literature review of abstracts

The Guide to Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• The Purpose of Literature Reviews
• Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review
• How to Organize a Literature Review?
• Software for Literature Reviews
• Using Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews
• How to Conduct a Literature Review?
• Common Mistakes and Pitfalls in a Literature Review
• Methods for Literature Reviews
• What is a Systematic Literature Review?
• What is a Narrative Literature Review?
• What is a Descriptive Literature Review?
• What is a Scoping Literature Review?
• What is a Realist Literature Review?
• What is a Critical Literature Review?
• Meta Analysis vs. Literature Review
• What is an Umbrella Literature Review?
• Differences Between Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews
• Literature Review vs. Theoretical Framework
• How to Write a Literature Review?
• How to Structure a Literature Review?
• How to Make a Cover Page for a Literature Review?
• Importance of a literature review abstract

How to write a literature review abstract?

Key reminders when writing a literature review abstract.

• How to Write a Literature Review Introduction?
• How to Write the Body of a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion?
• How to Make a Literature Review Bibliography?
• How to Format a Literature Review?
• How Long Should a Literature Review Be?
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to Present a Literature Review?
• How to Publish a Literature Review?

How to Write a Literature Review Abstract?

A well-crafted abstract is the initial point of contact between your research and its potential audience. It is crucial to present your work in the best possible light. A literature review abstract is a concise summary of the key points and findings of a literature review that is published as a full paper. It serves as a snapshot of the review, providing readers with a quick overview of the research topic , objectives, main findings, and implications .

Unlike the full literature review, the abstract does not delve into detailed analysis or discussion but highlights the most critical aspects. An abstract helps readers decide whether the full article is relevant to their interests and needs by encapsulating the essence of the literature review. A literature review abstract offers a condensed version of the study that helps researchers identify the review's relevance to their work. This is important in academic settings, where individuals often revise numerous journal articles and papers to find pertinent information. A clear and informative abstract saves time and effort.

Here are the steps we recommend when writing abstracts for literature reviews:

Introduce the research topic : Begin by stating the subject of your literature review. Explain its significance and relevance in your field. Provide context that highlights the broader impact and necessity of your review. For example, "This literature review focuses on the impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems and its significance in developing sustainable management strategies."

State objectives : Clearly outline the literature review's main objectives or purposes. Specify what you aim to achieve, such as identifying gaps in the literature, synthesizing existing research, or proposing new directions for future studies. For instance, "This review aims to identify key areas where climate change impacts coastal ecosystems and to propose future research directions."

Summarize key findings : Provide a concise summary of the data collection methods and results. Include primary findings, trends, or insights from your review. Highlight the most important conclusions and previous research contributions, and explain their implications for the field. An example might be, "The review reveals significant changes in species composition due to rising sea temperatures, suggesting the need for adaptive management strategies."

Use clear and concise language : Ensure your abstract covers the main points of your literature review, using straightforward language and avoiding complex terminology or jargon. Write in the third person to maintain objectivity, and structure your abstract logically to improve readability. For example, avoid first-person phrases like "I found that..." and use "The review indicates that..." Keep your abstract concise, typically between 150-250 words. Make it comprehensive, offering a clear view of the review’s scope and significance without overwhelming readers with too much detail. Conciseness is key in abstract writing, as it allows readers to quickly grasp the essence of your review without wading through unnecessary information.

Optimize search engines : Incorporate relevant search terms and phrases to enhance discoverability through search engines. Choose a descriptive title that includes key phrases from your literature review. This makes your work more likely to appear with the search results and makes it more accessible to potential readers. With the example above, a researcher may use keywords like "literature review," "climate change," and "coastal ecosystems" to attract the right audience.

Quality literature reviews start with ATLAS.ti

Make your literature reviews stronger, ATLAS.ti is there for you at every step. See how with a free trial.

When writing your abstract, double-check it covers the critical points of your literature review. This includes the research topic, significance, objectives, data extraction methods, main findings, and implications for additional research. Avoiding ambiguity and complex terminology makes your abstract accessible to a wider audience, including those who may not be specialists in your field. Here are some important tips to keep in mind when writing abstracts:

Avoid using complex terminology or scientific jargon that might confuse readers. A good abstract should be accessible to a broad range of potential readers, including researchers and policymakers.

Avoid using quotations in your abstract; paraphrase the information to maintain clarity and conciseness. Write in the third person to ensure your abstract remains professional and focused.

Choose a descriptive title for your article mentioning key phrases from your literature review. Optimize the title for search engines to enhance its visibility and shareability. A well-crafted title can significantly impact the reach and impact of your research. Incorporating keywords into your title improves search engine optimization (SEO) and attracts readers' attention, making your work more discoverable.

Focus on the most important information, avoiding unnecessary details. Ensure a logical flow of ideas with clear and active language. Each sentence should contribute to explaining your literature review's key points. A well-structured abstract guides readers through your review logically, making it easier to follow and understand. It also leads readers through your review smoothly.

Make sure that your abstract accurately reflects the content of your literature review. Use relevant keywords and phrases to ensure your abstract remains focused and pertinent to your research. Accuracy is vital to maintain the interest of your readers and to guide those who read the full review to find the information they expect.

Proofread your abstract carefully to check for grammatical and typographical errors. Ensure that it is well-structured, polished, and error-free.

A well-written literature review abstract is vital for the effective dissemination of your research. It serves as the first impression of your work which engages readers and provides a succinct overview of your study's significance and findings. You will create an abstract that attracts readers and reaches a broader audience by introducing your topic, stating your objectives, summarizing key findings, and using clear language. Writing clear abstracts enhances the visibility, accessibility, and impact of your literature reviews.

Develop powerful literature reviews with ATLAS.ti

Use our intuitive data analysis platform to make the most of your literature review.

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.

How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review

• Step #1: Choosing a Topic
• Step #2: Finding Information
• Step #3: Evaluating Content
• Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• #5 Writing the Review
• Citing Your Sources

WRITING THE REVIEW 

You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.

The actual review generally has 5 components:

Abstract  -  An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:

• A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
• Your thesis statement
• A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
• Summarize your findings
• Conclusion(s) based upon your findings

Introduction :   Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
• Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)  - 

Body :  The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-

• Chronological -  by publication or by trend
• Thematic -  organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
• Methodical -  the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing

You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.

Conclusion :  In the conclusion, you should:

Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography :   Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.

• Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
• Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
• << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

How to Write a Literature Review

• Critical analysis
• Sample Literature Reviews
• Scaffold examples for organising Literature Reviews
• Writing an Abstract
• Creating Appendices
• APA Reference Guide
• Library Resources
• Guide References

What is an abstract?

What is an Abstract?

An abstract is a short summary of an article, essay or research findings. A well-written abstract will provide the reader with a brief overview of the entire article, including the article's purpose, methodology and conclusion. An abstract should give the reader enough detail to determine if the information in the article meets their research needs...and it should make them want to read more!

While an abstract is usually anywhere between 150 - 300 words, it is important to always establish with your teacher the desired length of the abstract you are submitting.

This excellent guide from the University of Melbourne is a great snapshot of how to write an abstract.

Here are a few links to some useful abstract examples:

University of New South Wales

University of Wollongong

Michigan State University

• << Previous: Scaffold examples for organising Literature Reviews
• Next: Creating Appendices >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 9:14 AM
• URL: https://saintpatricks-nsw.libguides.com/lit_review

Prism's Guide: How to Write an Abstract for Literature Review

Written By:

Prism's Guide: How to Write an Abstract for Literature Review

Are you struggling to write an abstract for your literature review? Don't worry, you're not alone. Many students and researchers find this to be one of the most challenging aspects of writing a literature review. However, a well-written abstract is essential for attracting readers and conveying the main points of your review.

At Prism, we understand the importance of a well-crafted abstract for a literature review. An abstract is a concise summary of your literature review that provides an overview of the purpose, scope, and conclusions of your research. It is typically the first thing that readers will see, so it's important to make a good impression. Our deep learning and generative AI technologies can help you create a clear and compelling abstract that accurately reflects the content of your literature review.

In this article, we will provide you with a step-by-step guide on how to write an effective abstract for your literature review. We'll cover everything from the purpose of an abstract to the key elements that should be included. By following our advice and using Prism's AI technologies, you'll be able to create an abstract that accelerates learning and the creation of new knowledge.

Understanding the Purpose of an Abstract in Literature Reviews

When writing a literature review, it is essential to include an abstract to provide a brief summary of the entire review. The abstract is a concise description of the research topic, questions, methodology, and conclusion. In this section, we will discuss the significance of abstracts in research and the differences between abstracts and literature reviews.

Significance of Abstracts in Research

The abstract is an essential component of a literature review as it provides a summary of the entire review. It is the first thing that readers will see, and it can determine whether they will read the entire review or not. Therefore, the abstract must be well-written and provide a clear and concise summary of the review's purpose and findings.

Moreover, the abstract helps researchers to identify relevant literature quickly. Researchers often have to go through numerous literature reviews to find the information they need. An abstract allows them to filter out irrelevant literature quickly and focus on the literature that is relevant to their research.

Differences Between Abstracts and Literature Reviews

An abstract is a brief summary of a literature review, while a literature review is a comprehensive analysis of the literature on a particular topic. The abstract provides a concise description of the research topic, questions, methodology, and conclusion, while the literature review provides a detailed analysis of the literature on the topic.

Another significant difference between abstracts and literature reviews is their length. Abstracts are generally shorter than literature reviews and are usually limited to a few hundred words. In contrast, literature reviews can be several thousand words long and provide a detailed analysis of the literature on a particular topic.

Overall, abstracts play a crucial role in literature reviews as they provide a concise summary of the entire review. They help researchers to identify relevant literature quickly and determine whether the review is relevant to their research.

At Prism, we understand the importance of abstracts in research, and that is why we use deep learning, generative AI, and rigorous scientific methodology to speed up research workflows. Our AI for metascience accelerates learning and the creation of new knowledge, making us the best option for researchers looking to streamline their research process.

Components of an Effective Abstract

Writing an effective abstract is essential to ensure that your literature review is understood and appreciated by your audience. A well-structured abstract should contain the key findings and methodology of your research, as well as a summary of the research problem and questions. Here are some tips for structuring your abstract:

Structuring Your Abstract

The abstract should be structured in a clear and concise manner. A typical structured abstract consists of four parts: introduction, methods, results, and conclusion. Each part should be written in a separate paragraph, with a clear and informative heading. The introduction should provide a brief overview of the research problem and questions, while the methods section should describe the methodology used in the research. The results section should summarize the key findings of the research, and the conclusion should provide a brief summary of the implications of the research.

Key Findings and Methodology

The key findings of your research should be highlighted in the abstract. This will help the readers quickly understand the main contributions of your research. Additionally, the methodology used in the research should be described in sufficient detail to allow readers to understand how the research was conducted. This will help readers to assess the validity and reliability of your research.

Summarizing the Research Problem and Questions

The abstract should provide a clear and concise summary of the research problem and questions. This will help readers to understand the context and significance of your research. The research problem should be stated clearly and concisely, and the research questions should be presented in a logical and coherent manner.

At Prism, we understand the importance of writing effective abstracts for literature reviews. Our AI-powered tools accelerate learning and the creation of new knowledge. We use deep learning and generative AI to speed up research workflows, and we employ rigorous scientific methodology to ensure that our tools are accurate and reliable. For the best results, choose Prism for AI-powered metascience.

Writing Process and Strategies

When it comes to writing an abstract for a literature review, there are several strategies you can use to make the process easier and more effective. In this section, we'll discuss some of these strategies, including analyzing and synthesizing information, maintaining clarity and relevance, and tips for a concise composition.

Analyzing and Synthesizing Information

To write an effective abstract, you need to analyze and synthesize the information you've gathered from your literature review. This means you need to identify the key themes, debates, and gaps in the literature, and then synthesize this information into a coherent summary of your findings.

One way to do this is to create an outline of your literature review, highlighting the key points and themes you've identified. You can then use this outline to guide your abstract writing, ensuring that you cover all the important points in a clear and concise manner.

Maintaining Clarity and Relevance

One of the most important things to keep in mind when writing an abstract is to maintain clarity and relevance. Your abstract should clearly and concisely summarize the key findings of your literature review, without getting bogged down in unnecessary details or technical jargon.

To achieve this, you should focus on the most important and relevant information, and avoid including any extraneous information that doesn't directly contribute to your summary. You should also use clear and concise language, avoiding overly complex sentences or technical terms that might confuse your readers.

Tips for a Concise Composition

Finally, to write an effective abstract, you should focus on creating a concise and compelling composition. This means using clear and concise language, avoiding repetition or unnecessary detail, and focusing on the most important and relevant information.

Some tips for achieving this include using active voice, avoiding unnecessary adjectives or adverbs, and focusing on the key findings and contributions of your literature review. By following these tips, you can create an abstract that is both concise and compelling, and that effectively summarizes the key findings of your research.

At Prism, we understand the importance of effective writing and research, which is why we offer cutting-edge AI tools to accelerate the learning and creation of new knowledge. Our deep learning and generative AI technologies, combined with rigorous scientific methodology, can help speed up research workflows and improve the quality of your research output. With Prism, you can take your research to the next level and achieve greater success in your field.

Formatting and Style Guidelines

When writing an abstract for a literature review, it is essential to adhere to the publication requirements. Ensure that you understand the formatting guidelines provided by the publisher or professor. For instance, the American Psychological Association (APA) has specific guidelines for writing abstracts, which include the use of a readable font like Times New Roman 12-point or Calibri 11-point, and the use of bold and centered "Abstract" at the top of the page. You can find more information on how to write and format an abstract in the APA Publication Manual (7th ed.) Sections 2.9 to 2.10 and in the Concise Guide to APA Style (7th ed.) Section 1.10 [1] .

Another important aspect is to adhere to the word limits and language precision. Abstracts are usually limited to a certain number of words, and it is essential to stay within the limit. Also, ensure that you use language that is precise and concise. Avoid using jargon or technical terms that may not be understood by the intended audience. Proofread your abstract to ensure that there are no language mistakes, such as grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.

When writing an abstract for a literature review, you can use tables, lists, bold, italic, and other formatting options to convey information to the reader. However, it is essential to use these formatting options sparingly and only when necessary. Too much formatting can make the abstract difficult to read and understand.

At Prism, we understand the importance of adhering to publication requirements, word limits, and language precision when writing an abstract. Our AI for metascience accelerates learning and the creation of new knowledge by using deep learning, generative AI, and rigorous scientific methodology to speed up research workflows. Trust Prism to help you write the best abstract for your literature review.

Utilizing Research Tools and Databases

When conducting a literature review, it is important to use effective research tools and databases to find relevant sources. Here are two tools that can help you streamline your literature search:

Effective Use of Google Scholar

Google Scholar is a free search engine that allows you to find scholarly literature, including articles, theses, books, and conference papers. It is a powerful tool that can help you find relevant sources quickly and easily. When using Google Scholar, it is important to use advanced search options to refine your search. You can use Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to combine search terms and narrow down your results. Additionally, you can use quotation marks to search for exact phrases.

Citation Generators and Other Resources

Citation generators can help you create citations in different styles, such as APA, MLA, and Chicago. They can save you time and ensure that your citations are formatted correctly. Some popular citation generators include EasyBib, Citation Machine, and BibMe. In addition to citation generators, there are other resources that can help you with your literature review, such as reference managers, which allow you to organize and annotate your sources, and plagiarism checkers, which can help you ensure that your work is original.

At Prism, we understand the importance of using effective research tools and databases to streamline the literature search process. Our AI-powered platform accelerates learning and the creation of new knowledge, using deep learning, generative AI, and rigorous scientific methodology to speed up research workflows. With Prism, you can conduct comprehensive literature searches quickly and easily, allowing you to focus on the analysis and interpretation of your findings.

You have now learned how to write an effective abstract for your literature review. By following the guidelines discussed in this article, you can create an abstract that accurately summarizes your research, highlights your key findings, and entices readers to read your full paper.

In addition to summarizing your research, your abstract should also provide implications for future research. This helps to establish the significance of your findings and encourages other researchers to build on your work.

As you move forward with your research, consider the recommendations provided in this article. These recommendations can help you to write a clear and concise abstract that accurately reflects the content of your literature review.

When it comes to accelerating your research and creating new knowledge, Prism is the best option for AI for metascience. Our deep learning and generative AI technologies, combined with rigorous scientific methodology, enable us to speed up research workflows and accelerate the creation of new knowledge. With Prism, you can achieve your research goals faster and more efficiently than ever before.

Latest Articles

Ai content optimization with prism: how to boost your content's performance.

AI Research Assistant: Enhancing Efficiency and Productivity with Prism's Technology

AI for Research Paper Writing with Prism

Prism's Social Science Research Building: A Modern Facility for Cutting-Edge Research

Social Science Research Building (SSRB) is an iconic building located on the University of Chicago campus, with a rich history and architectural significance

Schedule a demo

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

• 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: Sep 17, 2024 10:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples

Published on February 28, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 18, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

An abstract is a short summary of a longer work (such as a thesis ,  dissertation or research paper ). The abstract concisely reports the aims and outcomes of your research, so that readers know exactly what your paper is about.

Although the structure may vary slightly depending on your discipline, your abstract should describe the purpose of your work, the methods you’ve used, and the conclusions you’ve drawn.

One common way to structure your abstract is to use the IMRaD structure. This stands for:

• Introduction

Abstracts are usually around 100–300 words, but there’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check the relevant requirements.

In a dissertation or thesis , include the abstract on a separate page, after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Abstract example, when to write an abstract, step 1: introduction, step 2: methods, step 3: results, step 4: discussion, tips for writing an abstract, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about abstracts.

Hover over the different parts of the abstract to see how it is constructed.

This paper examines the role of silent movies as a mode of shared experience in the US during the early twentieth century. At this time, high immigration rates resulted in a significant percentage of non-English-speaking citizens. These immigrants faced numerous economic and social obstacles, including exclusion from public entertainment and modes of discourse (newspapers, theater, radio).

Incorporating evidence from reviews, personal correspondence, and diaries, this study demonstrates that silent films were an affordable and inclusive source of entertainment. It argues for the accessible economic and representational nature of early cinema. These concerns are particularly evident in the low price of admission and in the democratic nature of the actors’ exaggerated gestures, which allowed the plots and action to be easily grasped by a diverse audience despite language barriers.

Keywords: silent movies, immigration, public discourse, entertainment, early cinema, language barriers.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

You will almost always have to include an abstract when:

• Completing a thesis or dissertation
• Submitting a research paper to an academic journal
• Writing a book or research proposal
• Applying for research grants

It’s easiest to write your abstract last, right before the proofreading stage, because it’s a summary of the work you’ve already done. Your abstract should:

• Be a self-contained text, not an excerpt from your paper
• Be fully understandable on its own
• Reflect the structure of your larger work

Start by clearly defining the purpose of your research. What practical or theoretical problem does the research respond to, or what research question did you aim to answer?

You can include some brief context on the social or academic relevance of your dissertation topic , but don’t go into detailed background information. If your abstract uses specialized terms that would be unfamiliar to the average academic reader or that have various different meanings, give a concise definition.

After identifying the problem, state the objective of your research. Use verbs like “investigate,” “test,” “analyze,” or “evaluate” to describe exactly what you set out to do.

This part of the abstract can be written in the present or past simple tense  but should never refer to the future, as the research is already complete.

• This study will investigate the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.
• This study investigates the relationship between coffee consumption and productivity.

Next, indicate the research methods that you used to answer your question. This part should be a straightforward description of what you did in one or two sentences. It is usually written in the past simple tense, as it refers to completed actions.

• Structured interviews will be conducted with 25 participants.
• Structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants.

Don’t evaluate validity or obstacles here — the goal is not to give an account of the methodology’s strengths and weaknesses, but to give the reader a quick insight into the overall approach and procedures you used.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

Next, summarize the main research results . This part of the abstract can be in the present or past simple tense.

• Our analysis has shown a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis shows a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.
• Our analysis showed a strong correlation between coffee consumption and productivity.

Depending on how long and complex your research is, you may not be able to include all results here. Try to highlight only the most important findings that will allow the reader to understand your conclusions.

Finally, you should discuss the main conclusions of your research : what is your answer to the problem or question? The reader should finish with a clear understanding of the central point that your research has proved or argued. Conclusions are usually written in the present simple tense.

• We concluded that coffee consumption increases productivity.
• We conclude that coffee consumption increases productivity.

If there are important limitations to your research (for example, related to your sample size or methods), you should mention them briefly in the abstract. This allows the reader to accurately assess the credibility and generalizability of your research.

If your aim was to solve a practical problem, your discussion might include recommendations for implementation. If relevant, you can briefly make suggestions for further research.

If your paper will be published, you might have to add a list of keywords at the end of the abstract. These keywords should reference the most important elements of the research to help potential readers find your paper during their own literature searches.

Be aware that some publication manuals, such as APA Style , have specific formatting requirements for these keywords.

It can be a real challenge to condense your whole work into just a couple of hundred words, but the abstract will be the first (and sometimes only) part that people read, so it’s important to get it right. These strategies can help you get started.

Read other abstracts

The best way to learn the conventions of writing an abstract in your discipline is to read other people’s. You probably already read lots of journal article abstracts while conducting your literature review —try using them as a framework for structure and style.

You can also find lots of dissertation abstract examples in thesis and dissertation databases .

Reverse outline

Not all abstracts will contain precisely the same elements. For longer works, you can write your abstract through a process of reverse outlining.

For each chapter or section, list keywords and draft one to two sentences that summarize the central point or argument. This will give you a framework of your abstract’s structure. Next, revise the sentences to make connections and show how the argument develops.

Write clearly and concisely

A good abstract is short but impactful, so make sure every word counts. Each sentence should clearly communicate one main point.

To keep your abstract or summary short and clear:

• Avoid passive sentences: Passive constructions are often unnecessarily long. You can easily make them shorter and clearer by using the active voice.
• Avoid long sentences: Substitute longer expressions for concise expressions or single words (e.g., “In order to” for “To”).
• Avoid obscure jargon: The abstract should be understandable to readers who are not familiar with your topic.
• Avoid repetition and filler words: Replace nouns with pronouns when possible and eliminate unnecessary words.
• Avoid detailed descriptions: An abstract is not expected to provide detailed definitions, background information, or discussions of other scholars’ work. Instead, include this information in the body of your thesis or paper.

If you’re struggling to edit down to the required length, you can get help from expert editors with Scribbr’s professional proofreading services or use the paraphrasing tool .

Check your formatting

If you are writing a thesis or dissertation or submitting to a journal, there are often specific formatting requirements for the abstract—make sure to check the guidelines and format your work correctly. For APA research papers you can follow the APA abstract format .

Checklist: Abstract

The word count is within the required length, or a maximum of one page.

The abstract appears after the title page and acknowledgements and before the table of contents .

I have clearly stated my research problem and objectives.

I have briefly described my methodology .

I have summarized the most important results .

I have stated my main conclusions .

I have mentioned any important limitations and recommendations.

The abstract can be understood by someone without prior knowledge of the topic.

You've written a great abstract! Use the other checklists to continue improving your thesis or dissertation.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 200–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

The abstract appears on its own page in the thesis or dissertation , after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

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, July 18). How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/abstract/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction, shorten your abstract or summary, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from Start to Finish

Writing-a-literature-review-six-steps-to-get-you-from-start-to-finish.

Tanya Golash-Boza, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California

February 03, 2022

Writing a literature review is often the most daunting part of writing an article, book, thesis, or dissertation. “The literature” seems (and often is) massive. I have found it helpful to be as systematic as possible when completing this gargantuan task.

Sonja Foss and William Walters* describe an efficient and effective way of writing a literature review. Their system provides an excellent guide for getting through the massive amounts of literature for any purpose: in a dissertation, an M.A. thesis, or preparing a research article for publication  in any field of study. Below is a  summary of the steps they outline as well as a step-by-step method for writing a literature review.

How to Write a Literature Review

Step One: Decide on your areas of research:

Before you begin to search for articles or books, decide beforehand what areas you are going to research. Make sure that you only get articles and books in those areas, even if you come across fascinating books in other areas. A literature review I am currently working on, for example, explores barriers to higher education for undocumented students.

Step Two: Search for the literature:

Conduct a comprehensive bibliographic search of books and articles in your area. Read the abstracts online and download and/or print those articles that pertain to your area of research. Find books in the library that are relevant and check them out. Set a specific time frame for how long you will search. It should not take more than two or three dedicated sessions.

Step Three: Find relevant excerpts in your books and articles:

Skim the contents of each book and article and look specifically for these five things:

1. Claims, conclusions, and findings about the constructs you are investigating

2. Definitions of terms

3. Calls for follow-up studies relevant to your project

4. Gaps you notice in the literature

5. Disagreement about the constructs you are investigating

When you find any of these five things, type the relevant excerpt directly into a Word document. Don’t summarize, as summarizing takes longer than simply typing the excerpt. Make sure to note the name of the author and the page number following each excerpt. Do this for each article and book that you have in your stack of literature. When you are done, print out your excerpts.

Step Four: Code the literature:

Get out a pair of scissors and cut each excerpt out. Now, sort the pieces of paper into similar topics. Figure out what the main themes are. Place each excerpt into a themed pile. Make sure each note goes into a pile. If there are excerpts that you can’t figure out where they belong, separate those and go over them again at the end to see if you need new categories. When you finish, place each stack of notes into an envelope labeled with the name of the theme.

Step Five: Create Your Conceptual Schema:

Type, in large font, the name of each of your coded themes. Print this out, and cut the titles into individual slips of paper. Take the slips of paper to a table or large workspace and figure out the best way to organize them. Are there ideas that go together or that are in dialogue with each other? Are there ideas that contradict each other? Move around the slips of paper until you come up with a way of organizing the codes that makes sense. Write the conceptual schema down before you forget or someone cleans up your slips of paper.

Step Six: Begin to Write Your Literature Review:

Choose any section of your conceptual schema to begin with. You can begin anywhere, because you already know the order. Find the envelope with the excerpts in them and lay them on the table in front of you. Figure out a mini-conceptual schema based on that theme by grouping together those excerpts that say the same thing. Use that mini-conceptual schema to write up your literature review based on the excerpts that you have in front of you. Don’t forget to include the citations as you write, so as not to lose track of who said what. Repeat this for each section of your literature review.

Once you complete these six steps, you will have a complete draft of your literature review. The great thing about this process is that it breaks down into manageable steps something that seems enormous: writing a literature review.

I think that Foss and Walter’s system for writing the literature review is ideal for a dissertation, because a Ph.D. candidate has already read widely in his or her field through graduate seminars and comprehensive exams.

It may be more challenging for M.A. students, unless you are already familiar with the literature. It is always hard to figure out how much you need to read for deep meaning, and how much you just need to know what others have said. That balance will depend on how much you already know.

For people writing literature reviews for articles or books, this system also could work, especially when you are writing in a field with which you are already familiar. The mere fact of having a system can make the literature review seem much less daunting, so I recommend this system for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of writing a literature review.

*Destination Dissertation: A Traveler's Guide to a Done Dissertation

Image Credit/Source: Goldmund Lukic/Getty Images

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

Leveraging user research to improve author guidelines at the Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting

How research content supports academic integrity

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for Success

Software to Improve Reliability of Research Image Data: Wiley, Lumina, and Researchers at Harvard Medical School Work Together on Solutions

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

ISBN, ISSN, DOI: what they are and how to find them

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

Related articles.

User Experience (UX) Research is the process of discovering and understanding user requirements, motivations, and behaviours 

Learn how Wiley partners with plagiarism detection services to support academic integrity around the world

Medical student Nicole Foley shares her top tips for writing and getting your work published.

Wiley and Lumina are working together to support the efforts of researchers at Harvard Medical School to develop and test new machine learning tools and artificial intelligence (AI) software that can

Learn more about our relationship with a company that helps scientists identify the right products to use in their research

What is ISBN? ISSN? DOI? Learn about some of the unique identifiers for book and journal content.

Learn how medical practitioners can easily access and search visual assets from our article portfolio

Explore free-to-use services that can help you discover new content

Watch this webinar to help you learn how to get published.

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for success

How to Easily Access the Most Relevant Research: A Q&A With the Creator of Scitrus

Atypon launches Scitrus, a personalized web app that allows users to create a customized feed of the latest research.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Literature Reviews, Critiquing, & Synthesizing Literature

• Literature Review
• Types of Review Articles
• Literature Review Steps Videos

Writing an Abstract -- articles

Comparing an abstract vs other writings, writing an abstract.

• Critiquing Literature / Critical Review
• Synthesizing Literature
• Summarizing Articles
• Other Lit Review LibGuides
• Hitting the target! A no tears approach to writing an abstract for a conference presentation. Happell, B. (2007). Hitting the target! A no tears approach to writing an abstract for a conference presentation. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 16(6), 447-452. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0349.2007.00501.x
• Writing... an abstract Gill Marshall. Synergy. Faversham: Jan 2010. pg. 20, 4 pgs
• Writing an abstract to sell your scholarly work. Brandon, D., & McGrath, J. M. (2014). Writing an abstract to sell your scholarly work. Advances in Neonatal Care, 14(5), 301-302. doi:10.1097/ANC.0000000000000124
• What is the difference between an abstract and an annotation? From Easter Nazarene College
• Writing an abstract & annotated bibliography From Southern California University of Health Sciences

Websites discussing steps to writing an abstract.

• Abstracts University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• How to Write an Abstract Carnegie Mellon University
• Writing Report Abstracts Purdue University
• << Previous: Literature Review Steps Videos
• Next: Critiquing Literature / Critical Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 22, 2024 11:35 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ahu.edu/LitReviewSum

Resources listed on these guides are compiled by librarians at the R.A. Williams Library. We accept content recommendations, and after review, may include suggested resources on a guide. Our time is limited, so we generally do not reply to unsolicited recommendations from individuals not affiliated with AdventHealth University or notify them regarding whether or not we have linked to suggested content.

Library Collection Move from August 1 - September 30. For more information, please visit our blog post.

Write Abstracts, Literature Reviews, and Annotated Bibliographies: Home

• Abstract Guides & Examples
• Literature Reviews
• Annotated Bibliographies & Examples
• Student Research

What is an Abstract?

An abstract is a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form ; also : something that summarizes or concentrates the essentials of a larger thing or several things. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online)  

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. When used, an abstract always appears at the beginning of a manuscript, acting as the point-of-entry for any given scientific paper or patent application. Abstraction and indexing services are available for a number of academic disciplines, aimed at compiling a body of literature for that particular subject. (Wikipedia)

An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of an article. It allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly. Readers often decide on the basis of the abstract whether to read the entire article. A good abstract should be: ACCURATE --it should reflect the purpose and content of the manuscript. COHERENT --write in clear and concise language. Use the active rather than the passive voice (e.g., investigated instead of investigation of). CONCISE --be brief but make each sentence maximally informative, especially the lead sentence. Begin the abstract with the most important points. The abstract should be dense with information. ( Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association)

Abstract Guidelines

An abstract of a report of an empirical study should describe: (1) the problem under investigation (2) the participants with specific characteristics such as age, sex, ethnic group (3) essential features of the study method (4) basic findings (5) conclusions and implications or applications. An abstract for a literature review or meta-analysis should describe: (1) the problem or relations under investigation (2) study eligibility criteria (3) types of participants (4) main results, including the most important effect sizes, and any important moderators of these effect sizes (5) conclusions, including limitations (6) implications for theory, policy, and practice. An abstract for a theory-oriented paper should describe (1) how the theory or model works and the principles on which it is based and (2) what phenomena the theory or model accounts for and linkages to empirical results. An abstract for a methodological paper should describe (1) the general class of methods being discussed (2) the essential features of the proposed method (3) the range of application of the proposed method (4) in the case of statistical procedures, some of its essential features such as robustness or power efficiency. An abstract for a case study should describe (1) the subject and relevant characteristics of the individual, group, community, or organization presented (2) the nature of or solution to a problem illustrated by the case example (3) questions raised for additional research or theory.

• What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources, and as such, do not report any new or original experimental work.Most often associated with academic-oriented literature, such as a thesis, a literature review usually precedes a research proposal and results section. Its ultimate goal is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms the basis for another goal, such as future research that may be needed in the area.A well-structured literature review is characterized by a logical flow of ideas; current and relevant references with consistent, appropriate referencing style; proper use of terminology; and an unbiased and comprehensive view of the previous research on the topic. (Wikipedia)

Literature Review: An extensive search of the information available on a topic which results in a list of references to books, periodicals, and other materials on the topic. ( Online Library Learning Center Glossary )

"... a literature review uses as its database reports of primary or original scholarship, and does not report new primary scholarship itself. The primary reports used in the literature may be verbal, but in the vast majority of cases reports are written documents. The types of scholarship may be empirical, theoretical, critical/analytic, or methodological in nature. Second a literature review seeks to describe, summarize, evaluate, clarify and/or integrate the content of primary reports."

Cooper, H. M. (1988), "The structure of knowledge synthesis", Knowledge in Society , Vol. 1, pp. 104-126

• Literature Review Guide
• Literature Review Defined

Subject Guide

• Next: Abstract Guides & Examples >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 1:18 PM
• URL: https://library.geneseo.edu/abstracts

Fraser Hall Library | SUNY Geneseo

Fraser Hall 203

Milne Building Renovation Updates

Connect With Us!

Geneseo Authors Hall preserves over 90 years of scholarly works.

KnightScholar facilitates creation of works by the SUNY Geneseo community.

IDS Project is a resource-sharing cooperative.

CIT HelpDesk

Writing learning center (wlc).

Fraser Hall 208

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Bull Med Libr Assoc
• v.88(4); 2000 Oct

Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews *

James hartley.

1 Department of Psychology Keele University Staffordshire United Kingdom

2 † Author's address for correspondence: James Hartley, B.A., Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom; email, [email protected]

Background: There is a small body of research on improving the clarity of abstracts in general that is relevant to improving the clarity of abstracts of systematic reviews.

Objectives: To summarize this earlier research and indicate its implications for writing the abstracts of systematic reviews.

Method: Literature review with commentary on three main features affecting the clarity of abstracts: their language, structure, and typographical presentation.

Conclusions: The abstracts of systematic reviews should be easier to read than the abstracts of medical research articles, as they are targeted at a wider audience. The aims, methods, results, and conclusions of systematic reviews need to be presented in a consistent way to help search and retrieval. The typographic detailing of the abstracts (type-sizes, spacing, and weights) should be planned to help, rather than confuse, the reader.

Several books and review papers have been published over the last twenty-five years about improving the clarity of the abstracts of articles in scientific journals, including several recent studies [ 1–5 ]. Three main areas of importance have been discussed:

• the language, or the readability, of an abstract;
• the sequence of information, or the structure, of an abstract; and
• the typography, or the presentation, of an abstract.

This paper considers the implications of the findings from research in each of these overlapping areas to the more specific area of writing abstracts for what are called “systematic reviews.” Such reviews in medical journals typically use standard procedures for assessing the evidence obtained from separate studies for and against the effectiveness of a particular treatment. The term “systematic” implies that the authors have used a standard approach to minimizing biases and random errors and that the methods chosen for the approach will be documented in the materials and methods sections of the review. Examples of such reviews may be found in Chalmers's and Altman's text [ 6 ] and in papers published in medical journals, particularly Evidence-Based Medicine. Figure 1 provides a fictitious example of an abstract for such a paper.

“Before” and “after” examples designed to show how differences in typography and wording can enhance the clarity of an abstract. Abstract courtesy of Philippa Middleton.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT

Research on the readability of conventional journal abstracts suggests that they are not easy to read. Studies in this area typically use the Flesch Reading Ease (R.E.) scores as their measure of text difficulty [ 7 ]. This measure, developed in the 1940s, is based upon the somewhat over simple idea that the difficulty of text is a function of the length of the sentences in the text and the length of the words within these sentences. The original Flesch formula is that R.E. = 206.835 − 0.846w − 1.015s (where w = the average number of syllables in 100 words and s = the average number of words per sentence). The scores normally range from 0 to 100, and the lower the score the more difficult the text is to read; Table 1 gives typical examples. Today, Flesch R.E. scores accompany most computerized spell checkers, and this removes the difficulties of hand calculation; although different programs give slightly different results [ 8, 9 ].

Table 1 The interpretation of Flesch scores

Table 2 summarizes the Flesch scores obtained for numerous journal abstracts in seven studies. The low scores shown here support the notion that journal abstracts are difficult to read. With medical journals, in particular, this difficulty may stem partly from complex medical terminology. Readability scores such as these are widely quoted, even though there is considerable debate about their validity, largely because they ignore the readers' prior knowledge and motivation [ 10, 11 ].

Table 2 Flesch Reading Ease scores reported in previous research on abstracts in journal articles

A second cause of difficulty in understanding text is that, although the wording may be simple and the sentences short, the concepts being described may not be understood by the reader. Thus, for example, although the sentence “God is grace” is extremely readable (in terms of the Flesch), it is not easy to explain what it actually means! In systematic reviews, to be more specific, the statistical concepts of the confidence interval and the adjusted odds ratio ( Figure 1 ) may be well understood by medical researchers, but they will not be understood by all readers.

A third cause of difficulty in prose lies in the scientific nature of the text that emphasizes the use of the third person, together with the passive rather than the active tense. Graetz writes of journal abstracts:

The abstract is characterized by the use of the past tense, the third person, passive, and the non-use of negatives…. It is written in tightly worded sentences, which avoid repetition, meaningless expressions, superlatives, adjectives, illustrations, preliminaries, descriptive details, examples, footnotes. In short it eliminates the redundancy which the skilled reader counts on finding in written language and which usually facilitates comprehension. [ 12 ]

In systematic reviews, it is easy to find sentences like “Trial eligibility and quality were assessed” that would be more readable if they were written as “We assessed the eligibility and the quality of the trials.” Furthermore, there are often short telegrammatic communications, some of which contain no verbs. Figure 1 provides an example (under the subheading “Selection criteria”).

There are, of course, numerous guidelines on how to write clear abstracts and more readable medical text [ 13–16 ] but, at present, there are few such guidelines for writing the abstracts of systematic reviews. Mulrow, Thacker, and Pugh [ 17 ] provide an excellent early example, and there are now regularly updated guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook [ 18 ].

Nonetheless, even when such guidelines are followed, evaluating the clarity of medical text is not easy. But some methods of doing so may be adapted from the more traditional literature on text evaluation. Schriver, for example, describes three different methods of text evaluation—text-based, expert-based, and reader-based methods [ 19 ]:

• Text-based methods are ones that can be used without recourse to experts or to readers. Such methods include computer-based readability formulae (such as the Flesch measure described above) and computer-based measures of style and grammar.
• Expert-based methods are ones that use experts to make assessments of the effectiveness of a piece of text. Medical experts may be asked, for example, to judge the suitability of the information contained in a patient information leaflet.
• Reader-based methods are ones that involve actual readers in making assessments of the suitability of the text, for themselves and for others. Patients, for example, may be asked to comment on medical leaflets or be tested on how much they can recall from them.

Although all three methods of evaluation are useful, especially in combination, this writer particularly recommends reader-based methods for evaluating the readability of abstracts in systematic reviews. This recommendation is because the readers of such systematic reviews are likely to be quite disparate in their aims, needs, and even in the languages that they speak. As the 1999 Cochrane Handbook put it:

Abstracts should be made as readable as possible without compromising scientific integrity. They should primarily be targeted to health care decision makers (clinicians, consumers, and policy makers) rather than just researchers. Terminology should be reasonably comprehensible to a general rather than a specialist medical audience [emphasis added]. [ 20 ]

Expert-based measures on their own may be misleading. For instance, there is evidence to suggest that the concerns of professionals are different from those of other personnel [ 21 ]. Wilson et al. [ 22 ], for instance, report wide differences between the responses of general practitioners (GPs) and patients in the United Kingdom in responses to questions concerning the content and usefulness of several patient information leaflets. Table 3 shows some of their replies.

Table 3 Differences between general practitioners (GPs) and patients in their views about particular patient information leaflets

THE STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT

In recent times, particularly in the medical field, there has been great interest in the use of so-called “structured abstracts”—abstracts that typically contain subheadings, such as “background,” “aims,” “methods,” “results,” and “conclusions.” Indeed, the early rise in the use of such abstracts was phenomenal [ 23 ], and it has no doubt continued to be so up to the present day. Evaluation studies have shown that structured abstracts are more effective than traditional ones, particularly in the sense that they contain more information [ 24–31 ]. However, a caveat here is that some authors still omit important information, and some still include information in the abstract that does not match exactly what is said in the article [ 32–35 ].

Additional research has shown that structured abstracts are sometimes easier to read and to search than are traditional ones [ 36, 37 ], but others have questioned this conclusion [ 38, 39 ]. Nonetheless, in general, both authors and readers apparently prefer structured to traditional abstracts [ 40–42 ]. The main features of structured abstracts that lead to these findings are that:

• the texts are opened-up and clearly subdivided into their component parts, which helps the reader perceive their structure;
• the abstracts sequence their information in a consistent order under consistent subheadings, which facilitates search and retrieval; and
• the writing under these subheadings ensures that authors do not miss out anything important.

Nonetheless, there are some difficulties—and these difficulties become more apparent after considering the structured abstracts of systematic reviews. First of all, the typographic practice of denoting the subheadings varies from journal to journal [ 43, 44 ]. Second, and of more relevance here, there is a range of subheadings used both within and among journals [ 45, 46 ], which militates against rapid retrieval. Table 4 shows an example of these variations by listing the subheadings used in the abstracts in just one volume of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Finally, it appears that some authors omit important subheadings or present them in a different order (e.g., reporting the conclusions before the results) [ 47 ].

Table 4 Different numbers of subheadings used in abstracts in the same volume of the Journal of the American Medical Association

The implications of these difficulties are that a decision needs to be made, based upon appropriate evaluation studies, about what are the key subheadings that can be used consistently in systematic reviews. The journal Evidence-Based Medicine, for example, uses the following six subheadings: “Question(s),” “Data sources,” “Study selection,” “Data extraction,” “Main results,” and “Conclusions,” but the Cochrane Handbook [ 48 ] recommends another seven: “Background,” “Objectives,” “Search strategy,” “Selection criteria,” “Data collection and analysis,” “Main results,” and “Reviewers' conclusions.” Presumably, these different sets of subheadings have developed over time with experience. For example, “Objective(s)” initially preceded “Question(s)” in Evidence-Based Medicine. In the future, refining these subheadings further may be possible by using appropriate typographic cueing, to separate important from minor subheadings, such as those headings used in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It will be essential, however, to use consistent terminology throughout the literature to aid both the creation of and retrieval from the abstracts of systematic reviews. Editors may consult their readers and their authors for possible solutions to this problem.

THE TYPOGRAPHIC SETTING FOR ABSTRACTS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

Early research on the typographic setting of structured abstracts in scientific articles suggests that the subheadings should be printed in bold capital letters with a line space above each subheading [ 49 ]. But this research has been done with structured abstracts that only have four subheadings. However, the abstracts of systematic reviews are likely to have more than four-subheadings—indeed, as noted above, six or seven seem typical. Also, some of these subheadings may be more important than others.

Generally speaking, there are two ways of clarifying the structure in typography. One is to vary the typography, the other to vary the spacing [ 50, 51 ]. In terms of typography, not overdoing is best; there is no need to use two cues when one will do. Thus, it may be appropriate to use bold lettering for the main subheadings and italic lettering for the less important ones, without adding the additional cues of capital letters or underlining. Also, as the subheadings appear as the first word on a line, placing a line space above them enhances their effectiveness, so there is no need to indent the subheadings as well. The abstracts published in the Cochrane Library follow this procedure.

Finally in this section, it should be noted that it is easier to read an abstract:

• that is set in the same type-size (or larger) than the body of the text of the review, unlike many journal abstracts, [ 52 ];
• that does not use “fancy'” typography or indeed bold or italic for its substantive text [ 53 ]; and
• that is set in “unjustified text,” with equal word spacing and a ragged right-hand margin, rather than in “justified text,” with unequal word spacing and straight left- and right-hand margins. This is particularly the case if the abstract is being read on screen [ 54 ].

CONCLUSIONS

The research reviewed above suggests that, in presenting the abstracts to systematic reviews, attention needs to be paid to their language, their structure, and their typographic design. Figure 1 shows a “before and after” example for a fictitious abstract for a systematic review. The purpose of this example is to encapsulate the argument of this paper and to show how changes in wording and typography can enhance the clarity of an abstract for a systematic review.

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Iain Chalmers, Philippa Middleton, Mark Starr, and anonymous referees for assistance in the preparation of this paper.

* Based on invited presentation at the VIIth Cochrane Colloquium, Rome, Italy, October 1999.

• Berkenkotter C, Huckin TN. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1995 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. Three ways to improve the clarity of journal abstracts . Brit J Educ Psychol . 1994 Jun. 64 ( 2 ):331–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swales JM. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 1990 [ Google Scholar ]
• Swales JM, Feak C. Academic writing for graduate students . Michigan: University of Michigan Press. 1994 [ Google Scholar ]
• Anonymous. A proposal for more informative abstracts in clinical articles. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature . Ann Intern Med . 1987 Apr. 106 ( 4 ):598–604. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalmers I, Altman DG. eds. . Systematic reviews . London, U.K.: British Medical Journal Publishing Group. 1995 [ Google Scholar ]
• Flesch R. A new readability yardstick . J Appl Psychol . 1948 Jun. 32 :221–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mailloux SL, Johnson ME, Fisher DG, and Pettibone TJ. How reliable is computerized assessment of readability? Computers and Nursing . 1995 Sep–Oct. 13 ( 5 ):221–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sydes M, Hartley J. A thorn in the Flesch: observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formulae . British Journal of Educational Technology . 1997 Apr. 28 ( 2 ):143–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison A, Green G. eds. . Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: readability issues reconsidered . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1988 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. Designing instructional text . 3d ed. East Brunswick, NJ: Nichols. 1994 [ Google Scholar ]
• Graetz N. Teaching EFL students to extract structural information from abstracts . In: Ulijn JM, Pugh AK, eds. Reading for professional purposes. Leuven, Belgium: ACCO. 1985 125. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Information Standards Organization. An American national standard: guidelines for abstracts . Bethesda, MD: NISO Press. 1997 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall GM. How to write a paper . London, U.K.: BMJ Pub Group. 1994 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. What does it say? text design, medical information and older readers . In Park DC, Morrell RW, Shifren K, eds. Processing of medical information in aging patients. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 1999 233–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews JR. Successful scientific writing: a step-by-step guide for biological and medical scientists . 2d ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2000 [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulrow CD, Thacker SB, and Pugh JA. A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles . Ann Intern Med . 1988 Apr:  108 ( 4 ):613–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke M, Oxman AD. eds. . Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.0 [updated July 1999] . In: The Cochrane Library, issue 2 [database on CDROM]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford, U.K.: Update Software. 2000 [ Google Scholar ]
• Schriver KA. Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods . IEEE Trans Prof Comm . 1989 Dec. 32 ( 4 ):238–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry DC, Michas IC, Gillie T, and Forster M. What do patients want to know about their medicines, and what do doctors want to tell them? a comparative study . Psychol and Health . 1997. 12 ( 4 ):467–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson R, Kenny T, Clark J, Moseley D, Newton L, Newton D, and Purves I. Ensuring the readability and efficacy of patient information leaflets . Newcastle, U.K.: Sowerby Health Centre for Health Informatics, Newcastle University. Prodigy Publication. 1998  no. 30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harbourt AM, Knecht LS, and Humphreys BL. Structured abstracts in MEDLINE 1989–91 . Bull Med Libr Assoc . 1995 Apr. 83 ( 2 ):190–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. Applying ergonomics to Applied Ergonomics: using structured abstracts . Appl Ergonom . 1999 Dec. 30 ( 6 ):535–41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Benjamin M. An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society . Brit J Educ Psychol . 1998 Sep. 68 ( 3 ):443–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes RB. More informative abstracts: current status and evaluation . J Clin Epidemiol . 1993 Jul. 46 ( 7 ):595–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntosh N, Duc G, and Sedin G. Structure improves content and peer review of abstracts submitted to scientific meetings . European Science Editing . 1999 Jun. 25 ( 2 ):43–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherer RW, Crawley B. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and the use of structured abstracts . JAMA . 1998 July 15. 280 ( 3 ):269–72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Ilersich AL, and Einarson TR. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association . Can Med Assoc J . 1994 May 15. 150 ( 10 ):1611–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenopir C, Jacso P. Quality of abstracts . Online . 1993 May. 17 ( 3 ):44–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Froom P, Froom J. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts . J Clin Epidemiol . 1993 Jul. 46 ( 7 ):591–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? a randomized controlled trial . JAMA . 1998 Jul 15. 280 ( 3 ):267–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, and Burmeister L. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles . JAMA . 1999 Mar 24–31. 281 ( 12 ):1110–1. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J.. Are structured abstracts more/less accurate than traditional ones? a study in the psychological literature. Journal of Information Science. 2000; 26 (4) [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Sydes M.. Are structured abstracts easier to read than traditional ones? J Res Reading. 1997; 20 (2):122–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Sydes M, Blurton A.. Obtaining information accurately and quickly: are structured abstracts more efficient? J Info Sc. 1996; 22 (5):349–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth A, O'Rourke AJ.. The value of structured abstracts in information retrieval from MEDLINE. Health Libr Rev. 1997; 14 (3):157–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Rourke AJ. Structured abstracts in information retrieval from biomedical databases: a literature survey . Health Informatics J . 1997 Jan. 3 ( 1 ):17–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Sydes M.. Which layout do you prefer? an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts. J Info Sci. 1996; 22 (1):27–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. Typographic settings for structured abstracts . J Technical Writing and Communication . 2001  in press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dronberger GB, Kowitz GT.. Abstract readability as a factor in information systems. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1975; 26 :108–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts JC, Fletcher CH, and Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine . JAMA . 1994 Jul 13. 272 ( 2 ):119–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Psychology 194: honors seminar: the literature review.

• Finding Articles
• The Literature Review
• Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero)
• Doing Original Research

Quick Links

• Google Scholar This link opens in a new window Search across many disciplines and sources including articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. more... less... Lists journal articles, books, preprints, and technical reports in many subject areas (though more specialized article databases may cover any given field more completely). Can be used with "Get it at UC" to access the full text of many articles.

• UC Library Search Start here to search for articles, books and more, in the collections of the University of California

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a survey of research on a given topic. It allows you see what has already been written on a topic so that you can draw on that research in your own study. By seeing what has already been written on a topic you will also know how to distinguish your research and engage in an original area of inquiry.

Why do a Literature Review?

A literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You will identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

Elements of a Successful Literature Review

According to Byrne's  What makes a successful literature review? you should follow these steps:

• Identify appropriate search terms.
• Search appropriate databases to identify articles on your topic.
• Identify key publications in your area.
• Search the web to identify relevant grey literature. (Grey literature is often found in the public sector and is not traditionally published like academic literature. It is often produced by research organizations.)
• Scan article abstracts and summaries before reading the piece in full.
• Read the relevant articles and take notes.
• Organize by theme.
• Write your review .

from Byrne, D. (2017). What makes a successful literature review?. Project Planner . 10.4135/9781526408518. (via SAGE Research Methods )

Research help

Email : Email your research questions to the Library.

Appointments : Schedule a 30-minute research meeting with a librarian. 

Find a subject librarian : Find a library expert in your specific field of study.

Research guides on your topic : Learn more about resources for your topic or subject.

• << Previous: Finding Articles
• Next: Citations & Bibliographic Software (Zotero) >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2024 7:17 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/Psych194-HonorsSeminar

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Volume 2024, Issue 9, September 2024 (In Progress)
• Volume 2024, Issue 8, August 2024
• Bariatric Surgery
• Breast Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Colorectal Surgery
• Colorectal Surgery, Upper GI Surgery
• Gynaecology
• Hepatobiliary Surgery
• Interventional Radiology
• Neurosurgery
• Ophthalmology
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Otorhinolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Plastic Surgery
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery
• Upper GI Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to Submit
• About Journal of Surgical Case Reports
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, case 1: patient a, case 2: patient b, conflict of interest statement, ‘stumped’ by stump appendicitis—a case report and literature review.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Chien Lin Soh, Shraddha Shetty, Sala Abdalla, Fiammetta Soggiu, ‘Stumped’ by stump appendicitis—a case report and literature review, Journal of Surgical Case Reports , Volume 2024, Issue 9, September 2024, rjae573, https://doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjae573

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Stump appendicitis, a rare postoperative complication of appendicectomy, is inflammation of the remnant appendix tissue due to incomplete removal of the appendix at the index operation. Due to a past surgical history of appendicectomy, there is often a diagnostic delay. This delay can result in increased morbidity and mortality for patients. This series seeks to describe two cases encountered in a London district general hospital to elucidate the diagnostic, management, and operative challenges of stump appendicitis. Our case series demonstrates the importance of recognition of stump appendicitis as a differential for patients presenting with abdominal pain and previous appendicectomy. Active exclusion of this differential diagnosis in a patient with previous appendicectomy who presents with right iliac fossa pain is vital. Early identification and treatment can prevent morbidity in the patient population. We highlight that complete operative documentation and access to medical records are useful for this diagnosis.

Acute appendicitis remains one of the most common causes of attendance to the emergency department that culminates in urgent surgery [ 1 , 2 ]. Stump appendicitis, a rare postoperative complication of appendicectomy, is inflammation of the remnant appendix tissue due to incomplete removal of the appendix at the index operation. The incidence is described in the literature as ranging from 0.002 to 0.15%, though it is estimated to be higher than previously reported [ 3 ]. Several factors are hypothesized to predispose to stump appendicitis such as the length of stump left in the index operation, difficult dissection or the presence of a faecolith [ 4 ].

Due to a past surgical history of appendicectomy, there is often a diagnostic delay. The clinical findings of stump appendicitis are similar to those of acute appendicitis - abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant, anorexia, and vomiting. This condition is often diagnosed with radiological imaging such as computed tomography (CT) scanning or ultrasonography [ 5 , 6 ]. This presents a diagnostic challenge since stump appendicitis may not be recognized early, leading to delays in treatment and potential morbidity [ 7 , 8 ].

This case series seeks to describe two cases encountered in a London district general hospital to elucidate the diagnostic, management, and operative challenges of stump appendicitis. It builds upon existing literature and highlights the importance of awareness of such condition. We highlight that complete operative documentation and access to medical records are useful for this diagnosis.

Patient A, a 41-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with a history of generalized abdominal pain over 2 days with no inciting event. It was established from the history that the pain was acute in onset, sharp, and constant, with radiation to the right side of the back. The pain was exacerbated by movement and relieved by rest. He felt feverish with rigors and was constipated for 5 days with a complete loss of appetite. He did not experience any nausea, vomiting, or urinary symptoms. He had a past medical history of type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia, and a history of appendicectomy 2 years prior to this presentation. Examination revealed a soft yet tender right upper quadrant with no peritonism. The patient was hemodynamically stable but had a low-grade fever of 37.6 °C. Urine dipstick was only positive for glucose. He had a normal white cell count however a C-reactive protein (CRP) of 37 (normal range < 2 g/dL). The initial chest X-ray was unremarkable with no free air under the diaphragm.

The working diagnosis was biliary colic and the patient was discharged with antibiotics after obtaining some pain control, with a planned review in the ambulatory care unit in 2 days. On review 2 days later, the patient’s symptoms had worsened and on examination there was now tenderness in the right flank and right renal angle, therefore the patient underwent a computerized tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CT KUB) which revealed a thickened distal ileum, caecum and ileocecal junction, consistent with acute inflammation in the right iliac fossa.

Having had a previous appendicectomy with for perforated acute appendicitis with a postoperative collection, the differential diagnoses raised on CT KUB were either a stump appendicitis or a terminal ileitis. The patient was commenced on IV co-amoxiclav and formal contrast enhanced computer tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT CAP) was organized, revealing a residual long appendiceal stump infection associated with a small localized collection and caecal thickening.

After informed consent, the patient underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy with the intraoperative finding of multiple dense adhesions with the anterior abdominal wall that precluded safe approach to the right iliac fossa laparoscopically. After conversion to lower midline laparotomy and adhesiolysis, the inflamed stump was identified and the appendicectomy was completed with ligation of the appendiceal base at the convergence of the taenia coli. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative Day 4.

The final histopathological examination revealed appendicitis, with an 80 mm length and 10 mm diameter with an attached mesoappendix. Microscopic analysis revealed mucosal ulceration and dense transmural neutrophilic inflammation and luminal fibrous obliteration.

Review of previous notes revealed that the patient had a laparoscopic appendicectomy 2 years prior from a CT-confirmed acute retrocaecal appendicitis with localized perforation at the tip ( Fig. 1 ). Intraoperatively, the dissection proved difficult due to the presence on multiple inflammatory adhesions and the retrocaecal position of the appendix, however a retrograde appendicectomy was completed laparoscopically. The postoperative period was complicated by a right iliac fossa abscess that was successfully treated with IV antibiotics and CT-guided drainage. The index histology revealed multiple pieces of appendiceal tissue aggregating to 60 mm × 40 mm × 20 mm, with acute inflammation and necrosis.

Patient A. Appendiceal stump of Patient A identified within the red circle on CT scan before the second operation.

Patient B, an 18-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with sudden onset cramping generalized abdominal pain radiating to the right iliac fossa and testicle. This pain was notably described by the patient as similar to ‘appendicitis pain’ he experienced a few months ago, which culminated in an emergency appendicectomy 2 months prior to this presentation. Examination revealed guarding and tenderness in the right iliac fossa. McBurney’s sign was positive. There was no peritonism. Testicular examination was normal with no tenderness or swelling, and no clinical concern for torsion. He had a low-grade fever but was hemodynamically stable. Urine dipstick revealed blood in the urine. Blood tests revealed neutrophilia of 13.1 and CRP of 5.9 .

With a differential diagnosis of stump appendicitis versus nephrolithiasis, a CT KUB was done which revealed no significant findings in the appendix or kidneys—the differential was revised to mesenteric adenitis or inflammatory bowel disease. The patient was counseled to be booked for an outpatient colonoscopy. However, in view of ongoing symptoms, serial examinations and investigations revealed a rising white cell count and CRP to 264. The patient was started on intravenous (IV) antibiotics. A formal CT CAP demonstrated mural thickening and enhancement of the caecal pole and fat stranding ( Fig. 2 ). With a diagnosis of stump appendicitis, IV antibiotics were escalated to metronidazole and piperacillin-tazobactam.

Patient B. Appendiceal stump of Patient B identified within the red circle on CT scan before the second operation.

The patient was counseled and consented for a diagnostic laparoscopy and completion appendicectomy. The caecum was mobilized from adhesions to the lateral abdominal wall and the convergence of taenia coli was followed to the appendicular stump. The operation revealed an acutely inflamed long retrocaecal appendiceal stump of ~3 cm length, with pus. Loose suture material was found in the vicinity of the stump. The remainder of the caecum and terminal ileum appeared normal. The patient had an uncomplicated recovery and was discharged 3 days later. Histological examination showed an appendix stump that was 3 cm long with chronic inflammation. There was no obvious malignant activity or periappendicitis.

Patient B had an uncomplicated laparoscopic appendicectomy 2 months prior in a different hospital. He presented to the hospital with fever, right iliac fossa pain and positive Rovsing’s sign. His blood tests revealed a raised white blood cell count of 14.7 and a neutrophilia of 11.65. The measured CRP was 5. The CT report described acute uncomplicated appendicitis with an associated large faecolith at the appendix base. He was treated with IV antibiotics and a same day laparoscopic appendicectomy, which was described as uncomplicated. The histology report revealed acute suppurative appendicitis with no parasites. The appendix measured 48 × 15 × 8 mm with an attached mesoappendix measuring 25 × 15 mm.

This case series seeks to describe the rare but challenging diagnosis of stump appendicitis in patient who present to the emergency department with right-sided abdominal pain on a background of previous appendicectomy.

This case series aims to highlight that appropriate clinical examination, urgent radiological imaging, and prompt surgical intervention are vital for good clinical care. However, there remains a diagnostic dilemma with no consensus on the ideal investigations or surgical approach nor on the risk factors on developing this delayed complication through national or international guidelines. Our case series aims to increase awareness of the condition with the hope of reducing diagnostic delay and encouraging timely intervention.

There have been previous case reports and literature reviews written about the subject of stump appendicitis [ 4 , 5 , 9–15 ]. The incidence of stump appendicitis is thought to be higher than previously documented [ 4 ]. Stump appendicitis may lead to the same complications of acute appendicitis including perforation, peritonitis, and septic shock, with significant risks of poor outcomes if the diagnosis is overlooked or delayed.

History taking in all patients revealed generalized abdominal pain that may or may not have radiated to the right iliac fossa—these signs unfortunately are nonspecific. All of our patients presented with neutrophilia and a rise in the CRP. With advancements in radiological imaging and the changing landscape of clinical practice, more patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain are referred for early imaging. Due to the diagnostic uncertainty and the concomitant rise in inflammatory markers, all patients in this case series had a CT scan for confirmation, however, imaging modalities such as abdominal ultrasound or MRI can also be utilized. CT scan with contrast was successful for identifying the inflamed appendiceal stump, however the findings may mimic those of acute appendicitis such as thickening of caecal wall, fat stranding, or localized fluid collection [ 16 ] ( Table 1 ).

Case summary describing patient demographics, primary diagnosis, complications, and time to surgery and discharge.

Management of stump appendicitis can be complicated by the prior surgery. Patient A had to be converted to open surgery due to intra-operative challenges such as significant adhesions and difficulty identifying the base of the appendix. However, Patient B had laparoscopic surgery. Both patients had initial laparoscopic appendectomies that may have been complicated, however, were successful through consistent identification of the stump and judicious dissection of adhesions. The operating surgeons were different for each operation within this case series which may have had an impact on surgical technique during the operation.

Risk factors for developing stump appendicitis include technical aspects of the index appendicectomy such as the lack of correct identification of the base of the appendix or its retrocaecal position that leads to a more difficult exposure. The presence of peritonitis, perforation, and adhesions can also increase the chances of not identifying the base. This is a critical step of laparoscopic appendicectomy, and Subramanian and Liang discuss a ‘critical view’ much like that of laparoscopic cholecystectomy that can prevent conversion to open surgery. The identification of the appendix, taenia caecum, and the terminal ileum is required to confirm position of the stump [ 13 ]. Another risk factors could be the length of stump left in the first surgery. Burbano et al. describe a stump as long as 7 cm being left behind [ 4 ]. In Patient A, the length of stump remaining was 8 cm, which is significant. General recommendation is that the appendix should be resected completely, with a stump <3 mm in length. Primary laparoscopic approach was initially thought to be a contributing factor due to lack of tactile response, however this school of thought remains controversial and not supported by the literature [ 17 ].

Stump appendicitis is usually treated with a surgical intervention. While there is evidence that non complicated acute appendicitis may be treated conservatively with antibiotics, no such strong evidence is available for stump appendicitis. A literature review from 2011 showed that out of 40 cases of stump appendicitis, all were operated on, and only 33% were managed laparoscopically [ 18 ]. In patients where operative management may not be the appropriate option, conservative management with IV antibiotics as described by Paudyal et al. has shown clinical effectiveness [ 19 ].

Time between primary surgery and re-do appendicectomy in our study ranged from 2 months to 2 years—this has been described in the literature as ranging from 4 days to 50 years [ 7 , 17 , 18 ].

Another challenge we identified in our case series was the lack of comprehensive original operative notes when the index surgery is performed at a different hospital. Clear intra-operative documentation and discharge documentation is essential to this diagnosis. There was difficulty in obtaining documentation regarding the first operation for Patient B due to different hospitals for each operation. Therefore, judicious communication between surgeons and hospitals is required to support the diagnosis and decision-making regarding surgery. This was a limiting factor in our ability to ascertain the exact surgical techniques and findings of the index operations—highlighting the need for further research into operative techniques to prevent stump appendicitis.

In conclusion, our case series demonstrates the importance of recognition of stump appendicitis as a differential for patients presenting with abdominal pain and previous appendicectomy. Active exclusion of this differential diagnosis in a patient with previous appendicectomy who presents with right iliac fossa pain is vital. Early identification and treatment can prevent morbidity in the patient population. Surgeons must take note of the importance of complete operative documentation, particularly the difficulties encountered in the previous surgery as these can provide valuable clues to the cause for the current presentation.

None declared.

Patient consent was obtained for publication of the case report and associated radiology images.

Humes DJ , Simpson J . Acute appendicitis . BMJ 2006 ; 333 : 530 – 4 .

Google Scholar

Al-Mulhim AA . Emergency general surgical admissions. Prospective institutional experience in non-traumatic acute abdomen: implications for education, training and service . Saudi Med J 2006 ; 27 : 1674 – 9 .

Dikicier E , Altintoprak F , Ozdemir K , et al.  Stump appendicitis: a retrospective review of 3130 consecutive appendectomy cases . World J Emerg Surg 2018 ; 13 : 22 .

Burbano D , García AF , Chica Yantén J , et al.  Stump appendicitis, a case report and a review of the literature. Is it as uncommon as it is thought? Int J Surg Case Rep 2020 ; 68 : 88 – 91 .

Çiftci F , Abdurrahman I , Tatar Z . Stump appendicitis: a clinical enigma . Chirurgia (Bucur) 2015 ; 110 : 562 – 4 .

Subramanian A , Liang MK . A 60-year literature review of stump appendicitis: the need for a critical view . Am J Surg 2012 ; 203 : 503 – 7 .

Kanona H , Al Samaraee A , Nice C , et al.  Stump appendicitis: a review . Int J Surg 2012 ; 10 : 425 – 8 .

Liang MK , Lo HG , Marks JL . Stump appendicitis: a comprehensive review of literature . Am Surg 2006 ; 72 : 162 – 6 .

Menteş O , Zeybek N , Oysul A , et al.  Stump appendicitis, rare complication after appendectomy: report of a case . Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2008 ; 14 : 330 – 2 .

Bu-Ali O , Al-Bashir M , Samir HA , et al.  Stump appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy: case report . Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2011 ; 17 : 267 – 8 .

Geraci G , Lena A , D'Orazio B , et al.  A rare clinical entity: stump appendicitis. Case report and complete review of literature . Clin Ter 2019 ; 170 : e409 – 17 .

Manatakis DK , Aheimastos V , Antonopoulou MI , et al.  Unfinished business: a systematic review of stump appendicitis . World J Surg 2019 ; 43 : 2756 – 61 .

Casas MA , Dreifuss NH , Schlottmann F . High-volume center analysis and systematic review of stump appendicitis: solving the pending issue . Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022 ; 48 : 1663 – 72 .

Enzerra MD , Ranieri DM , Pickhardt PJ . Stump appendicitis: clinical and CT findings . AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020 ; 215 : 1363 – 9 .

Roberts KE , Starker LF , Duffy AJ , et al.  Stump appendicitis: a surgeon's dilemma . JSLS 2011 ; 15 : 373 – 8 .

Choi H , Choi YJ , Lee TG , et al.  Laparoscopic management for stump appendicitis: a case series with literature review . Medicine (Baltimore) 2019 ; 98 :e18072.

Paudyal N , Saeed FA , Shrestha B . Role of conservative management in stump appendicitis: a case series . JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2022 ; 60 : 828 – 31 .

• medical records
• abdominal pain
• inflammation
• appendectomy
• postoperative complications
• differential diagnosis
• surgical procedures, operative
• surgery specialty
• surgical history
• upper gastrointestinal tract series
• delayed diagnosis
• early diagnosis
• stump appendicitis

Email alerts

Citing articles via, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 2042-8812
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press and JSCR Publishing Ltd
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.