches across seven public health areas: tobacco, alcohol, food and nutrition, reproductive health services, the control of infectious diseases, the environment, and workplace regulations [ 39 ]. While most policies were shown to either reduce inequities or were neutral toward inequities, some appear to increase inequities (e.g., folic acid mass media campaigns, low emission zones in cities). Implementation of broad policy approaches thought to be universal may require adjustments to aspects of disadvantaged settings and populations to achieve equitable effects.

Underdeveloped measures and methods

The measures and methods for implementation science are evolving but to date with a limited emphasis on equity and, therefore, a lack of methods that are sensitive to equity issues. For example, upstream interventions which are often focused on policy changes are likely to decrease inequities if appropriately designed [ 37 ], but a review of measures of policy implementation found that none of the 170 measures used in a diverse set of studies had an explicit focus on equity [ 40 ].

Policy and other interventions that address fundamental health equity issues should be studied with the strongest designs possible. In some cases, the biomedical “gold standard” designs (e.g., the randomized controlled trial) can be used, including cluster-randomized trials [ 41 ] and stepped-wedge designs [ 42 ]. There is growing literature on how to conduct randomized trials that are equity-relevant [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. In other cases, particularly when the independent variable (e.g., a policy) cannot be randomized, non-randomized designs and methods are appropriate (e.g., time-series designs, quasi-experiments, natural experiments, difference in difference studies) [ 41 , 46 ]. This range of study methods can help with understanding and addressing policies and equity-related issues in various contexts [ 41 ]. Also relevant are pragmatic trials that address issues of importance to key stakeholders by conducting research in real-world conditions, seeking to enhance external validity and other information relevant to transferability to other settings [ 47 ]. Such pragmatic approaches facilitate equity-driven implementation science due to their ability to assess multilevel impacts and an emphasis on who benefits and who does not benefit from an EBI [ 48 ].

Inadequate attention to context

Context is a central feature of implementation science, yet it is frequently poorly defined or goes unreported [ 49 ]. Often context relates to characteristics of a priority population of focus or the setting within which an EBI is being delivered [ 50 , 51 ]. Failure to fully account for context limits the applicability and generalizability of study findings to different populations, settings, and time periods [ 51 ]. Gaps in our current approaches to context include (1) inadequate attention to macro forces that shape implementation and (2) a need to re-visit the role of EBI adaptation.

To advance equity, we need to more fully account for (macro-level) historical, cultural, economic, and political forces that shape implementation in low-resource settings and communities within the USA and in other countries [ 14 , 52 ]. When implementing or scaling up an EBI, contexts should be conceptualized in terms of aspects of the intervention and its delivery that are likely to differ from those of the original study population in populations affected by inequities, focusing on those factors that are likely to influence intervention uptake, salience, and effectiveness. First, during implementation planning, a community assessment should account for historical, cultural, and system factors such as structural racism and mistrust of health systems [ 53 ]. Second, selection of an EBI is a critical part of implementation and should avoid the assumption that any EBI is good for anyone in any context [ 54 ]. And third, it is useful to consider contextual issues across all levels of a socio-ecological framework (individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, policy) [ 52 ]. Table  1 summarizes reviews of equity-relevant studies describing essential implementation contextual elements for interventions among disadvantaged populations and low-resource settings [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].

Contextual conditions drive adaptation—e.g., how an EBI needs to be adapted for a population different from the one with which it was originally developed [ 60 ]. However, it is worth re-examining the very concept of adaptation, which one could argue illustrates the relative failure of science to develop relevant solutions for disadvantaged populations. Too often, adaptation is an exercise in retrofitting EBIs to underserved populations and under-resourced settings. In a true equity approach to implementation, a goal might be a steady reduction in the need for EBI adaptation when more and more EBIs are developed in circumstances with the least, rather than the most resources.

Recommendations

To tackle these and related challenges, we offer 10 recommendations (Table  2 ). Each is directly linked to the challenges noted and is based on the existing literature and the authors’ experiences.

Improving the evidence base

Link social determinants with health outcomes.

Many funders of research in public health and healthcare delivery (including those in implementation science) tend to require studies that show effects on traditional clinical and behavioral outcomes (e.g., cancer screening rates, rates of depression, rates of infectious disease) [ 61 ]. A clear need for health equity in implementation science is the ability to understand pathways between social determinants of health and outcomes of relevance to various stakeholders, recognizing that the impact may be neither direct nor immediate, but still profound and measurable. There is a substantial and growing body of evidence linking interventions on social determinants of health to a broad range of health outcomes (Table  3 ) [ 4 , 38 , 39 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. In primary care studies, there are multiple ways in which social determinants of health are increasingly being addressed (e.g., screening for social risk factors, linking patients with local resources) [ 69 ]. In addition, it is important to consider social determinants as potential moderators of health behavior change [ 70 ].

There are opportunities for researchers to more fully consider social determinants of health as they design studies. To inform future studies and to synthesize existing literature, several useful guidelines and evidence frameworks can be applied. For example, equity and social determinants are included in the APEASE criteria [ 71 ], the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework [ 72 , 73 ], and an expanded version of CONSORT [ 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ].

Build equity into all policies

Policies, in the form of laws and administrative regulations, have profound effects on population health and health equity. Policy implementation is an under-studied area, particularly in the USA [ 78 , 79 ]. Research on policy implementation seeks to understand the complexity of the policy process to increase the likelihood that research evidence is a meaningful part of policy decisions. In this section, we focus on “Big P” policies (i.e., laws, administrative rules, and regulations), although in a later section, “small p” policies (i.e., organizational changes, non-governmental professional guidelines) are briefly considered.

Lessons can be drawn from the Health in All Policies (HiAP) movement which recognizes that our greatest health challenges are complex and strongly determined by policy and social determinants [ 80 , 81 ]. The HiAP approach seeks to incorporate health considerations in decision-making across sectors and policy topics. We propose a new framing as Equity in All Policies (EiAP), in which equity is a primary consideration, not merely one of many considerations. An EiAP approach would include analyzing barriers to policy change, the impacts of policy decisions on equity, both retrospectively and prospectively, with a particular emphasis on aspects of policy design that can privilege or disadvantage certain population groups [ 39 , 82 , 83 ]. Lack of evidence often is not the main barrier to policy action to address equity, more often political will is the biggest challenge [ 30 ]. To build political will, new approaches are also needed for framing and communicating the health equity benefits to various segments of policy audiences (e.g., progressive versus conservative) via audience research studies [ 84 ].

Improving measures and methods

Use equity-relevant metrics.

A public health adage is “what gets measured, gets done” [ 85 ]. Most existing measures focus on ultimate outcomes, such as disparities in health status, and do not directly measure factors that lie along the pathway to inequity or equity. Equity measurement should include three elements (1) an indicator of health or a modifiable determinant of health (e.g., living conditions, policies), (2) an indicator of social position (e.g., economic stability, educational attainment), and (3) a method for comparing health or a health determinant across social strata (e.g., a ratio of rates) [ 86 ]. Two groups of metrics need to be developed and used: (1) broad equity measures of social determinants of health that could be used to measure progress in communities and (2) measures specific to equity and implementation science for use in research studies.

At a population level, representing the success or failure of implementation, we need to expand our usual surveillance metrics (e.g., behavioral risk factors, mortality) and crude area-level measures (e.g., the Area Deprivation Index) to concentrate more on upstream factors. For example, surveillance systems should track social determinants such as third grade reading literacy, unemployment rates, incarceration rates, and the percentage of households that pay over 30% of their income for housing.

Within implementation research studies, we need to go deeper into the underlying causes of disparities, identify new metrics, and include these in our studies. For example, to measure disadvantage, many studies measure household income but few measure household wealth. The Black-White difference in median household income is 1.7-fold yet the difference in Black-White median household wealth is 10-fold [ 87 , 88 ]. To more fully measure equity, researchers need to develop measures that account for historical or life course disadvantage and metrics within multiple levels that account for the context for implementation [ 89 , 90 ]. A measurement approach for equity in implementation science assesses both quantity and quality—the simplest measurement occurs in quadrant 1 and the most comprehensive in quadrant 4 (Fig.  1 ) [ 91 ].

Four categories of measurement for equity and implementation science (adapted from MCH Evidence [ 91 ])

As equity-relevant measures are developed and refined, it will be helpful to apply existing taxonomies such as the set of eight outcomes developed by Proctor and colleagues (i.e., acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability) [ 92 ]. Measures and methods within these eight categories will need to be adapted to account for contexts where disparities are developed and maintained (e.g., how to document feasibility in a low-resource setting).

Study what is already happening—more practice-based evidence

The importance of context is often devalued relative to the presumed “superiority” of the intervention itself. Our funding mechanisms tend to favor innovation over replication, even when many stakeholders are largely seeking to apply existing knowledge [ 93 ]. The research process does not always align with priorities of those experiencing inequities and often moves more slowly than innovations in practice and policy. In a study of implementation of mental health services, Aby found three important themes showing how participants experienced implementation: invisibility (e.g., not enough mental health providers of color), isolation (e.g., separation and lack of collaboration among key stakeholder), and inequity (e.g., feeling tokenized or unwelcome) [ 94 ].

To address these issues, it will be useful to place much more emphasis on studying implementation of ongoing health equity projects, often via natural experiments. Experience in low-resource settings shows that novel approaches sometimes thrive under constraints (i.e., creativity can thrive when choices are restricted) [ 56 ]. These real-world studies often involve natural experiments [ 95 , 96 ], which are particularly useful in studying social determinants designed to address inequities and enhance external validity [ 97 ]. Multiple state and local agencies across the USA are conducting health equity projects [ 98 ]. As an example, the Rhode Island Department of Health supports nine Health Equity Zones across the state to improve socioeconomic and environmental conditions across the state [ 99 ]. In Canada, as part of the Canadian Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis community partners brought unique and important community perspectives and relationships to implementation projects [ 100 , 101 ]. These projects develop so-called “tacit knowledge” or “colloquial evidence” (pragmatic information based on direct experience and action in practice) [ 102 , 103 ]. They also contribute to the process of tailored implementation, which builds on real-world experiences to identify the most important determinants to address [ 104 , 105 ].

Integrate equity into implementation models

Models provide a roadmap—a systematic structure for the development, management, and evaluation of all parts of a study [ 21 ]. While there are over 100 models to guide implementation science research, only a handful explicitly include health equity [ 20 , 90 , 94 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ]. These frameworks are informed by development and use of a larger set of models on health and equity [ 110 ].

To advance equity and implementation science, we need to identify gaps among existing models which in turn can guide model improvement. This analysis could assess (1) whether equity is an explicit focus of models (e.g., Is it an end goal?), (2) the degree to which social determinants are represented, (3) whether a set of core equity constructs could be identified within models, (4) whether models apply equally well to lower and higher resource settings, and (5) the degree of representation of disadvantaged groups and community stakeholders in the model. Model selection and adaptation can benefit by interactive webtools such as Dissemination and Implementation Models in Health Research and Practice [ 111 ].

Design and tailor implementation strategies

Implementation strategies are methods to enhance the adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of an innovation (often in the form of an EBI) [ 112 ]. Multiple taxonomies describe and organize commonly used implementation strategies that can target a range of stakeholders and multilevel contextual factors across different phases of implementation [ 113 , 114 ]. The design of implementation strategies should be guided by the growing body of evidence, pertinent theories and frameworks, and relevant stakeholders, including those from communities in which health disparities have been identified [ 113 , 115 ]. Ultimately, the goal is to understand who needs to do what in order to implement and sustain an innovation, what factors are likely to facilitate or impede those changes, and what strategies need to be in place in order to address anticipated or emergent challenges [ 116 , 117 ]. The implementation and scale-up of the U.K. Diabetes Prevention Programme show the importance of stakeholder engagement, addressing contextual conditions (e.g., staff turnover), and the value of incentives [ 118 ].

Development and use of implementation strategies should include explicit consideration of disparities, contextual conditions that may lead to inequitable outcomes (e.g., resources, history), and opportunities to promote equity by carefully designing and/or tailoring strategies. To date, relatively little emphasis has been placed on how well implementation strategies are responsive to health equity needs. There is ample opportunity to examine the extent to which strategies identified in prevailing taxonomies can be leveraged to address determinants of equity, and to develop and test novel strategies at multiple levels (e.g., individual, provider, organization, community) that may promote health equity. Adaptive designs for developing equity-relevant implementation strategies, such as the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) design [ 119 ], are likely to be useful in accounting for changing real-world conditions.

Giving greater attention to context

Connect to systems and sectors outside of health.

Many of the most important influences on health status and disparities occur in sectors outside of healthcare and public health (e.g., schools, housing, education, labor) [ 120 ]. These settings are crucial for implementation science in at least four ways: (1) they are highly experienced delivering services to underserved populations and thus have deep knowledge of how to do it well, (2) many of these sectors are already delivering exactly the kinds of non-health interventions that address social needs (as described in Table  3 ), (3) they provide access to high-risk populations where a health intervention might be added to a service (e.g., adding a smoking cessation intervention to services designed to meet social needs), and (4) the setting itself might be the focus for change and a secondary benefit is a health outcome (e.g., lower use of the emergency department among those who receive permanent supportive housing). Often, the missions and cultures of agencies in these sectors do not focus on health [ 121 ]. Therefore, our traditional approaches for forming partnerships need to be re-examined and altered [ 122 ].

Three principles show promise. First, an underlying premise is that justice is essential to achieving health equity [ 123 , 124 ]—not only justice in the health sector but justice across all sectors including housing and neighborhoods, safety, education, and economics and employment. Second, we need more “disease-agnostic interventions,” which are structural interventions, often outside the health sector, that address common risk factors that are linked with multiple disparities [ 125 ]. And third, systems science approaches that link sectors have been increasingly applied in public health to study and develop EBIs to address areas as diverse as global pandemics, vaccination system, cancer, and obesity [ 126 ]. To date, systems approaches have not been widely applied in health equity, although they show promise [ 127 ].

Engage organizations in internal and external equity efforts

Organizations are one of several central entities of influence in implementation science [ 128 ]. They may directly deliver health services or may involve community-level partnerships to influence disparities and population health. While health equity is a high priority for many public health organizations, there is sparse empirical data on the organizational commitment to equity issues and how that commitment is operationalized. For example, in a nationwide survey of U.S. practitioners in state health departments, only 2% reported working primarily on health equity and 9% reported that health equity was one of their multiple priority areas [ 129 ].

There are opportunities to more fully address issues in equity and implementation science in organizations [ 121 ]—both internally and externally. Within an organization, assessments of climate and culture can be conducted with an equity lens. For example, one could assess the perception of the commitment of leaders to equity; employee attitudes, motivations, performance on equity issues (including the presence of hidden biases [ 130 ]); internal policies supporting equity; and the diversity of an organization. Organizations could also evaluate existing programs and policies for their reach and impact on health equity. Externally, organizations can bring on new partners who have a shared commitment to equity, develop organizational policies that share decision-making and power with partners, make equity a stated goal of partnerships, and break down funding silos to address root causes. Equity-driven practice for organizations directs resources for those most in need [ 131 ].

Addressing cross-cutting issues

Build capacity for equity in implementation science.

Recent reviews of initiatives to build capacity in implementation science have shown a growing number of training opportunities across eight countries [ 132 , 133 , 134 ]. Capacity building for implementation science occurs in multiple formats including university degree programs, summer training institutes, workshops, and conferences [ 133 ]. Nearly all training programs to date have focused on capacity building among researchers (the “push” for implementation science) with little emphasis on practitioners or implementers (the “pull” for implementation science) [ 133 , 135 ], with few featuring an explicit focus on equity [ 136 ].

A full vision for equity-related training needs to be centered on who is being trained, how they are being trained, and where the work is occurring. To address the “who” element in training, programs need to include a larger percentage of early-career scholars who are from under-represented minority groups [ 137 ] and those working in disciplines outside of health. The “how” can include multiple parts including (1) how training is delivered to reach all audiences (including those outside the health sector), (2) whether equity is featured as an explicit part of core competencies, (3) how principles of community engagement are included in training [ 23 ], and (4) how progress toward equity is evaluated. The “where” issues include where research is occurring and how diverse communities, which are the settings for studies, are engaged in meaningful ways.

Focus on equity in dissemination efforts

Designing for dissemination is defined as “an active process that helps to ensure that public health interventions, often evaluated by researchers, are developed in ways that match well with adopters’ needs, assets, and time frames” [ 138 ]. There is a well-documented disconnect between how researchers disseminate their findings and how practitioners and policy makers learn about the latest evidence [ 93 ]. Experience in the population or setting of focus also matters—public health researchers with practice or policy experience are over four times more likely to report good or excellent skills in dissemination [ 139 ].

Equity-focused dissemination of research findings could include several core elements. At a systems level, funders should provide incentives for researchers to engage in meaningful ways with audiences experiencing disparities (e.g., through requirements for dissemination, supplemental funding). To improve dissemination processes, researchers should engage with equity-focused partners early and often in the research process [ 140 ]. Products for dissemination could be improved by refining messages that resonate with key stakeholders and developing communications materials in collaboration with the audience of focus that reflect the images, narratives, and outcomes of interest to populations experiencing disparities.

Approaches to achieving health equity are critical to ameliorating disparities resulting from social, economic, and racial injustice. Given that implementation science is a relatively young field [ 141 , 142 ], often focused on narrowly-defined EBIs, the lack of explicit attention on equity is not unexpected. As a new field, it is more malleable and should embrace the challenge of equity, a highly ambitious but critically important responsibility that would unquestionably demonstrate its value and provide an identity distinct from the many disciplines it draws upon.

Our premise is that every project in implementation science should include an equity focus. Equity begins with justice—health differences often reflect social injustices [ 123 ]. For some studies, equity is the main goal of the project and a central feature of the research questions, the conceptual model, project activities, and dissemination of findings. In other studies, equity is part of a project but not the singular focus. In these projects, we should, at a minimum, ensure that we “leave no one behind” and that existing disparities are not inadvertently widened.

Our recommendations offer a pathway for advancing health equity through implementation science. The ideas provided are critical but far from a complete “playbook” on what needs to happen and how goals might be accomplished. Along with other recent calls to action [ 14 , 20 ], we view these as first-generation concepts to immediately address health equity—ideas on which others can further advance and build upon. With a stronger commitment to equity from funders, researchers, practitioners, advocates, and policy makers, we can harvest the rewards of the resources being invested in health-related research to eliminate disparities, resulting in health justice.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects, and Equity

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Coronavirus disease 2019

Evidence-based intervention

Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence

Health in All Policies

Equity in All Policies

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial

United States

Farrer L, Marinetti C, Cavaco YK, Costongs C. Advocacy for health equity: a synthesis review. Milbank Q. 2015;93(2):392–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12112 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Morton S, Pencheon D, Squires N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation: a national global framework for health, development and equity needs a systems approach at every level. Br Med Bull. 2017;124(1):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldx031 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bor J, Cohen GH, Galea S. Population health in an era of rising income inequality: USA, 1980-2015. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1475–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30571-8 .

Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agenor M, Graves J, Linos N, Bassett MT. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1453–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X .

Lancet Covid-19 Commissioners TFC, Commission S. Lancet COVID-19 Commission Statement on the occasion of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly. Lancet. 2020;396(10257):1102–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31927-9 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Weber L. Companies have promised $35 billion toward racial equity. Where is the money going? New York: Almar Latour; 2020.

Jones NL, Breen N, Das R, Farhat T, Palmer R. Cross-cutting themes to advance the science of minority health and health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(S1):S21–4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.304950 .

Kumanyika SK. Health equity is the issue we have been waiting for. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2016;22(Suppl 1):S8–S10. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000363 .

Braveman P. What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(Suppl 2):5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549141291S203 .

Haire-Joshu D, Hill-Briggs F. The next generation of diabetes translation: a path to health equity. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40(1):391–410. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044158 .

Yao Q, Li X, Luo F, Yang L, Liu C, Sun J. The historical roots and seminal research on health equity: a referenced publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) analysis. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1058-3 .

Alcaraz KI, Wiedt TL, Daniels EC, Yabroff KR, Guerra CE, Wender RC. Understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity in the United States: a blueprint for practice, research, and policy. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):31–46. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21586 .

Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(3):429–45. https://doi.org/10.2190/986L-LHQ6-2VTE-YRRN .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baumann AA, Cabassa LJ. Reframing implementation science to address inequities in healthcare delivery. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4975-3 .

Brownson R, Colditz G. Proctor E (Eds.): Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Lenfant C. Shattuck lecture--clinical research to clinical practice--lost in translation? N Engl J Med. 2003;349(9):868–74. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa035507 .

Chinman M, Woodward EN, Curran GM, Hausmann LRM, et al. Med Care. 2017;55(Suppl 9 Suppl 2):S16–23.

Galaviz KI, Breland JY, Sanders M, Breathett K, Cerezo A, Gil O, Hollier JM, Marshall C, Wilson JD, Essien UR. Implementation science to address health disparities during the coronavirus pandemic. Health Equity. 2020;4(1):463–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2020.0044 .

Sterling MR, Echeverria SE, Commodore-Mensah Y, Breland JY, Nunez-Smith M. Health equity and implementation science in heart, lung, blood, and sleep-related research: emerging themes from the 2018 Saunders-Watkins Leadership Workshop. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12:e005586.

Woodward EN, Matthieu MM, Uchendu US, Rogal S, Kirchner JE. The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0861-y .

Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024 .

Clarke AR, Goddu AP, Nocon RS, Stock NW, Chyr LC, Akuoko JA, Chin MH. Thirty years of disparities intervention research: what are we doing to close racial and ethnic gaps in health care? Med Care. 2013;51(11):1020–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a97ba3 .

Minkler M, Salvatore A, Chang C. Participatory approaches for study design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 175–90.

Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR, Schulz AJ, McGranaghan RJ, Lichtenstein R, Reyes AG, Clement J, Burris A. Community-based participatory research: a capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2094–102. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.170506 .

Ramanadhan S, Davis MM, Armstrong R, Baquero B, Ko LK, Leng JC, Salloum RG, Vaughn NA, Brownson RC. Participatory implementation science to increase the impact of evidence-based cancer prevention and control. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(3):363–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-018-1008-1 .

National Institutes of Health. Dissemination and implementation research in health (R01 Clinical Trial Optional). vol. PAR-19-274. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2019.

Guide to Community Preventive Services. http://www.thecommunityguide.org . Accessed 14 Mar 2021.

The Cochrane Collaboration.  http://www.cochrane.org/ . Accessed 14 Mar 2021.

Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71146-6 .

Braveman P, Egerter S, Williams DR. The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32(1):381–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218 .

Aves T, Kredo T, Welch V, Mursleen S, Ross S, Zani B, Motaze NV, Quinlan L, Mbuagbaw L. Equity issues were not fully addressed in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.008 .

Hoffmann I. Transcending reductionism in nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(3):514S–6S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/78.3.514S .

Ahn AC, Tewari M, Poon CS, Phillips RS. The limits of reductionism in medicine: could systems biology offer an alternative? PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):e208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030208 .

Chambers DA, Norton WE. The Adaptome: advancing the science of intervention adaptation. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4):S124–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.011 .

Jayasinghe S. Social determinants of health inequalities: towards a theoretical perspective using systems science. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0205-8 .

Reskin B. The race discrimination system. Annu Rev Sociol. 2012;38(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145508 .

Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Welch V, Tugwell P. What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(2):190–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2012-201257 .

Naik Y, Baker P, Ismail SA, Tillmann T, Bash K, Quantz D, Hillier-Brown F, Jayatunga W, Kelly G, Black M, Gopfert A, Roderick P, Barr B, Bambra C. Going upstream - an umbrella review of the macroeconomic determinants of health and health inequalities. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1678. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7895-6 .

Thomson K, Hillier-Brown F, Todd A, McNamara C, Huijts T, Bambra C. The effects of public health policies on health inequalities in high-income countries: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):869. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5677-1 .

Allen P, Walsh-Bailey C, Purtle J, Pilar M, Hooley C, Brownson R. Implications for policy implementation measurement from a systematic review. In: 13th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health. Washington, DC: AcademyHealth; 2020.

Brown C, Curran G, Palinkas L, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 .

Hemming K, Haines TP, Chilton PJ, Girling AJ, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2015;350(feb06 1):h391. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h391 .

Jull J, Whitehead M, Petticrew M, Kristjansson E, Gough D, Petkovic J, Volmink J, Weijer C, Taljaard M, Edwards S, et al. When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015815.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mbuagbaw L, Aves T, Shea B, Jull J, Welch V, Taljaard M, Yoganathan M, Greer-Smith R, Wells G, Tugwell P. Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0591-1 .

Wester G, Baeroe K, OF N. Towards theoretically robust evidence on health equity: a systematic approach to contextualising equity-relevant randomised controlled trials. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(1):54–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104610 .

Wing C, Simon K, Bello-Gomez RA. Designing difference in difference studies: best practices for public health policy research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39(1):453–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013507 .

Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(3):257–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113486805 .

Glasgow RE, Askew S, Purcell P, Levine E, Warner ET, Stange KC, Colditz GA, Bennett GG. Use of RE-AIM to address health inequities: application in a low-income community health center based weight loss and hypertension self-management program. Transl Behav Med. 2013;3(2):200–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0201-8 .

Simpson A, Furlong A, Jetha N. At-a-glance - bringing equity into the fold: a review of interventions to improve mental health. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2018;38(10):380–4. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.38.10.04 .

May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0506-3 .

Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3 .

Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28(1):413–33. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144145 .

George S, Duran N, Norris K. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(2):e16–31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706 .

Baumann A, Cabassa L, Wiltsey Stirman S. Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 285–300.

Pinto RM, Berringer KR, Melendez R, Mmeje O. Improving PrEP implementation through multilevel interventions: a synthesis of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(11):3681–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2184-4 .

Yapa HM, Barnighausen T. Implementation science in resource-poor countries and communities. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0847-1 .

Alonge O, Rodriguez DC, Brandes N, Geng E, Reveiz L, Peters DH. How is implementation research applied to advance health in low-income and middle-income countries? BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(2):e001257. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001257 .

Harding T, Oetzel J. Implementation effectiveness of health interventions for indigenous communities: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0920-4 .

Wali S, Superina S, Mashford-Pringle A, Ross H, Cafazzo JA. What do you mean by engagement? - evaluating the use of community engagement in the design and implementation of chronic disease-based interventions for Indigenous populations - scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01346-6 .

Cabassa LJ, Baumann AA. A two-way street: bridging implementation science and cultural adaptations of mental health treatments. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-90 .

Kerner JF. Integrating research, practice, and policy: what we see depends on where we stand. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(2):193–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000311899.11197.db .

Paradies Y, Ben J, Denson N, Elias A, Priest N, Pieterse A, Gupta A, Kelaher M, Gee G. Racism as a determinant of health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One. 2015;10(9):e0138511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138511 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Purnell TS, Calhoun EA, Golden SH, Halladay JR, Krok-Schoen JL, Appelhans BM, Cooper LA. Achieving health equity: closing the gaps in health care disparities, interventions, and research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(8):1410–5. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0158 .

Taylor LA, Tan AX, Coyle CE, Ndumele C, Rogan E, Canavan M, Curry LA, Bradley EH. Leveraging the social determinants of health: What Works? Plos One. 2016;11(8):e0160217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160217 .

Asare M, Flannery M, Kamen C. Social determinants of health: a framework for studying cancer health disparities and minority participation in research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017;44:20–3.

Dendup T, Feng X, Clingan S, Astell-Burt T. Environmental risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010078 .

Suleman S, Garber KD, Rutkow L. Xenophobia as a determinant of health: an integrative review. J Public Health Policy. 2018;39(4):407–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-018-0140-1 .

Martinez-Cardoso A, Jang W, Baig AA. Moving diabetes upstream: the social determinants of diabetes management and control among immigrants in the US. Curr Diab Rep. 2020;20(10):48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-01332-w .

Allen LN, Smith RW, Simmons-Jones F, Roberts N, Honney R, Currie J. Addressing social determinants of noncommunicable diseases in primary care: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(11):754–765B. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.248278 .

Alcantara C, Diaz SV, Cosenzo LG, Loucks EB, Penedo FJ, Williams NJ. Social determinants as moderators of the effectiveness of health behavior change interventions: scientific gaps and opportunities. Health Psychol Rev. 2020;14(1):132–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1718527 .

Public Health England. Achieving behaviour change. A guide for local government and partners. London: Public Health England; 2019.

Moberg J, Oxman AD, Rosenbaum S, Schunemann HJ, Guyatt G, Flottorp S, Glenton C, Lewin S, Morelli A, Rada G, et al. The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0320-2 .

Pottie K, Welch V, Morton R, Akl EA, Eslava-Schmalbach JH, Katikireddi V, Singh J, Moja L, Lang E, Magrini N, Thabane L, Stanev R, Matovinovic E, Snellman A, Briel M, Shea B, Tugwell P, Schunemann H, Guyatt G, Alonso-Coello P. GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;90:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.001 .

Welch V, Jull J, Petkovic J, Armstrong R, Boyer Y, Cuervo LG, Edwards S, Lydiatt A, Gough D, Grimshaw J, Kristjansson E, Mbuagbaw L, McGowan J, Moher D, Pantoja T, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Rader T, Shea B, Taljaard M, Waters E, Weijer C, Wells GA, White H, Whitehead M, Tugwell P. Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0332-z .

Welch VA, Norheim OF, Jull J, Cookson R, Sommerfelt H, Tugwell P, Equity C, Boston Equity S. CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials. BMJ. 2017;359:j5085.

Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, Group CN. CONSORT statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: a 2017 update and a CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic trial abstracts. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(1):40–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0046 .

Glasgow RE, Huebschmann AG, Brownson RC. Expanding the CONSORT figure: increasing transparency in reporting on external validity. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(3):422–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.044 .

Purtle J, Peters R, Brownson RC. A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007-2014. Implement Sci. 2016;11:1.

Emmons K, Chambers D. Commentary: policy implementation science--an unexplored stragegy to address social determinants of health. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(1):133–8. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.31.1.133 .

Puska P. Health in all policies. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(4):328. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckm048 .

Williams DR, Costa MV, Odunlami AO, Mohammed SA. Moving upstream: how interventions that address the social determinants of health can improve health and reduce disparities. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(Suppl):S8–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000338382.36695.42 .

Hahn RA. Two paths to health in all policies: the traditional public health path and the path of social determinants. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(2):253–4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304884 .

Pollack Porter KM, Lindberg R, McInnis-Simoncelli A. Considering health and health disparities during state policy formulation: examining Washington state Health Impact Reviews. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):862. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7165-7 .

Purtle J, Dodson E, Brownson R. Policy dissemination research. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 433–47.

Thacker SB. Public health surveillance and the prevention of injuries in sports: what gets measured gets done. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):171–2.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Braveman P. Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27(1):167–94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102103 .

McIntosh R, Moss E, Nunn R, Shambaugh J. Examining the Black-white wealth gap, vol. 2020. Washington, DC: Brookings; 2020.

Wilson V, Williams J. Racial and ethnic income gaps persist amid uneven growth in household incomes. In: Working Economics Blog, vol. 2020. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute; 2019.

Penman-Aguilar A, Talih M, Huang D, Moonesinghe R, Bouye K, Beckles G. Measurement of health disparities, health inequities, and social determinants of health to support the advancement of health equity. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2016;22(Suppl 1):S33–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000373 .

Dover DC, Belon AP. The health equity measurement framework: a comprehensive model to measure social inequities in health. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-0935-0 .

MCH Evidence: ESM review & resources. https://www.mchevidence.org/documents/ESM-Review-National-Summary.pdf . Accessed 14 Mar 2021.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2010;38:65–76.

Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Green LW. Building capacity for evidence-based public health: reconciling the pulls of practice and the push of research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39(1):27–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014746 .

Aby MJ. Race and equity in statewide implementation programs: an application of the policy ecology of implementation framework. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020;47(6):946–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01033-2 .

Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 .

Rabin B, Brownson R. Terminology for dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 19–45.

Petticrew M, Cummins S, Ferrell C, Findlay A, Higgins C, Hoy C, Kearns A, Sparks L. Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health? Public Health. 2005;119(9):751–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2004.11.008 .

HealthEquityGuide.org.  https://healthequityguide.org/ . Accessed 14 Mar 2021.

Health Equity Zones (HEZ) Initiative.  https://health.ri.gov/programs/detail.php?pgm_id=1108 .   Accessed 14 Mar 2021.

Lobb R, Petermann L, Manafo E, Keen D, Kerner J. Networking and knowledge exchange to promote the formation of transdisciplinary coalitions and levels of agreement among transdisciplinary peer reviewers. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013;19(1):E9–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e31823991c2 .

Manafo E, Petermann L, Lobb R, Keen D, Kerner J. Research, practice, and policy partnerships in pan-Canadian coalitions for cancer and chronic disease prevention. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2011;17(6):E1–E11. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e318215a4ae .

Kothari A, Rudman D, Dobbins M, Rouse M, Sibbald S, Edwards N. The use of tacit and explicit knowledge in public health: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-20 .

Sharma T, Choudhury M, Kaur B, Naidoo B, Garner S, Littlejohns P, Staniszewska S. Evidence informed decision making: the use of “colloquial evidence” at nice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(3):138–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462314000749 .

Krause J, Van Lieshout J, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, Jaeger C, Steinhaeuser J, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, et al. Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0102-3 .

Wensing M, Oxman A, Baker R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Flottorp S, Szecsenyi J, Grimshaw J, Eccles M. Tailored implementation for chronic diseases (TICD): a project protocol. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-103 .

Napoles AM, Stewart AL. Transcreation: an implementation science framework for community-engaged behavioral interventions to reduce health disparities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):710. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3521-z .

Eslava-Schmalbach J, Garzon-Orjuela N, Elias V, Reveiz L, Tran N, Langlois EV. Conceptual framework of equity-focused implementation research for health programs (EquIR). Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-0984-4 .

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00134 .

Yousefi Nooraie R, Kwan BM, Cohn E, AuYoung M, Clarke Roberts M, Adsul P, Shelton RC. Advancing health equity through CTSA programs: opportunities for interaction between health equity, dissemination and implementation, and translational science. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(3):168–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.10 .

Givens ML, Catlin BB, Johnson SP, Pollock EA, Faust VN, Inzeo PT, Kindig DA. What do we know about the drivers of health and equity? a narrative review of graphic representations. Health Equity. 2020;4(1):446–62. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2020.0013 .

Dissemination and implementation models in health research and practice.  https://dissemination-implementation.org/index.aspx . Accessed 14 Mar 2021.

Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 .

Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, McHugh SM, Weiner BJ. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health. 2019;7:3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003 .

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 .

Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Mandell DS. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015;44:177–94.

Fernandez ME, Ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G, Ruiter RAC, Markham CM, Kok G. Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;7:158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00158 .

Powell BJ, Haley AD, Patel SV, Amaya-Jackson L, Glienke B, Blythe M, Lengnick-Hall R, McCrary S, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al. Improving the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices in community mental health organizations: a study protocol for a matched-pair cluster randomized pilot study of the Collaborative Organizational Approach to Selecting and Tailoring Implementation Strategies (COAST-IS). Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:9.

Stokes J, Gellatly J, Bower P, Meacock R, Cotterill S, Sutton M, Wilson P. Implementing a national diabetes prevention programme in England: lessons learned. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):991. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4809-3 .

Kilbourne AM, Almirall D, Eisenberg D, Waxmonsky J, Goodrich DE, Fortney JC, Kirchner JE, Solberg LI, Main D, Bauer MS, et al. Protocol: Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): cluster randomized SMART trial comparing a standard versus enhanced implementation strategy to improve outcomes of a mood disorders program. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0132-x .

National Prevention Council. National Prevention Strategy. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2011.

Mazzucca S, Arredondo EM, Hoelscher DM, Haire-Joshu D, Tabak RG, Kumanyika SK, Brownson RC. Expanding implementation research to prevent chronic diseases in community settings. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021. p. 4.

Mensah GA. New partnerships to advance global health research for NCD. Glob Heart. 2016;11(4):473–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gheart.2016.10.022 .

Braveman PA, Kumanyika S, Fielding J, Laveist T, Borrell LN, Manderscheid R, Troutman A. Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(Suppl 1):S149–55. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300062 .

Krieger N. ENOUGH: COVID-19, structural racism, police brutality, plutocracy, climate change-and time for health justice, democratic governance, and an equitable, sustainable future. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(11):1620–3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305886 .

Brown AF, Ma GX, Miranda J, Eng E, Castille D, Brockie T, Jones P, Airhihenbuwa CO, Farhat T, Zhu L, Trinh-Shevrin C. Structural interventions to reduce and eliminate health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(S1):S72–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304844 .

Luke DA, Stamatakis KA. Systems science methods in public health: dynamics, networks, and agents. Annu Rev Public Health. 2012;33(1):357–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101222 .

McNulty M, Smith JD, Villamar J, Burnett-Zeigler I, Vermeer W, Benbow N, Gallo C, Wilensky U, Hjorth A, Mustanski B, Schneider J, Brown CH. Implementation research methodologies for achieving scientific equity and health equity. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):83–92. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.29.S1.83 .

Aarons G, Moullin J, Ehrhart M. The role of organizational processes in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 121–42.

Furtado KS, Brownson C, Fershteyn Z, Macchi M, Eyler A, Valko C, Brownson RC. Health departments with a commitment to health equity: a more skilled workforce and higher-quality collaborations. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(1):38–46. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1173 .

Wangari Walter A, Ruiz Y, Welch R, Tourse C, Kress H, Morningstar B, MacArthur B, Daniels A. Leadership matters: how hidden biases perpetuate institutional racism in organizations. Hum Serv Organ. 2016;41:213–21.

Gron S, Loblay V, Conte KP, Green A, Innes-Hughes C, Milat A, Mitchell J, Persson L, Thackway S, Williams M, Hawe P. Key performance indicators for program scale-up and divergent practice styles: a study from NSW, Australia. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(6):1415–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa001 .

Darnell D, Dorsey CN, Melvin A, Chi J, Lyon AR, Lewis CC. A content analysis of dissemination and implementation science resource initiatives: what types of resources do they offer to advance the field? Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0673-x .

Chambers DA, Proctor EK, Brownson RC, Straus SE. Mapping training needs for dissemination and implementation research: lessons from a synthesis of existing D&I research training programs. Transl Behav Med. 2016;7:593–601.

Davis R, D'Lima D. Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01051-6 .

Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Kerner JF, Glasgow RE. Methodologic challenges in disseminating evidence-based interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(4 Suppl):S24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.06.009 .

Boyce CA, Barfield W, Curry J, Shero S, Green Parker M, Cox H, Bustillo J, Price LN. Building the next generation of implementation science careers to advance health equity. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):77–82. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.29.S1.77 .

Kreuter MW, Griffith DJ, Thompson V, Brownson RC, McClure S, Scharff DP, Clark EM, Haire-Joshu D. Lessons learned from a decade of focused recruitment and training to develop minority public health professionals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(Suppl 1):S188–95. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300122 .

Brownson RC, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, Hoehner CM, Stamatakis KA. Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: findings from a national survey in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(9):1693–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301165 .

Tabak RG, Stamatakis KA, Jacobs JA, Brownson RC. What predicts dissemination efforts among public health researchers in the United States? Public Health Rep. 2014;129(4):361–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491412900411 .

Lee K, van Nassau F, Grunseit A, Conte K, Milat A, Wolfenden L, Bauman A. Scaling up population health interventions from decision to sustainability - a window of opportunity? A qualitative view from policy-makers. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18:118.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eccles MP, Mittman B. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chambers D. Foreword. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. vii–x.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ana Baumann, Carol Brownson, Leopoldo Cabassa, Russell Glasgow, Jon Kerner, Byron Powell, and Rachel Tabak for helpful comments on the manuscript.

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of the National Institutes of Health, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This work was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute (number P50CA244431), the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (numbers P30DK092950 and R25DK123008), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (number U48DP006395), and the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Prevention Research Center, Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Ross C. Brownson

Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Department of Community Health and Prevention, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

Shiriki K. Kumanyika

Health Communication Research Laboratory, Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Matthew W. Kreuter

Center for Diabetes Translation Research and Center for Obesity Prevention and Policy Research, Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Debra Haire-Joshu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RCB conceptualized the original ideas and wrote the first draft of the paper. SKK, MWK, and DHJ provided input on the original outline, contributed text to the draft manuscript, and provided intellectual content to the manuscript. All authors provided critical edits on drafts of the article and approved the final version. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ross C. Brownson .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Brownson, R.C., Kumanyika, S.K., Kreuter, M.W. et al. Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implementation Sci 16 , 28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0

Download citation

Received : 10 January 2021

Accepted : 09 March 2021

Published : 19 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation science
• Health inequities

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Author Information

Journal Information

• Editorial Boards
• Publication Period
• Publication Charge
• Open Access Policy
• Open Access License
• Abstracting and Indexing
• Peer Review Policy
• Publication Ethics
• Plagiarism Screening
• Browse Articles
• Scopus Citedness
• Vol. 1 Issue 1 (2017)
• Vol. 1 Issue 2 (2018)
• Vol. 1 Issue 3 (2018)
• Vol. 2 Issue 1 (2018)
• Vol. 2 Issue 2 (2019)
• Vol. 2 Issue 3 (2019)
• Vol. 3 Issue 1 (2019)
• Vol. 3 Issue 2 (2020)
• Vol. 3 Issue 3 (2020)
• Vol. 4 Issue 1 (2020)
• Vol. 4 Issue 2 (2021)
• Vol. 4 Issue 3 (2021)
• Vol. 4 Issue 4 (2021)
• Vol. 5 Issue 1 (2022)
• Vol. 5 Issue 2 (2022)
• Vol. 5 Issue 3 (2022)
• Vol. 6 Issue 1 (2023)
• Vol. 6 Issue 2 (2023)
• Vol. 6 Issue 3 (2023)
• Vol. 6 Issue 4 (2023)
• Vol. 7 Issue 1 (2024)
• 5172  downloads (2020)
• 5640  downloads (2021)
• 14151  downloads (2022)
• 6.524  Visitors (2020)
• 11.355  Visitors (2021)
• 13.937  Visitors (2022)

View My Stats

• Recommended softwares for the manuscript preparation: Mendeley , Grammarly

Accreditation

Main Indexing

• Announcements
• Most-Cited Articles

A Systematic Literature Review of Science and Physics Education Teaching Regarding Oscillations

Aygün, B. M., & Hacıoğlu, Y. (2022). Teaching the Sound Concept : A Review of Science and Physics Education Postgraduate Theses in Turkey. Athen Journal of Education, 9(2), 257–275.

Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2023). The Impact of Physics Education Technology (PhET) Interactive Simulation-Based Learning on Motivation and Academic Achievement Among Malawian Physics Students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10010-3

Bathgate, M. E., Aragón, O. R., Cavanagh, A. J., Waterhouse, J. K., Frederick, J., & Graham, M. J. (2019). Perceived supports and evidence-based teaching in college STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0166-3

Batlolona, J. R., Diantoro, M., Wartono, & Latifah, E. (2019). Creative thinking skills students in physics on solid material elasticity. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10265a

Batlolona, J. R., Diantoro, M., Wartono, & Leasa, M. (2020). Students’ mental models of solid elasticity: Mixed method study. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.21

Borrachero, A. B., Brígido, M., Dávila, M. A., Costillo, E., Cañada, F., & Mellado, V. (2019). Improving the self-regulation in prospective science teachers: the case of the calculus of the period of a simple pendulum. Heliyon, 5(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02827

Chiriacescu, B., Chiriacescu, F. S., Miron, C., Berlic, C., & Barna, V. (2020). Arduino and tracker video – didactic tools for study of the kater pendulum physical experiment. Romanian Reports in Physics, 72(1), 1–14.

Chong, S. W., Lin, T. J., & Chen, Y. (2022). A methodological review of systematic literature review in higher education: Heterogeneity and homogeneity. Educational Research Review, 2022, 2–37.

da Silva, O. H. M., Laburú, C. E., Camargo, S., & Chistófalo, A. A. C. (2019). Epistemological contributions derived from an investigative method in an experimental class in the study of Hooke’s law. Acta Scientiae, 21(2), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.v21iss2id4695

Dandare, K. (2018). A study of conceptions of preservice physics teachers in relation to the simple pendulum. Physics Education, 53(5), aac92f. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aac92f

Farrokhnia, M. (2020). Student-Generated Stop-Motion Animation in Science Classes : a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Science Educa, 29(9), 797–812.

Garcés-Gómez, Y. A., López, P. A., Cárdenas, O. O., Henao-Cespedes, V., & Toro-García, N. (2020). Experimental verification of two theoretical solutions of the pendulum for large angles in frequency domain for teaching support. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(8), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V14I08.12607

Hauko, R., Andreevski, D., Paul, D., Šterk, M., & Repnik, R. (2018). Teaching of the harmonic oscillator damped by a constant force: The use of analogy and experiments. American Journal of Physics, 86(9), 657–662. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5044654

Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. (2020). A review of quasi-periodic oscillations from black hole X-ray binaries : Observation and theory. New Astronomy Reviews, 85(September 2019), 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

Ionascu, C. (2022). VIRTUAL EXPERIMENTS FOR MEASURING FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL QUANTITIES. Romanian Reports in Physics, 74(4). https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85141884433

Israilov, S., Fu, L., Sánchez-Rodríguez, J., Fusco, F., Allibert, G., Raufaste, C., & Argentina, M. (2023). Reinforcement learning approach to control an inverted pendulum: A general framework for educational purposes. PLoS ONE, 18(2 February), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280071

Krnic Martinic, M., Pieper, D., Glatt, A., & Puljak, L. (2019). Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0

Kurniawan, B. R., Kusairi, S., Puspita, D. A., & Kusumaningrum, R. W. (2021). Development of Computer Based Diagnostic Assessment Completed with Simple Harmonic Movement Material Remedial Program. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v17i1.18540

Lisboa, A., Peña, F. J., Negrete, O., & Dib, C. O. (2021). Teaching labs for blind students: Equipment to measure standing waves on a string. European Journal of Physics, 42(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ac18b6

Mallidis-Malessas, P., Iatraki, G., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2022). Teaching Physics to Students With Intellectual Disabilities Using Digital Learning Objects. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(4), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211054441

McComas, W. F., & Burgin, S. R. (2020). A Critique of “STEM” Education: Revolution-in-the-Making, Passing Fad, or Instructional Imperative? Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2

Nyirahabimana, P., Minani, E., Nduwingoma, M., & Kemeza, I. (2022). A scientometric review of multimedia in teaching and learning of physics. LUMAT, 10(1), 89–106.

Powell, J. T., & Koelemay, M. J. W. (2022). Systematic Reviews of the Literature Are Not Always Either Useful Or the Best Way To Add To Science. EJVES Vascular Forum, 54(i), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2021.10.021

Price, C. B., & Mohr, R. P. (2019). PhysLab: A 3D virtual physics laboratory of simulated experiments for advanced physics learning. Physics Education, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab0005

Purba, S. W. D., & Hwang, W. Y. (2018). Investigation of learning behaviors and achievement of simple pendulum for vocational high school students with Ubiquitous-Physics app. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 2877–2893. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/90985

Rinaldi, R. G., & Fauzi, A. (2020). A complete damped harmonic oscillator using an Arduino and an Excel spreadsheet. Physics Education, 55(1), ab539d. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab539d

Sumardi, Y., Amalia, A. F., & Prabowo, U. N. (2022). Develoment of The Computer Simulation of Oscillation in Physics Learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 18(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v18i1.29040

Tinmaz, H., Lee, Y. T., Ivanovici, M. F., & Baber, H. (2022). A systematic review on digital literacy. Smart Learning Environments, 9(21), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Volfson, A., Eshach, H., & Ben-Abu, Y. (2021). When Technology Meets Acoustics: Students’ Ideas About the Underlying Principles Explaining Simple Acoustic Devices. Research in Science Education, 51(4), 911–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09913-w

Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A Systematic Review on Exploring the Potential of Educational Robotics in Mathematics Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(5), 79–101.

• There are currently no refbacks.

Multi-dimensional challenges in the Indonesian social science information technology-based learning: A systematic literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Magister Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, Pascasarjana, Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga, Indonesia.
• 2 Teknologi Informasi, Fakultas Dakwah, Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga, Indonesia.
• 3 Doktoral Pendidikan Agama Islam, Pascasarjana, Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga, Indonesia.
• 4 Komunikasi dan Penyiaran Islam, Fakultas Dakwah, Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga, Indonesia.
• 5 Ilmu Hadis, Fakultas Ushuluddin Adab dan Humaniora, Universitas Islam Negeri Salatiga, Indonesia.
• PMID: 38601659
• PMCID: PMC11004741
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28706

The development of information technology (IT) has an essential role in education today. Most teachers in Indonesia utilize the traditional method rather than the advancement of IT. Through digital media, the social science learning process becomes fascinating, improves students' skills, and is more engaging. However, implementing Information Technology-based Learning (ITBL) takes a lot of work. It comes with tremendous challenges that should be addressed carefully. Many previous studies explain the feasibility of the media, its effectiveness, and the advantages of using IT-based learning media. However, they still need to present the challenges in IT-based social science learning, even more so in the Indonesian context. Given the vast landscape of ITBL in Indonesia, a case study approach could entail extensive fieldwork, data collection, and data analysis. Therefore, A literature review can be carried out with less resource investment, making it a pragmatic choice for researchers with limited time and resources. This research aims to discover the challenges of students, teachers, and educational institutions in IT-based social science learning in the Indonesian context. The search protocol is based on the P.R.I.S.M.A. (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis). This systematic literature review results were obtained from 315 articles discussing the challenges of IT-based social science learning published from 2018 until 2022. This research reveals that most challenges students face are internal/self-challenges. For instance, there needs to be more self-regulation and necessary digital literation. On the other hand, teachers' most significant challenge is their lack of skills and experience in implementing IT-based learning media and their inability to operate complex software, even if they have poor digital literacy. The need for facilities and technological training presents challenges for institutions. The need to procure IT infrastructure is due to the difficulty of reaching certain areas (the terrain) in Indonesia. The challenges encountered by students, teachers, and educational institutions are not exclusive to any particular group and extend beyond their respective domains. Addressing the multi-dimensional challenges would be more efficient. The poor digital literacy challenges occurred in other nations, too. This particular challenge can be solved through instructional training. Moreover, the Indonesian government offers numerous free digital training programs for individuals or institutions called "Digitalent."

Keywords: Digital education; E-Learning; Information technology; Learning challenges; Social science.

© 2024 The Authors.