abstracts of literature reviews

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

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.

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 March 20, 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, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

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

Loading metrics

Open Access

Guidelines and Guidance

The Guidelines and Guidance section contains advice on conducting and reporting medical research.

See all article types »

PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

Affiliation Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Affiliations Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, INSERM, Paris, France

Affiliation National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, Washington DC, United States of America

Affiliation James Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom

Affiliation Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

Affiliation Cochrane Editorial Unit, London, United Kingdom

¶ Membership of the PRISMA for Abstracts Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.

• Elaine M. Beller, 
• Paul P. Glasziou, 
• Douglas G. Altman, 
• Sally Hopewell, 
• Hilda Bastian, 
• Iain Chalmers, 
• Peter C. Gøtzsche, 
• Toby Lasserson, 
• David Tovey, 
• for the PRISMA for Abstracts Group

Published: April 9, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419
• Reader Comments

Citation: Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. (2013) PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts. PLoS Med 10(4): e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Funding: This research was supported (in part) by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Center for Biotechnology Information (National Library of Medicine). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: TL is employed by The Cochrane Collaboration. TL is an editor (unpaid) for the Cochrane Airways Group. The authors have declared that no other competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: PICOS, participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study designs

Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Summary Points

• The abstract of a systematic review should provide a structured summary that enables a quick assessment of the review's validity and applicability, and easy identification in electronic searching.
• Despite published guidance on writing the abstract in the PRISMA Statement guiding the reporting of systematic reviews in general and elsewhere, evaluations show that reporting of systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts is poor.
• We developed consensus-based reporting guidelines as an extension to the PRISMA Statement on good reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in abstracts.
• The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for an abstract that will meet the needs of many readers.

Introduction

When readers screen the title of an article, and parts of its abstract, they try to determine whether or not to devote their scarce time to reading on. Some may be screening literature to identify the articles that are systematic reviews. Thus, the main function of an abstract of a systematic review should be to signal its systematic methodology. For most readers, the findings described in the abstract will also be key, either as the sole part of an article that will be read, or to determine whether reading the full text is required. Abstracts of systematic reviews are very important, as some readers cannot access the full paper, such that abstracts may be the only option for gleaning research results. This can be because of a pay wall, low Internet download capacity, or if the full article is only available in a language not understood by the reader. Readers in countries where English is not the primary language may have access to an abstract translated to their own language, but not to a translated full text. Conversely, a large proportion of systematic reviews are published by health technology agencies in non-English speaking countries [1] , many of which provide only the abstract in English.

The predominance of the abstract in biomedical literature use is clear. Within queries to PubMed, most readers look only at titles; only half of searches result in any clicks on content [2] . The average number of titles clicked on to obtain the abstract or full text, even after retrieving several searches in a row, is less than five. Of those clicks, abstracts will be represented about 2.5 times more often than full texts of articles [2] . Even people going straight to a PDF or full text are likely to start, and perhaps end, with reading the abstract. The frequency of viewing full texts is somewhat higher among people searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [3] , but the same pattern is clear. After the title, the abstract is the most read part of a biomedical article.

Abstracts can be useful for screening by study type [4] ; facilitating quick assessment of validity [4] , [5] ; enabling efficient perusal of electronic search results [4] , [6] ; clarifying to which patients and settings the results apply [4] , [5] ; providing readers and peer reviewers with explicit summaries of results [5] ; facilitating the pre-publication peer review process [7] ; and increasing precision of computerised searches [6] , [7] .

Structured abstracts were introduced in the medical literature about 25 years ago [4] – [6] . They provide readers with a series of headings, generally about the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of the report, and have been adopted by many journals and conferences. They act as a prompt to the writer to give more complete information, and facilitate the finding of information by the reader.

Despite the adoption of structured abstracts, studies of the quality of abstracts of clinical trials have demonstrated that improvement is needed [8] , [9] , and a study of systematic review abstracts demonstrated that the direction of the effect or association could not be determined in one in four abstracts from the general and specialty medical literature [10] . The PRISMA Statement [11] gives some guidance for abstracts, closely linked to commonly used headings in structured abstracts. After observing that the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews is still poor [10] , we decided to develop an extension to the PRISMA Statement to provide guidance on writing abstracts for systematic reviews. We also wanted to provide a checklist enabling the items suggested to fit into any set of headings mandated by a journal or conference submission.

Methods for Development of the Checklist

We established a steering committee (EMB, PPG, SH, DGA). In collaboration with the steering group of the PRISMA Statement [11] , we used the Statement to inform our selection of potential items for the checklist of essential items that authors should consider when reporting the primary results of a systematic review in a journal or conference abstract. The committee generated a list of items from PRISMA and other sources of guidance and information on structured abstracts and abstract composition and reporting [7] , [11] , [12] , which were found using a thorough search of the literature.

In preparation for a consensus meeting, we used a modified Delphi consensus survey method [13] to select and reduce the number of possible checklist items. Each item was rated by survey participants as “omit”, “possible”, “desirable”, or “essential” to include in the final checklist. From the first round of the survey, the ranked items were divided into three lists for the second round. The first list contained the items with the highest rankings, and participants for the second round were instructed that these would be contained in the checklist unless they received low rankings in the second round. The second list contained the items with moderate rankings, and participants were instructed that these items were likely to be removed from the checklist unless they received high rankings in the second round. The third list contained the items with low rankings, and participants were instructed that these items would be removed unless they received very high rankings in the second round.

For the third round of the Delphi survey, a draft checklist was presented, which included only the items ranked highest in rounds one and two. The five next highest-ranked items were then presented, giving participants an opportunity to choose to include these in the checklist as well.

One hundred and forty-seven participants, who were authors of research on abstracts, established authors of systematic reviews, methodologists or statisticians related to systematic reviews, and journal editors, were invited by email to complete the three rounds of the web-based survey. The response rate was 68% ( n  = 100) for the first round. Only those who completed round one were invited to participate in rounds two and three. The response rate for round two was 80% ( n  = 80) and for round three 88% ( n  = 88).

The results of the survey were reported at a two-day consensus-style meeting on 13–14 October 2011, in Oxford, United Kingdom. Fifteen invited experts attended, most of whom had participated in the survey. The meeting began with a review of the literature about abstract structure and content, followed by a review of the checklist items as proposed by the survey respondents. Meeting participants discussed the items and agreed whether they should be included and how each item should be worded.

Following the meeting, the checklist was distributed to the participants to ensure it reflected the decisions made. This explanatory document was drafted and circulated through several iterations among members of the writing subcommittee who had all participated in the meeting. We developed this document using the template for the PRISMA Statement [11] , which in turn was based on the methods of the CONSORT Group [14] , [15] .

Scope of PRISMA for Abstracts

The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist focuses on truthful representation of a systematic review in an abstract. We developed the checklist to help authors report all types of systematic reviews, but recognise that the emphasis is on systematic reviews of evaluations of interventions where one or more meta-analyses are conducted. Authors who address questions on aetiology, diagnostic test accuracy, or prognosis may need to modify items or include other items in their abstract to reflect the essentials of the full report.

The PRISMA for Abstracts Checklist

The checklist is shown in Table 1 . An explanation for each item is given below. Citations for the examples of good reporting are in Table 2 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419.t002

Section 1: TITLE

Item 1: Title.

Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

Examples: 1a. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic and therapeutic role of water-soluble contrast agent in adhesive small bowel obstruction.”

1b. “Inhaled corticosteroids vs placebo for preventing COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] exacerbations: a systematic review and metaregression of randomized controlled trials.”

Explanation: The abstract should make it clear that the report is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both (examples 1a and 1b). Search filters have been developed to identify systematic reviews [16] , but inclusion of the words “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” in the title may improve indexing and electronic searching.

We also suggest using informative titles that incorporate the PICOS approach (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study designs). This provides key information about the scope of the systematic review. As including all elements of the PICOS approach may make the title unwieldy, we suggest including the most important of these elements in the title. These might be the elements that make this review unusual, or that assist readers in searching for the review.

Section 2: BACKGROUND

Item 2: Objectives.

The research question including components such as participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes.

Examples: 2a. “To assess the effect on survival of supportive care and chemotherapy versus supportive care alone in advanced NSCLC [non-small cell lung cancer].”

2b. “To evaluate the risk of serious asthma-related events among patients treated with formoterol.”

2c. “The objective of this study was to investigate the predictive value of C-reactive protein in critically ill patients.”

Explanation: Irrespective of the strength and nature of the results reported in the abstract, readers should be able to assess the questions that the review intended to address. The objectives in an abstract should convey succinctly the broad aims of the systematic review. Objectives should reflect what the review intended to evaluate, such as benefit (example 2a), harms (example 2b), association, predictive value (example 2c), of the intervention or exposure of interest and the population or context in which this is being studied.

Section 3: METHODS

Item 3: Eligibility criteria.

Study and report characteristics used as criteria for inclusion.

Examples – study characteristics: 3a. “We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of long-acting ß 2 - agonists in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for a minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma.”

3b. “… randomized trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible.”

Examples – report characteristics: 3c. “… studies published in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German between 1966 and July, 2008 [were included].”

3d. “We performed a literature search of trials using MEDLINE (January 1966–December 2001) … we retrieved English- and non-English-language articles for review… we searched for both published and unpublished trials…”

Explanation: One of the key features distinguishing a systematic review from a narrative review is the pre-specification of eligibility criteria for including and excluding studies. A clear description of these allows the readers to assess the applicability of the systematic review findings [11] . Study eligibility characteristics are likely to include the study questions (PICOS)—types of participants included in the studies (often based on a common clinical diagnosis), the intervention of prime interest and possibly the specific comparison intervention, the main outcome(s) being assessed—and acceptable study designs (examples 3a and 3b).

Eligibility criteria for reports may also include the language of publication, the publication status (e.g., whether to include unpublished materials and abstracts) and the year of publication (example 3d). This is important as inclusion, or not, of studies published in languages other than English (examples 3c and 3d), unpublished data, or older data can influence the estimates of effect or association in meta-analyses [17] , [18] .

Item 4: Information sources.

Key databases searched and date of last search.

Examples: 4a. “PubMed, ERIC and Cochrane Reviews databases from January 1980 to November 2007 were searched for studies…”

4b. “We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), other trial registries and product information sheets through June 2008.”

Explanation: The abstract should briefly indicate how thorough and up-to-date the search was by listing key databases searched, and the date range (example 4a) or date of last search (example 4b). We recommend that if there are three or fewer databases, list them all; otherwise list the three that provided the majority of included studies.

Item 5: Risk of bias assessment.

Methods for assessing risk of bias.

Example: 5a. “Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomisation, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.”

Explanation: Problems in the design and conduct of individual studies can raise questions about the validity of their findings [19] . For example, reports of randomised trials with inadequate allocation sequence concealment are more likely to show exaggerated treatment effects [20] . And non-blinded assessors of subjective outcomes generate substantially biased effect estimates [21] , [22] . It is therefore an important part of a systematic review to assess the validity of individual studies, and the risk that they will overestimate the true intervention effect. Authors should describe any methods they used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies (example 5a).

Many tools exist for assessing the overall risk of bias in included studies, including scales, checklists and individual components [23] . Most tools are scales in which various components of quality are scored and combined to give a summary score. This approach can be seriously misleading, however, and should be discouraged. A preferred approach requires authors to specify which individual methodological components they will assess and to provide a description and judgment for each component for each of the studies assessed [19] . For randomised trials, common components include: appropriate generation of the allocation sequence [24] , concealment of the allocation sequence [20] , blinding of participant and health care providers, blinding of outcome assessors [22] , assessment of incomplete outcome data [25] , and selective outcome reporting [26] .

Section 4: RESULTS

Item 6: Included studies.

Number and type of included studies and participants, and relevant characteristics of studies.

Examples: 6a. “We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on all-cause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials.”

6b. “Eight studies included in this review (n = 586 patients, median PEDro score = 8.0/10) evaluated various parameters, including the duration of patients' symptoms (0–12 months), duty cycle (20% and 100%), intensity (0.1–2.0 W/cm2), treatment time per session (4.5–15.8 minutes), number of treatments (6–39), and total energy applied per treatment (181–8,152 J).”

Explanation: The number of studies, number of participants, and characteristics of the included studies (examples 6a and 6b) enable readers to gauge the validity and applicability of the systematic review's results. These characteristics might include descriptors of the participants (e.g., age, severity of disease), range of interventions used (e.g., dose and frequency of drug administration), and measurement of outcomes (e.g., follow-up times).

Item 7: Synthesis of results.

Results for main outcomes (benefits and harms), preferably indicating the number of studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, include summary measures and confidence intervals.

Examples: 7a. “… CRT [cardiac resynchonization therapy] reduced all-cause mortality (6 trials, 4572 participants; risk ratio [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.96]) and heart failure hospitalizations (4 trials, 4349 participants; RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.57 to 0.87]) without improving functional outcomes or quality of life.”

7b. “Six studies reported on maternal mortality and our meta-analysis showed a non-significant reduction (three randomised trials, relative risk 0.79, 0.53 to 1.05, P = 0.12; three non-randomised studies, 0.80, 0.44 to 1.15, P = 0.26).”

7c. “Eight studies presented adjusted odds ratios, ranging from 0.3 to 0.9, suggesting a reduced likelihood of self-reported sharing of non-N/S [non-needle/syringe] injecting paraphernalia associated with use of NSP [needle and syringe exchange programmes] or SIF [safer injection facilities].”

Explanation: The results for the main outcomes should be given in the abstract. If meta-analyses have been done, include for each the summary measure (estimated effect) and confidence interval. If the intention had been to perform meta-analysis, but no meta-analysis was done for one or more main outcomes, the reasons should be stated (e.g., heterogeneity too great).

The abstract should make clear the protocol-defined, pre-specified importance of each outcome reported, and should not report only those outcomes that have statistically significant or clinically important results.

Where possible, given space limitations, the number of studies and participants for each main outcome should be stated, particularly if only a small proportion of the total number of studies or patients in the systematic review contributed information on a particular outcome.

If there are no summary measures, some numerical data may still be given (example 7c), although authors should be wary of making this in the form of “vote counting” where the number of “positive” and “negative” studies is given. Vote counting takes no account of weighting of studies according to the amount of information they contain [27] .

Item 8: Description of effect.

Direction of the effect (i.e., which group is favoured) and size of the effect in terms meaningful to patients and clinicians.

Examples: 8a. “Radial access reduced major bleeding by 73% compared to femoral access (0.05% vs 2.3%, OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.16, 0.45], P<0.001).”

8b. “Length of hospital and critical care unit stay were both modestly reduced in the tested group compared with the control group, with a mean difference of −1.22 day (CI, −2.31 to −0.14 day) and −0.56 day (CI, −1.06 to −0.05 day), respectively.”

8c. “A small difference was found between acupuncture and placebo acupuncture: standardised mean difference −0.17 (95% confidence interval −0.26 to −0.08)… [in favour of acupuncture]…, corresponding to 4 mm (2 mm to 6 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale.”

Explanation: The results should summarise the main outcomes in words and numbers. The wording should indicate the direction of the effect (e.g., lower, fewer, reduced; greater, more, increased) and the size of the effect using familiar units such as percentages, days, or kilograms. Example 8a makes clear the size of the effect even for readers who have difficulty interpreting relative risks and confidence intervals. When a percentage is used, the baseline risk should also be shown, which allows the reader to see what the absolute benefit or harm is, and calculate whichever measures they choose (example 8a). Authors should take care to make it clear whether the reported measure is an absolute or a relative one (e.g., where percentage is used as the units of measurement). Where possible, continuous outcome measures should be expressed in familiar units (example 8b), particularly when the standardised mean difference is used (example 8c).

Section 5: DISCUSSION

Item 9: Strengths and limitations of evidence.

Brief summary of strength and limitations of evidence (e.g., inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or risk of bias, other supporting or conflicting evidence).

Examples: 9a. “Four potentially eligible trials were not included in the meta-analysis because mortality data by age group were not available.”

9b. “All trials were open label, which may introduce bias. Most of the trials were of 24 weeks' duration or less, limiting assessment of long-term safety.”

9c. “Meta-analyses for some outcomes had large statistical heterogeneity or evidence for publication bias. Only 11 trials followed outcomes beyond 12 months.”

9d. “Meta-regression showed that small, poor-quality studies that assessed outcomes soon after radiocontrast administration were more likely to suggest benefit (P<0.05 for all).”

Explanation: The abstract should briefly describe the strengths and limitations of the evidence across studies [28] . Limitations may include: risk of bias common to many or all studies, such as lack of blinding for subjective outcomes (example 9b) or unavailability of data (example 9a); inconsistency of effect or association, as demonstrated by high heterogeneity (examples 9c and 9d); imprecision, e.g., due to few events or small sample sizes; indirectness of the evidence, such as the use of an intermediate or short-term outcome (examples 9b and 9c); and likely publication bias (example 9c). Potential strengths of the overall body of evidence that might apply for a particular outcome of a systematic review include: a large effect (example 8a); demonstration of a dose-response relationship (example 10a, below); and that all biases would be likely to reduce the effect rather than increase it. One or more of these strengths and limitations may apply to each of the outcomes of the systematic review being described in the abstract. Some of this information may be combined with item 6, above, when describing the included studies, however a summary of the overall strengths and limitations of the evidence might also be helpful.

Item 10: Interpretation.

General interpretation of the results and important implications.

Examples: 10a. “Travel is associated with a nearly 3-fold higher risk for VTE [venous thromoboembolism], with a dose-response relationship of 18% higher risk for each 2-hour increase in travel duration.”

10b. “Housing improvements, especially warmth improvements, can generate health improvements; there is little evidence of detrimental health impacts. The potential for health benefits may depend on baseline housing conditions and careful targeting of the intervention. Investigation of socioeconomic impacts associated with housing improvement is needed to investigate the potential for longer-term health impacts.”

10c. “The cumulative evidence is now conclusive that the addition of cardiac resynchronization to optimal medical therapy or defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality among patients with heart failure.”

Explanation: Remembering that some readers may struggle with interpreting the statistical results, an overall summary of the main effects—positive or negative—should be given (example 10a). This could include an indication of what is clear (example 10c), what important uncertainties remain (example 10b), and whether there is ongoing research addressing these.

If there is insufficient evidence from well-conducted studies to answer the review's question, this should be made clear to the reader. When the results are not statistically significant, authors should distinguish between those where there is insufficient evidence to rule out a difference between treatments (wide confidence interval), and those which have sufficient evidence that an important difference is unlikely (narrow confidence interval).

If the conclusions of the review differ substantially from previous systematic reviews, then some explanation might also be provided. Reference could be made to known ongoing studies that have the potential to change the result of the review. Possible implications for policy and practice should be stated.

Section 6: OTHER

Item 11: Funding.

Primary source of funding for the review.

Examples: 11a. “This work was supported, in part, by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. The authors have no competing interests to declare.”

11b. “Funding: National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant for Applied Research.”

Explanation: Studies of the relationship between pharmaceutical company funding and results of clinical trials have shown that sponsored studies are more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor [29] , [30] . This is also the case for systematic reviews [31] . Therefore, the abstract should indicate whether the sponsor of the research or the researchers might have a conflict of interest in respect of the findings of the systematic review, for example, as the manufacturer of the intervention being evaluated (examples 11a and 11b). The abstract should include the main source of funding for the systematic review, whether from host institutions or from external bodies.

Item 12: Registration.

Registration number and registry name.

Examples: 12a. “PROSPERO registration: CRD42011001243.”

12b. “PROSPERO 2011:CRD42011001329.”

Explanation: Registration of systematic reviews provides a record of reviews that have been initiated, even if they have not been published. It is therefore a means of alerting researchers to systematic reviews that are in progress, and serves as a public record of the proposed systematic review. It also helps to detect reporting bias by enabling better identification of unpublished systematic reviews, and also to compare the methods or outcomes reported in published reviews with those originally proposed in registered protocols [32] . The abstract should record the name of the database with which the review is registered, and the registration number. Cochrane reviews are an exception to this requirement, as they are preceded by a peer reviewed protocol that is published in the Cochrane Library and can be downloaded from there.

The title of a systematic review is its first signal of its relevance to potential readers. Few titles will entice a reader to invest additional time, but when they do, they ordinarily start—and quite often end—with the abstract. The first impression is therefore crucial.

We strongly recommend the use of structured abstracts for reporting systematic reviews, as does the PRISMA Statement [11] . We recognise that journals have developed their own set of headings that are considered appropriate for reporting systematic reviews, and it is not our intention to suggest changes to these headings, but to recommend what should be reported under them. The order of items and the headings are therefore flexible. For example, the strengths and limitations may be stated at the end of the Results, under a separate heading, or with the Discussion or Conclusions, depending on journal requirements. It may also be possible to combine items from the checklist into one sentence. For example, limitations may be combined with a description of the included studies (i.e., items 6 and 9 from the checklist).

We have suggested reporting a minimum set of items. We do not advocate that abstracts replace full articles in informing decision making, but we recognise that for many time-pressed readers, or for those with limited access to the full texts of reports, it is important that abstracts contain as much information as is feasible within the word limit of abstracts. Indeed, for readers who do not understand the language of publication of the article, the translated abstract may have far more relevance than the full-text article.

A checklist is not sufficient to ensure good abstract writing. For example, the abstract should clearly and truthfully reflect the full report, and not selectively report results that are statistically significant while not referring to those that were not. Similarly, the abstract should only draw conclusions that are substantiated by data from the full report and analyzed as described in the protocol, rather than selectively emphasising interesting results that were a minor or ad hoc component of the analysis. In brief, the abstract should be an unbiased representation of the full report. We also suggest that peer and editorial review processes related to the abstract should explicitly check this.

A particularly difficult area is the Discussion section of an abstract. The checklist includes two items with several elements. We suggest that authors let the reader know whether they feel their question has been answered, or whether there is still uncertainty before presenting practice and policy implications. These statements should be clearly backed by the results given in the abstract, and by presentation of the strengths and limitations of the evidence in the review.

We encourage journals and conference organisers to endorse the use of PRISMA for Abstracts, in a similar way to CONSORT for Abstracts [33] . This may be done by modifying their instructions to authors and including a link to the checklist on their website. It has been demonstrated that the number of checklist items reported is improved in journals that require checklist completion as part of the submission process [34] .

Abstracts should not replace full articles in informing decision making, but for time-pressed readers and those with limited access to full text reports, the abstract must stand alone in presenting a clear and truthful account of the research. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist will guide authors in presenting an abstract that facilitates a quick assessment of review validity, an explicit summary of results, facilitates pre-publication or conference selection peer review, and enables efficient perusal of electronic search results.

Acknowledgments

We dedicate this paper to the memory of Alessandro Liberati who, among many important achievements, was instrumental in the development and implementation of the PRISMA Statement, and had many thoughtful insights to offer at the PRISMA for Abstracts consensus meeting.

Contributors

We are grateful to the other participants of the consensus meeting for their time and interest: Martin Burton, UK Cochrane Centre, UK; Trish Groves, BMJ, UK; Alessandro Liberati, Italian Cochrane Centre, Italy; Cynthia Mulrow, Annals of Internal Medicine , USA; Melissa Norton, PLOS Medicine , UK; Elizabeth Wager, Sideview, UK; and to everyone who responded to the PRISMA for Abstracts survey.

Author Contributions

Analyzed the data: EMB. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: EMB. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Dogan RI, Murray GC, Neveol A, Lu Z (2009) Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis. Database: Article ID bap018. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bap018 .
• 13. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, et al. (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assessment 2 (3).
• 21. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2006) The Lancet handbook of essential concepts in clinical research. London: Elsevier.
• 24. Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C (2004) Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomized trials: a review of six empirical studies. 12th Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa (Canada).

• 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
• 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: Mar 21, 2024 9:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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
• 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: Dec 8, 2023 8:35 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.

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Definition and Purpose of Abstracts

An abstract is a short summary of your (published or unpublished) research paper, usually about a paragraph (c. 6-7 sentences, 150-250 words) long. A well-written abstract serves multiple purposes:

• an abstract lets readers get the gist or essence of your paper or article quickly, in order to decide whether to read the full paper;
• an abstract prepares readers to follow the detailed information, analyses, and arguments in your full paper;
• and, later, an abstract helps readers remember key points from your paper.

It’s also worth remembering that search engines and bibliographic databases use abstracts, as well as the title, to identify key terms for indexing your published paper. So what you include in your abstract and in your title are crucial for helping other researchers find your paper or article.

If you are writing an abstract for a course paper, your professor may give you specific guidelines for what to include and how to organize your abstract. Similarly, academic journals often have specific requirements for abstracts. So in addition to following the advice on this page, you should be sure to look for and follow any guidelines from the course or journal you’re writing for.

The Contents of an Abstract

Abstracts contain most of the following kinds of information in brief form. The body of your paper will, of course, develop and explain these ideas much more fully. As you will see in the samples below, the proportion of your abstract that you devote to each kind of information—and the sequence of that information—will vary, depending on the nature and genre of the paper that you are summarizing in your abstract. And in some cases, some of this information is implied, rather than stated explicitly. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , which is widely used in the social sciences, gives specific guidelines for what to include in the abstract for different kinds of papers—for empirical studies, literature reviews or meta-analyses, theoretical papers, methodological papers, and case studies.

Here are the typical kinds of information found in most abstracts:

• the context or background information for your research; the general topic under study; the specific topic of your research
• the central questions or statement of the problem your research addresses
• what’s already known about this question, what previous research has done or shown
• the main reason(s) , the exigency, the rationale , the goals for your research—Why is it important to address these questions? Are you, for example, examining a new topic? Why is that topic worth examining? Are you filling a gap in previous research? Applying new methods to take a fresh look at existing ideas or data? Resolving a dispute within the literature in your field? . . .
• your research and/or analytical methods
• your main findings , results , or arguments
• the significance or implications of your findings or arguments.

Your abstract should be intelligible on its own, without a reader’s having to read your entire paper. And in an abstract, you usually do not cite references—most of your abstract will describe what you have studied in your research and what you have found and what you argue in your paper. In the body of your paper, you will cite the specific literature that informs your research.

When to Write Your Abstract

Although you might be tempted to write your abstract first because it will appear as the very first part of your paper, it’s a good idea to wait to write your abstract until after you’ve drafted your full paper, so that you know what you’re summarizing.

What follows are some sample abstracts in published papers or articles, all written by faculty at UW-Madison who come from a variety of disciplines. We have annotated these samples to help you see the work that these authors are doing within their abstracts.

Choosing Verb Tenses within Your Abstract

The social science sample (Sample 1) below uses the present tense to describe general facts and interpretations that have been and are currently true, including the prevailing explanation for the social phenomenon under study. That abstract also uses the present tense to describe the methods, the findings, the arguments, and the implications of the findings from their new research study. The authors use the past tense to describe previous research.

The humanities sample (Sample 2) below uses the past tense to describe completed events in the past (the texts created in the pulp fiction industry in the 1970s and 80s) and uses the present tense to describe what is happening in those texts, to explain the significance or meaning of those texts, and to describe the arguments presented in the article.

The science samples (Samples 3 and 4) below use the past tense to describe what previous research studies have done and the research the authors have conducted, the methods they have followed, and what they have found. In their rationale or justification for their research (what remains to be done), they use the present tense. They also use the present tense to introduce their study (in Sample 3, “Here we report . . .”) and to explain the significance of their study (In Sample 3, This reprogramming . . . “provides a scalable cell source for. . .”).

Sample Abstract 1

From the social sciences.

Reporting new findings about the reasons for increasing economic homogamy among spouses

Gonalons-Pons, Pilar, and Christine R. Schwartz. “Trends in Economic Homogamy: Changes in Assortative Mating or the Division of Labor in Marriage?” Demography , vol. 54, no. 3, 2017, pp. 985-1005.

Sample Abstract 2

From the humanities.

Analyzing underground pulp fiction publications in Tanzania, this article makes an argument about the cultural significance of those publications

Emily Callaci. “Street Textuality: Socialism, Masculinity, and Urban Belonging in Tanzania’s Pulp Fiction Publishing Industry, 1975-1985.” Comparative Studies in Society and History , vol. 59, no. 1, 2017, pp. 183-210.

Sample Abstract/Summary 3

From the sciences.

Reporting a new method for reprogramming adult mouse fibroblasts into induced cardiac progenitor cells

Lalit, Pratik A., Max R. Salick, Daryl O. Nelson, Jayne M. Squirrell, Christina M. Shafer, Neel G. Patel, Imaan Saeed, Eric G. Schmuck, Yogananda S. Markandeya, Rachel Wong, Martin R. Lea, Kevin W. Eliceiri, Timothy A. Hacker, Wendy C. Crone, Michael Kyba, Daniel J. Garry, Ron Stewart, James A. Thomson, Karen M. Downs, Gary E. Lyons, and Timothy J. Kamp. “Lineage Reprogramming of Fibroblasts into Proliferative Induced Cardiac Progenitor Cells by Defined Factors.” Cell Stem Cell , vol. 18, 2016, pp. 354-367.

Sample Abstract 4, a Structured Abstract

Reporting results about the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis, from a rigorously controlled study

Note: This journal requires authors to organize their abstract into four specific sections, with strict word limits. Because the headings for this structured abstract are self-explanatory, we have chosen not to add annotations to this sample abstract.

Wald, Ellen R., David Nash, and Jens Eickhoff. “Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children.” Pediatrics , vol. 124, no. 1, 2009, pp. 9-15.

“OBJECTIVE: The role of antibiotic therapy in managing acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) in children is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of high-dose amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate in the treatment of children diagnosed with ABS.

METHODS : This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Children 1 to 10 years of age with a clinical presentation compatible with ABS were eligible for participation. Patients were stratified according to age (<6 or ≥6 years) and clinical severity and randomly assigned to receive either amoxicillin (90 mg/kg) with potassium clavulanate (6.4 mg/kg) or placebo. A symptom survey was performed on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30. Patients were examined on day 14. Children’s conditions were rated as cured, improved, or failed according to scoring rules.

RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred thirty-five children with respiratory complaints were screened for enrollment; 139 (6.5%) had ABS. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, and 56 were randomly assigned. The mean age was 6630 months. Fifty (89%) patients presented with persistent symptoms, and 6 (11%) presented with nonpersistent symptoms. In 24 (43%) children, the illness was classified as mild, whereas in the remaining 32 (57%) children it was severe. Of the 28 children who received the antibiotic, 14 (50%) were cured, 4 (14%) were improved, 4(14%) experienced treatment failure, and 6 (21%) withdrew. Of the 28children who received placebo, 4 (14%) were cured, 5 (18%) improved, and 19 (68%) experienced treatment failure. Children receiving the antibiotic were more likely to be cured (50% vs 14%) and less likely to have treatment failure (14% vs 68%) than children receiving the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS : ABS is a common complication of viral upper respiratory infections. Amoxicillin/potassium clavulanate results in significantly more cures and fewer failures than placebo, according to parental report of time to resolution.” (9)

Some Excellent Advice about Writing Abstracts for Basic Science Research Papers, by Professor Adriano Aguzzi from the Institute of Neuropathology at the University of Zurich:

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

11.8  Writing an abstract

All full reviews must include an abstract of not more than 400 words. The abstract should be kept as brief as possible without sacrificing important content. Abstracts to Cochrane reviews are published in MEDLINE and the Science Citation Index, and are made freely available on the internet. It is therefore important that they can be read as stand-alone documents.

The abstract should summarize the key methods, results and conclusions of the review and should not contain any information that is not in the review. Links to other parts of the review (such as references, studies, tables and figures) may not be included in the abstract. A hypothetical example of an abstract is included in Box 11.8.a .

Abstracts should be targeted primarily at healthcare decision makers (clinicians, informed consumers and policy makers) rather than just to researchers. Terminology should be reasonably comprehensible to a general rather than a specialist healthcare audience. Abbreviations should be avoided, except where they are widely understood (for example, HIV). Where essential, other abbreviations should be spelt out (with the abbreviations in brackets) on first use. Names of drugs and interventions that can be understood internationally should be used wherever possible. Trade names should not be used.

The content under each heading in the abstract should be as follows:

Background: This should be one or two sentences to explain the context or elaborate on the purpose and rationale of the review. If this version of the review is an update of an earlier one, it is helpful to include a sentence such as “This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in YEAR, and previously updated in YEAR”.

Objectives:  This should be a precise statement of the primary objective of the review, ideally in a single sentence, matching the Objectives in the main text of the review. Where possible the style should be of the form “To assess the effects of   [intervention or comparison] for [health problem] for/in [types of people, disease or problem and setting if specified]”.

Search methods: This should list the sources and the dates of the last search, for each source, using the active form ‘We searched….’ or, if there is only one author, the passive form can be used, for example, ‘Database X, Y, Z were searched’. Search terms should not be listed here. If the CRG’s Specialized Register was used, this should be listed first in the form ‘Cochrane X Group Specialized Register’. The order for listing other databases should be the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, other databases. The date range of the search for each database should be given. For the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials this should be in the form ‘Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1)’. For most other databases, such as MEDLINE, it should be in the form ‘MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2006)’. Searching of bibliographies for relevant citations can be covered in a generic phrase ‘reference lists of articles’. If there were any constraints based on language or publication status, these should be listed. If individuals or organizations were contacted to locate studies this should be noted and it is preferable to use ‘We contacted pharmaceutical companies’ rather than a listing of all the pharmaceutical companies contacted. If journals were specifically handsearched for the review, this should be noted but handsearching to help build the Specialized Register of the CRG should not be listed.

Selection criteria: These should be given as ‘ [type of study] of [type of intervention or comparison] in [disease, problem or type of people]‘ . Outcomes should only be listed here if the review was restricted to specific outcomes.

Data collection and analysis: This should be restricted to how data were extracted and assessed, and not include details of what data were extracted. This section should cover whether data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were done by more than one person. If the authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information, this should be noted here. What steps, if any, were taken to identify adverse effects should be noted.

Main results: This section should begin with the total number of studies and participants included in the review, and brief details pertinent to the interpretation of the results (for example, the risk of bias in the studies overall or a comment on the comparability of the studies, if appropriate). It should address the primary objective and be restricted to the main qualitative and quantitative results (generally including not more than six key results). The outcomes included should be selected on the basis of which are most likely to help someone making a decision about whether or not to use a particular intervention. Adverse effects should be included if these are covered in the review. If necessary, the number of studies and participants contributing to the separate outcomes should be noted, along with concerns over quality of evidence specific to these outcomes. The results should be expressed narratively as well as quantitatively if the numerical results are not clear or intuitive (such as those from a standardized mean differences analysis). The summary statistics in the abstract should be the same as those selected as the defaults for the review, and should be presented in a standard way, such as ‘odds ratio 2.31 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 3.45)’. Ideally, risks of events (percentage) or averages (for continuous data) should be reported for both comparison groups. If overall results are not calculated in the review, a qualitative assessment or a description of the range and pattern of the results can be given. However, ‘vote counts’ in which the numbers of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ studies are reported should be avoided.

Authors’ conclusions: The primary purpose of the review should be to present information, rather than to offer advice or recommendations. The Authors’ conclusions should be succinct and drawn directly from the findings of the review so that they directly and obviously reflect the main results. Assumptions should generally not be made about practice circumstances, values, preferences, tradeoffs; and the giving of advice or recommendations should generally be avoided. Any important limitations of data and analyses should be noted. Important conclusions about the implications for research should be included if these are not obvious.

Write Abstracts, Literature Reviews, and Annotated Bibliographies: Abstract Guides & Examples

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

Database Abstract Example

Journal articles on writing abstracts

• Writing and submitting an abstract
• Writing for publication: Argument and evidence
• Writing a research paper

Abstract Checklists

• Abstract Checklist (Scientific paper)
• Abstract Checklist (English research)

How to Write an Abstract with Examples

• Good and bad abstract examples (University of Richmond)
• How To Write an Abstract - additional good and bad examples (Rutgers University)
• Abstracts (UNC - Chapel Hill)
• The Report Abstract and Executive Summary (Purdue University)
• Writing Conference Abstracts (Rutgers University)
• Writing Report Abstracts (Purdue University)

Dos and Don'ts of Abstract Writing

Define any acronyms or abbreviations used, such as names of tests, etc.

Be as concise as possible.

Use quotations (paraphrase instead).

Write in the first person.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 4:00 PM
• URL: https://library.geneseo.edu/abstracts

Fraser Hall Library | SUNY Geneseo

Fraser Hall 203

Milne Building Renovation Updates

Connect With Us!

Fraser Hall Library is the home of Geneseo Authors Hall, a collection of over 90 years of Geneseo Authors' works.

Fraser Hall Library is the home of KnightScholar Services , which encourages the creation, access, curation, and preservation of scholarly, creative, and cultural works produced by the SUNY Geneseo community.

Fraser Hall Library is the home of the award winning IDS Project , a collaboration of over 100 libraries supporting and enhancing resource sharing.

CIT HelpDesk

Writing learning center (wlc).

Fraser Hall 208

What this handout is about

This handout provides definitions and examples of the two main types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. It also provides guidelines for constructing an abstract and general tips for you to keep in mind when drafting. Finally, it includes a few examples of abstracts broken down into their component parts.

What is an abstract?

An abstract is a self-contained, short, and powerful statement that describes a larger work. Components vary according to discipline. An abstract of a social science or scientific work may contain the scope, purpose, results, and contents of the work. An abstract of a humanities work may contain the thesis, background, and conclusion of the larger work. An abstract is not a review, nor does it evaluate the work being abstracted. While it contains key words found in the larger work, the abstract is an original document rather than an excerpted passage.

Why write an abstract?

You may write an abstract for various reasons. The two most important are selection and indexing. Abstracts allow readers who may be interested in a longer work to quickly decide whether it is worth their time to read it. Also, many online databases use abstracts to index larger works. Therefore, abstracts should contain keywords and phrases that allow for easy searching.

Say you are beginning a research project on how Brazilian newspapers helped Brazil’s ultra-liberal president Luiz Ignácio da Silva wrest power from the traditional, conservative power base. A good first place to start your research is to search Dissertation Abstracts International for all dissertations that deal with the interaction between newspapers and politics. “Newspapers and politics” returned 569 hits. A more selective search of “newspapers and Brazil” returned 22 hits. That is still a fair number of dissertations. Titles can sometimes help winnow the field, but many titles are not very descriptive. For example, one dissertation is titled “Rhetoric and Riot in Rio de Janeiro.” It is unclear from the title what this dissertation has to do with newspapers in Brazil. One option would be to download or order the entire dissertation on the chance that it might speak specifically to the topic. A better option is to read the abstract. In this case, the abstract reveals the main focus of the dissertation:

This dissertation examines the role of newspaper editors in the political turmoil and strife that characterized late First Empire Rio de Janeiro (1827-1831). Newspaper editors and their journals helped change the political culture of late First Empire Rio de Janeiro by involving the people in the discussion of state. This change in political culture is apparent in Emperor Pedro I’s gradual loss of control over the mechanisms of power. As the newspapers became more numerous and powerful, the Emperor lost his legitimacy in the eyes of the people. To explore the role of the newspapers in the political events of the late First Empire, this dissertation analyzes all available newspapers published in Rio de Janeiro from 1827 to 1831. Newspapers and their editors were leading forces in the effort to remove power from the hands of the ruling elite and place it under the control of the people. In the process, newspapers helped change how politics operated in the constitutional monarchy of Brazil.

From this abstract you now know that although the dissertation has nothing to do with modern Brazilian politics, it does cover the role of newspapers in changing traditional mechanisms of power. After reading the abstract, you can make an informed judgment about whether the dissertation would be worthwhile to read.

Besides selection, the other main purpose of the abstract is for indexing. Most article databases in the online catalog of the library enable you to search abstracts. This allows for quick retrieval by users and limits the extraneous items recalled by a “full-text” search. However, for an abstract to be useful in an online retrieval system, it must incorporate the key terms that a potential researcher would use to search. For example, if you search Dissertation Abstracts International using the keywords “France” “revolution” and “politics,” the search engine would search through all the abstracts in the database that included those three words. Without an abstract, the search engine would be forced to search titles, which, as we have seen, may not be fruitful, or else search the full text. It’s likely that a lot more than 60 dissertations have been written with those three words somewhere in the body of the entire work. By incorporating keywords into the abstract, the author emphasizes the central topics of the work and gives prospective readers enough information to make an informed judgment about the applicability of the work.

When do people write abstracts?

• when submitting articles to journals, especially online journals
• when applying for research grants
• when writing a book proposal
• when completing the Ph.D. dissertation or M.A. thesis
• when writing a proposal for a conference paper
• when writing a proposal for a book chapter

Most often, the author of the entire work (or prospective work) writes the abstract. However, there are professional abstracting services that hire writers to draft abstracts of other people’s work. In a work with multiple authors, the first author usually writes the abstract. Undergraduates are sometimes asked to draft abstracts of books/articles for classmates who have not read the larger work.

Types of abstracts

There are two types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. They have different aims, so as a consequence they have different components and styles. There is also a third type called critical, but it is rarely used. If you want to find out more about writing a critique or a review of a work, see the UNC Writing Center handout on writing a literature review . If you are unsure which type of abstract you should write, ask your instructor (if the abstract is for a class) or read other abstracts in your field or in the journal where you are submitting your article.

Descriptive abstracts

A descriptive abstract indicates the type of information found in the work. It makes no judgments about the work, nor does it provide results or conclusions of the research. It does incorporate key words found in the text and may include the purpose, methods, and scope of the research. Essentially, the descriptive abstract describes the work being abstracted. Some people consider it an outline of the work, rather than a summary. Descriptive abstracts are usually very short—100 words or less.

Informative abstracts

The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the writer presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the complete article/paper/book. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract (purpose, methods, scope) but also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is rarely more than 10% of the length of the entire work. In the case of a longer work, it may be much less.

Here are examples of a descriptive and an informative abstract of this handout on abstracts . Descriptive abstract:

The two most common abstract types—descriptive and informative—are described and examples of each are provided.

Informative abstract:

Abstracts present the essential elements of a longer work in a short and powerful statement. The purpose of an abstract is to provide prospective readers the opportunity to judge the relevance of the longer work to their projects. Abstracts also include the key terms found in the longer work and the purpose and methods of the research. Authors abstract various longer works, including book proposals, dissertations, and online journal articles. There are two main types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. A descriptive abstract briefly describes the longer work, while an informative abstract presents all the main arguments and important results. This handout provides examples of various types of abstracts and instructions on how to construct one.

Which type should I use?

Your best bet in this case is to ask your instructor or refer to the instructions provided by the publisher. You can also make a guess based on the length allowed; i.e., 100-120 words = descriptive; 250+ words = informative.

How do I write an abstract?

The format of your abstract will depend on the work being abstracted. An abstract of a scientific research paper will contain elements not found in an abstract of a literature article, and vice versa. However, all abstracts share several mandatory components, and there are also some optional parts that you can decide to include or not. When preparing to draft your abstract, keep the following key process elements in mind:

• Reason for writing: What is the importance of the research? Why would a reader be interested in the larger work?
• Problem: What problem does this work attempt to solve? What is the scope of the project? What is the main argument/thesis/claim?
• Methodology: An abstract of a scientific work may include specific models or approaches used in the larger study. Other abstracts may describe the types of evidence used in the research.
• Results: Again, an abstract of a scientific work may include specific data that indicates the results of the project. Other abstracts may discuss the findings in a more general way.
• Implications: What changes should be implemented as a result of the findings of the work? How does this work add to the body of knowledge on the topic?

(This list of elements is adapted with permission from Philip Koopman, “How to Write an Abstract.” )

All abstracts include:

• A full citation of the source, preceding the abstract.
• The most important information first.
• The same type and style of language found in the original, including technical language.
• Key words and phrases that quickly identify the content and focus of the work.
• Clear, concise, and powerful language.

Abstracts may include:

• The thesis of the work, usually in the first sentence.
• Background information that places the work in the larger body of literature.
• The same chronological structure as the original work.

How not to write an abstract:

• Do not refer extensively to other works.
• Do not add information not contained in the original work.
• Do not define terms.

If you are abstracting your own writing

When abstracting your own work, it may be difficult to condense a piece of writing that you have agonized over for weeks (or months, or even years) into a 250-word statement. There are some tricks that you could use to make it easier, however.

Reverse outlining:

This technique is commonly used when you are having trouble organizing your own writing. The process involves writing down the main idea of each paragraph on a separate piece of paper– see our short video . For the purposes of writing an abstract, try grouping the main ideas of each section of the paper into a single sentence. Practice grouping ideas using webbing or color coding .

For a scientific paper, you may have sections titled Purpose, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Each one of these sections will be longer than one paragraph, but each is grouped around a central idea. Use reverse outlining to discover the central idea in each section and then distill these ideas into one statement.

Cut and paste:

To create a first draft of an abstract of your own work, you can read through the entire paper and cut and paste sentences that capture key passages. This technique is useful for social science research with findings that cannot be encapsulated by neat numbers or concrete results. A well-written humanities draft will have a clear and direct thesis statement and informative topic sentences for paragraphs or sections. Isolate these sentences in a separate document and work on revising them into a unified paragraph.

If you are abstracting someone else’s writing

When abstracting something you have not written, you cannot summarize key ideas just by cutting and pasting. Instead, you must determine what a prospective reader would want to know about the work. There are a few techniques that will help you in this process:

Identify key terms:

Search through the entire document for key terms that identify the purpose, scope, and methods of the work. Pay close attention to the Introduction (or Purpose) and the Conclusion (or Discussion). These sections should contain all the main ideas and key terms in the paper. When writing the abstract, be sure to incorporate the key terms.

Highlight key phrases and sentences:

Instead of cutting and pasting the actual words, try highlighting sentences or phrases that appear to be central to the work. Then, in a separate document, rewrite the sentences and phrases in your own words.

Don’t look back:

After reading the entire work, put it aside and write a paragraph about the work without referring to it. In the first draft, you may not remember all the key terms or the results, but you will remember what the main point of the work was. Remember not to include any information you did not get from the work being abstracted.

Revise, revise, revise

No matter what type of abstract you are writing, or whether you are abstracting your own work or someone else’s, the most important step in writing an abstract is to revise early and often. When revising, delete all extraneous words and incorporate meaningful and powerful words. The idea is to be as clear and complete as possible in the shortest possible amount of space. The Word Count feature of Microsoft Word can help you keep track of how long your abstract is and help you hit your target length.

Example 1: Humanities abstract

Kenneth Tait Andrews, “‘Freedom is a constant struggle’: The dynamics and consequences of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement, 1960-1984” Ph.D. State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1997 DAI-A 59/02, p. 620, Aug 1998

This dissertation examines the impacts of social movements through a multi-layered study of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement from its peak in the early 1960s through the early 1980s. By examining this historically important case, I clarify the process by which movements transform social structures and the constraints movements face when they try to do so. The time period studied includes the expansion of voting rights and gains in black political power, the desegregation of public schools and the emergence of white-flight academies, and the rise and fall of federal anti-poverty programs. I use two major research strategies: (1) a quantitative analysis of county-level data and (2) three case studies. Data have been collected from archives, interviews, newspapers, and published reports. This dissertation challenges the argument that movements are inconsequential. Some view federal agencies, courts, political parties, or economic elites as the agents driving institutional change, but typically these groups acted in response to the leverage brought to bear by the civil rights movement. The Mississippi movement attempted to forge independent structures for sustaining challenges to local inequities and injustices. By propelling change in an array of local institutions, movement infrastructures had an enduring legacy in Mississippi.

Now let’s break down this abstract into its component parts to see how the author has distilled his entire dissertation into a ~200 word abstract.

What the dissertation does This dissertation examines the impacts of social movements through a multi-layered study of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement from its peak in the early 1960s through the early 1980s. By examining this historically important case, I clarify the process by which movements transform social structures and the constraints movements face when they try to do so.

How the dissertation does it The time period studied in this dissertation includes the expansion of voting rights and gains in black political power, the desegregation of public schools and the emergence of white-flight academies, and the rise and fall of federal anti-poverty programs. I use two major research strategies: (1) a quantitative analysis of county-level data and (2) three case studies.

What materials are used Data have been collected from archives, interviews, newspapers, and published reports.

Conclusion This dissertation challenges the argument that movements are inconsequential. Some view federal agencies, courts, political parties, or economic elites as the agents driving institutional change, but typically these groups acted in response to movement demands and the leverage brought to bear by the civil rights movement. The Mississippi movement attempted to forge independent structures for sustaining challenges to local inequities and injustices. By propelling change in an array of local institutions, movement infrastructures had an enduring legacy in Mississippi.

Keywords social movements Civil Rights Movement Mississippi voting rights desegregation

Example 2: Science Abstract

Luis Lehner, “Gravitational radiation from black hole spacetimes” Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 1998 DAI-B 59/06, p. 2797, Dec 1998

The problem of detecting gravitational radiation is receiving considerable attention with the construction of new detectors in the United States, Europe, and Japan. The theoretical modeling of the wave forms that would be produced in particular systems will expedite the search for and analysis of detected signals. The characteristic formulation of GR is implemented to obtain an algorithm capable of evolving black holes in 3D asymptotically flat spacetimes. Using compactification techniques, future null infinity is included in the evolved region, which enables the unambiguous calculation of the radiation produced by some compact source. A module to calculate the waveforms is constructed and included in the evolution algorithm. This code is shown to be second-order convergent and to handle highly non-linear spacetimes. In particular, we have shown that the code can handle spacetimes whose radiation is equivalent to a galaxy converting its whole mass into gravitational radiation in one second. We further use the characteristic formulation to treat the region close to the singularity in black hole spacetimes. The code carefully excises a region surrounding the singularity and accurately evolves generic black hole spacetimes with apparently unlimited stability.

This science abstract covers much of the same ground as the humanities one, but it asks slightly different questions.

Why do this study The problem of detecting gravitational radiation is receiving considerable attention with the construction of new detectors in the United States, Europe, and Japan. The theoretical modeling of the wave forms that would be produced in particular systems will expedite the search and analysis of the detected signals.

What the study does The characteristic formulation of GR is implemented to obtain an algorithm capable of evolving black holes in 3D asymptotically flat spacetimes. Using compactification techniques, future null infinity is included in the evolved region, which enables the unambiguous calculation of the radiation produced by some compact source. A module to calculate the waveforms is constructed and included in the evolution algorithm.

Results This code is shown to be second-order convergent and to handle highly non-linear spacetimes. In particular, we have shown that the code can handle spacetimes whose radiation is equivalent to a galaxy converting its whole mass into gravitational radiation in one second. We further use the characteristic formulation to treat the region close to the singularity in black hole spacetimes. The code carefully excises a region surrounding the singularity and accurately evolves generic black hole spacetimes with apparently unlimited stability.

Keywords gravitational radiation (GR) spacetimes black holes

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Belcher, Wendy Laura. 2009. Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Koopman, Philip. 1997. “How to Write an Abstract.” Carnegie Mellon University. October 1997. http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/essays/abstract.html .

Lancaster, F.W. 2003. Indexing And Abstracting in Theory and Practice , 3rd ed. London: Facet Publishing.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(4); 2013 Apr

PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

Elaine m. beller.

1 Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

Paul P. Glasziou

Douglas g. altman.

2 Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Sally Hopewell

7 INSERM, Paris, France

Hilda Bastian

3 National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, Washington DC, United States of America

Iain Chalmers

4 James Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom

Peter C. Gøtzsche

5 Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark

Toby Lasserson

6 Cochrane Editorial Unit, London, United Kingdom

David Tovey

Analyzed the data: EMB. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: EMB. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT.

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

Summary Points

• The abstract of a systematic review should provide a structured summary that enables a quick assessment of the review's validity and applicability, and easy identification in electronic searching.
• Despite published guidance on writing the abstract in the PRISMA Statement guiding the reporting of systematic reviews in general and elsewhere, evaluations show that reporting of systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts is poor.
• We developed consensus-based reporting guidelines as an extension to the PRISMA Statement on good reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in abstracts.
• The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for an abstract that will meet the needs of many readers.

Introduction

When readers screen the title of an article, and parts of its abstract, they try to determine whether or not to devote their scarce time to reading on. Some may be screening literature to identify the articles that are systematic reviews. Thus, the main function of an abstract of a systematic review should be to signal its systematic methodology. For most readers, the findings described in the abstract will also be key, either as the sole part of an article that will be read, or to determine whether reading the full text is required. Abstracts of systematic reviews are very important, as some readers cannot access the full paper, such that abstracts may be the only option for gleaning research results. This can be because of a pay wall, low Internet download capacity, or if the full article is only available in a language not understood by the reader. Readers in countries where English is not the primary language may have access to an abstract translated to their own language, but not to a translated full text. Conversely, a large proportion of systematic reviews are published by health technology agencies in non-English speaking countries [1] , many of which provide only the abstract in English.

The predominance of the abstract in biomedical literature use is clear. Within queries to PubMed, most readers look only at titles; only half of searches result in any clicks on content [2] . The average number of titles clicked on to obtain the abstract or full text, even after retrieving several searches in a row, is less than five. Of those clicks, abstracts will be represented about 2.5 times more often than full texts of articles [2] . Even people going straight to a PDF or full text are likely to start, and perhaps end, with reading the abstract. The frequency of viewing full texts is somewhat higher among people searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [3] , but the same pattern is clear. After the title, the abstract is the most read part of a biomedical article.

Abstracts can be useful for screening by study type [4] ; facilitating quick assessment of validity [4] , [5] ; enabling efficient perusal of electronic search results [4] , [6] ; clarifying to which patients and settings the results apply [4] , [5] ; providing readers and peer reviewers with explicit summaries of results [5] ; facilitating the pre-publication peer review process [7] ; and increasing precision of computerised searches [6] , [7] .

Structured abstracts were introduced in the medical literature about 25 years ago [4] – [6] . They provide readers with a series of headings, generally about the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of the report, and have been adopted by many journals and conferences. They act as a prompt to the writer to give more complete information, and facilitate the finding of information by the reader.

Despite the adoption of structured abstracts, studies of the quality of abstracts of clinical trials have demonstrated that improvement is needed [8] , [9] , and a study of systematic review abstracts demonstrated that the direction of the effect or association could not be determined in one in four abstracts from the general and specialty medical literature [10] . The PRISMA Statement [11] gives some guidance for abstracts, closely linked to commonly used headings in structured abstracts. After observing that the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews is still poor [10] , we decided to develop an extension to the PRISMA Statement to provide guidance on writing abstracts for systematic reviews. We also wanted to provide a checklist enabling the items suggested to fit into any set of headings mandated by a journal or conference submission.

Methods for Development of the Checklist

We established a steering committee (EMB, PPG, SH, DGA). In collaboration with the steering group of the PRISMA Statement [11] , we used the Statement to inform our selection of potential items for the checklist of essential items that authors should consider when reporting the primary results of a systematic review in a journal or conference abstract. The committee generated a list of items from PRISMA and other sources of guidance and information on structured abstracts and abstract composition and reporting [7] , [11] , [12] , which were found using a thorough search of the literature.

In preparation for a consensus meeting, we used a modified Delphi consensus survey method [13] to select and reduce the number of possible checklist items. Each item was rated by survey participants as “omit”, “possible”, “desirable”, or “essential” to include in the final checklist. From the first round of the survey, the ranked items were divided into three lists for the second round. The first list contained the items with the highest rankings, and participants for the second round were instructed that these would be contained in the checklist unless they received low rankings in the second round. The second list contained the items with moderate rankings, and participants were instructed that these items were likely to be removed from the checklist unless they received high rankings in the second round. The third list contained the items with low rankings, and participants were instructed that these items would be removed unless they received very high rankings in the second round.

For the third round of the Delphi survey, a draft checklist was presented, which included only the items ranked highest in rounds one and two. The five next highest-ranked items were then presented, giving participants an opportunity to choose to include these in the checklist as well.

One hundred and forty-seven participants, who were authors of research on abstracts, established authors of systematic reviews, methodologists or statisticians related to systematic reviews, and journal editors, were invited by email to complete the three rounds of the web-based survey. The response rate was 68% ( n  = 100) for the first round. Only those who completed round one were invited to participate in rounds two and three. The response rate for round two was 80% ( n  = 80) and for round three 88% ( n  = 88).

The results of the survey were reported at a two-day consensus-style meeting on 13–14 October 2011, in Oxford, United Kingdom. Fifteen invited experts attended, most of whom had participated in the survey. The meeting began with a review of the literature about abstract structure and content, followed by a review of the checklist items as proposed by the survey respondents. Meeting participants discussed the items and agreed whether they should be included and how each item should be worded.

Following the meeting, the checklist was distributed to the participants to ensure it reflected the decisions made. This explanatory document was drafted and circulated through several iterations among members of the writing subcommittee who had all participated in the meeting. We developed this document using the template for the PRISMA Statement [11] , which in turn was based on the methods of the CONSORT Group [14] , [15] .

Scope of PRISMA for Abstracts

The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist focuses on truthful representation of a systematic review in an abstract. We developed the checklist to help authors report all types of systematic reviews, but recognise that the emphasis is on systematic reviews of evaluations of interventions where one or more meta-analyses are conducted. Authors who address questions on aetiology, diagnostic test accuracy, or prognosis may need to modify items or include other items in their abstract to reflect the essentials of the full report.

The PRISMA for Abstracts Checklist

The checklist is shown in Table 1 . An explanation for each item is given below. Citations for the examples of good reporting are in Table 2 .

Section 1: TITLE

Item 1: Title.

Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

Examples: 1a. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic and therapeutic role of water-soluble contrast agent in adhesive small bowel obstruction.”

1b. “Inhaled corticosteroids vs placebo for preventing COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] exacerbations: a systematic review and metaregression of randomized controlled trials.”

Explanation: The abstract should make it clear that the report is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both (examples 1a and 1b). Search filters have been developed to identify systematic reviews [16] , but inclusion of the words “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” in the title may improve indexing and electronic searching.

We also suggest using informative titles that incorporate the PICOS approach (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study designs). This provides key information about the scope of the systematic review. As including all elements of the PICOS approach may make the title unwieldy, we suggest including the most important of these elements in the title. These might be the elements that make this review unusual, or that assist readers in searching for the review.

Section 2: BACKGROUND

Item 2: Objectives.

The research question including components such as participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes.

Examples: 2a. “To assess the effect on survival of supportive care and chemotherapy versus supportive care alone in advanced NSCLC [non-small cell lung cancer].”

2b. “To evaluate the risk of serious asthma-related events among patients treated with formoterol.”

2c. “The objective of this study was to investigate the predictive value of C-reactive protein in critically ill patients.”

Explanation: Irrespective of the strength and nature of the results reported in the abstract, readers should be able to assess the questions that the review intended to address. The objectives in an abstract should convey succinctly the broad aims of the systematic review. Objectives should reflect what the review intended to evaluate, such as benefit (example 2a), harms (example 2b), association, predictive value (example 2c), of the intervention or exposure of interest and the population or context in which this is being studied.

Section 3: METHODS

Item 3: Eligibility criteria.

Study and report characteristics used as criteria for inclusion.

Examples – study characteristics: 3a. “We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of long-acting ß 2 - agonists in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for a minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma.”

3b. “… randomized trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible.”

Examples – report characteristics: 3c. “… studies published in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German between 1966 and July, 2008 [were included].”

3d. “We performed a literature search of trials using MEDLINE (January 1966–December 2001) … we retrieved English- and non-English-language articles for review… we searched for both published and unpublished trials…”

Explanation: One of the key features distinguishing a systematic review from a narrative review is the pre-specification of eligibility criteria for including and excluding studies. A clear description of these allows the readers to assess the applicability of the systematic review findings [11] . Study eligibility characteristics are likely to include the study questions (PICOS)—types of participants included in the studies (often based on a common clinical diagnosis), the intervention of prime interest and possibly the specific comparison intervention, the main outcome(s) being assessed—and acceptable study designs (examples 3a and 3b).

Eligibility criteria for reports may also include the language of publication, the publication status (e.g., whether to include unpublished materials and abstracts) and the year of publication (example 3d). This is important as inclusion, or not, of studies published in languages other than English (examples 3c and 3d), unpublished data, or older data can influence the estimates of effect or association in meta-analyses [17] , [18] .

Item 4: Information sources.

Key databases searched and date of last search.

Examples: 4a. “PubMed, ERIC and Cochrane Reviews databases from January 1980 to November 2007 were searched for studies…”

4b. “We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), other trial registries and product information sheets through June 2008.”

Explanation: The abstract should briefly indicate how thorough and up-to-date the search was by listing key databases searched, and the date range (example 4a) or date of last search (example 4b). We recommend that if there are three or fewer databases, list them all; otherwise list the three that provided the majority of included studies.

Item 5: Risk of bias assessment.

Methods for assessing risk of bias.

Example: 5a. “Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomisation, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.”

Explanation: Problems in the design and conduct of individual studies can raise questions about the validity of their findings [19] . For example, reports of randomised trials with inadequate allocation sequence concealment are more likely to show exaggerated treatment effects [20] . And non-blinded assessors of subjective outcomes generate substantially biased effect estimates [21] , [22] . It is therefore an important part of a systematic review to assess the validity of individual studies, and the risk that they will overestimate the true intervention effect. Authors should describe any methods they used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies (example 5a).

Many tools exist for assessing the overall risk of bias in included studies, including scales, checklists and individual components [23] . Most tools are scales in which various components of quality are scored and combined to give a summary score. This approach can be seriously misleading, however, and should be discouraged. A preferred approach requires authors to specify which individual methodological components they will assess and to provide a description and judgment for each component for each of the studies assessed [19] . For randomised trials, common components include: appropriate generation of the allocation sequence [24] , concealment of the allocation sequence [20] , blinding of participant and health care providers, blinding of outcome assessors [22] , assessment of incomplete outcome data [25] , and selective outcome reporting [26] .

Section 4: RESULTS

Item 6: Included studies.

Number and type of included studies and participants, and relevant characteristics of studies.

Examples: 6a. “We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on all-cause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials.”

6b. “Eight studies included in this review (n = 586 patients, median PEDro score = 8.0/10) evaluated various parameters, including the duration of patients' symptoms (0–12 months), duty cycle (20% and 100%), intensity (0.1–2.0 W/cm2), treatment time per session (4.5–15.8 minutes), number of treatments (6–39), and total energy applied per treatment (181–8,152 J).”

Explanation: The number of studies, number of participants, and characteristics of the included studies (examples 6a and 6b) enable readers to gauge the validity and applicability of the systematic review's results. These characteristics might include descriptors of the participants (e.g., age, severity of disease), range of interventions used (e.g., dose and frequency of drug administration), and measurement of outcomes (e.g., follow-up times).

Item 7: Synthesis of results.

Results for main outcomes (benefits and harms), preferably indicating the number of studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, include summary measures and confidence intervals.

Examples: 7a. “… CRT [cardiac resynchonization therapy] reduced all-cause mortality (6 trials, 4572 participants; risk ratio [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.96]) and heart failure hospitalizations (4 trials, 4349 participants; RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.57 to 0.87]) without improving functional outcomes or quality of life.”

7b. “Six studies reported on maternal mortality and our meta-analysis showed a non-significant reduction (three randomised trials, relative risk 0.79, 0.53 to 1.05, P = 0.12; three non-randomised studies, 0.80, 0.44 to 1.15, P = 0.26).”

7c. “Eight studies presented adjusted odds ratios, ranging from 0.3 to 0.9, suggesting a reduced likelihood of self-reported sharing of non-N/S [non-needle/syringe] injecting paraphernalia associated with use of NSP [needle and syringe exchange programmes] or SIF [safer injection facilities].”

Explanation: The results for the main outcomes should be given in the abstract. If meta-analyses have been done, include for each the summary measure (estimated effect) and confidence interval. If the intention had been to perform meta-analysis, but no meta-analysis was done for one or more main outcomes, the reasons should be stated (e.g., heterogeneity too great).

The abstract should make clear the protocol-defined, pre-specified importance of each outcome reported, and should not report only those outcomes that have statistically significant or clinically important results.

Where possible, given space limitations, the number of studies and participants for each main outcome should be stated, particularly if only a small proportion of the total number of studies or patients in the systematic review contributed information on a particular outcome.

If there are no summary measures, some numerical data may still be given (example 7c), although authors should be wary of making this in the form of “vote counting” where the number of “positive” and “negative” studies is given. Vote counting takes no account of weighting of studies according to the amount of information they contain [27] .

Item 8: Description of effect.

Direction of the effect (i.e., which group is favoured) and size of the effect in terms meaningful to patients and clinicians.

Examples: 8a. “Radial access reduced major bleeding by 73% compared to femoral access (0.05% vs 2.3%, OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.16, 0.45], P<0.001).”

8b. “Length of hospital and critical care unit stay were both modestly reduced in the tested group compared with the control group, with a mean difference of −1.22 day (CI, −2.31 to −0.14 day) and −0.56 day (CI, −1.06 to −0.05 day), respectively.”

8c. “A small difference was found between acupuncture and placebo acupuncture: standardised mean difference −0.17 (95% confidence interval −0.26 to −0.08)… [in favour of acupuncture]…, corresponding to 4 mm (2 mm to 6 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale.”

Explanation: The results should summarise the main outcomes in words and numbers. The wording should indicate the direction of the effect (e.g., lower, fewer, reduced; greater, more, increased) and the size of the effect using familiar units such as percentages, days, or kilograms. Example 8a makes clear the size of the effect even for readers who have difficulty interpreting relative risks and confidence intervals. When a percentage is used, the baseline risk should also be shown, which allows the reader to see what the absolute benefit or harm is, and calculate whichever measures they choose (example 8a). Authors should take care to make it clear whether the reported measure is an absolute or a relative one (e.g., where percentage is used as the units of measurement). Where possible, continuous outcome measures should be expressed in familiar units (example 8b), particularly when the standardised mean difference is used (example 8c).

Section 5: DISCUSSION

Item 9: Strengths and limitations of evidence.

Brief summary of strength and limitations of evidence (e.g., inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or risk of bias, other supporting or conflicting evidence).

Examples: 9a. “Four potentially eligible trials were not included in the meta-analysis because mortality data by age group were not available.”

9b. “All trials were open label, which may introduce bias. Most of the trials were of 24 weeks' duration or less, limiting assessment of long-term safety.”

9c. “Meta-analyses for some outcomes had large statistical heterogeneity or evidence for publication bias. Only 11 trials followed outcomes beyond 12 months.”

9d. “Meta-regression showed that small, poor-quality studies that assessed outcomes soon after radiocontrast administration were more likely to suggest benefit (P<0.05 for all).”

Explanation: The abstract should briefly describe the strengths and limitations of the evidence across studies [28] . Limitations may include: risk of bias common to many or all studies, such as lack of blinding for subjective outcomes (example 9b) or unavailability of data (example 9a); inconsistency of effect or association, as demonstrated by high heterogeneity (examples 9c and 9d); imprecision, e.g., due to few events or small sample sizes; indirectness of the evidence, such as the use of an intermediate or short-term outcome (examples 9b and 9c); and likely publication bias (example 9c). Potential strengths of the overall body of evidence that might apply for a particular outcome of a systematic review include: a large effect (example 8a); demonstration of a dose-response relationship (example 10a, below); and that all biases would be likely to reduce the effect rather than increase it. One or more of these strengths and limitations may apply to each of the outcomes of the systematic review being described in the abstract. Some of this information may be combined with item 6, above, when describing the included studies, however a summary of the overall strengths and limitations of the evidence might also be helpful.

Item 10: Interpretation.

General interpretation of the results and important implications.

Examples: 10a. “Travel is associated with a nearly 3-fold higher risk for VTE [venous thromoboembolism], with a dose-response relationship of 18% higher risk for each 2-hour increase in travel duration.”

10b. “Housing improvements, especially warmth improvements, can generate health improvements; there is little evidence of detrimental health impacts. The potential for health benefits may depend on baseline housing conditions and careful targeting of the intervention. Investigation of socioeconomic impacts associated with housing improvement is needed to investigate the potential for longer-term health impacts.”

10c. “The cumulative evidence is now conclusive that the addition of cardiac resynchronization to optimal medical therapy or defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality among patients with heart failure.”

Explanation: Remembering that some readers may struggle with interpreting the statistical results, an overall summary of the main effects—positive or negative—should be given (example 10a). This could include an indication of what is clear (example 10c), what important uncertainties remain (example 10b), and whether there is ongoing research addressing these.

If there is insufficient evidence from well-conducted studies to answer the review's question, this should be made clear to the reader. When the results are not statistically significant, authors should distinguish between those where there is insufficient evidence to rule out a difference between treatments (wide confidence interval), and those which have sufficient evidence that an important difference is unlikely (narrow confidence interval).

If the conclusions of the review differ substantially from previous systematic reviews, then some explanation might also be provided. Reference could be made to known ongoing studies that have the potential to change the result of the review. Possible implications for policy and practice should be stated.

Section 6: OTHER

Item 11: Funding.

Primary source of funding for the review.

Examples: 11a. “This work was supported, in part, by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. The authors have no competing interests to declare.”

11b. “Funding: National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant for Applied Research.”

Explanation: Studies of the relationship between pharmaceutical company funding and results of clinical trials have shown that sponsored studies are more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor [29] , [30] . This is also the case for systematic reviews [31] . Therefore, the abstract should indicate whether the sponsor of the research or the researchers might have a conflict of interest in respect of the findings of the systematic review, for example, as the manufacturer of the intervention being evaluated (examples 11a and 11b). The abstract should include the main source of funding for the systematic review, whether from host institutions or from external bodies.

Item 12: Registration.

Registration number and registry name.

Examples: 12a. “PROSPERO registration: CRD42011001243.”

12b. “PROSPERO 2011:CRD42011001329.”

Explanation: Registration of systematic reviews provides a record of reviews that have been initiated, even if they have not been published. It is therefore a means of alerting researchers to systematic reviews that are in progress, and serves as a public record of the proposed systematic review. It also helps to detect reporting bias by enabling better identification of unpublished systematic reviews, and also to compare the methods or outcomes reported in published reviews with those originally proposed in registered protocols [32] . The abstract should record the name of the database with which the review is registered, and the registration number. Cochrane reviews are an exception to this requirement, as they are preceded by a peer reviewed protocol that is published in the Cochrane Library and can be downloaded from there.

The title of a systematic review is its first signal of its relevance to potential readers. Few titles will entice a reader to invest additional time, but when they do, they ordinarily start—and quite often end—with the abstract. The first impression is therefore crucial.

We strongly recommend the use of structured abstracts for reporting systematic reviews, as does the PRISMA Statement [11] . We recognise that journals have developed their own set of headings that are considered appropriate for reporting systematic reviews, and it is not our intention to suggest changes to these headings, but to recommend what should be reported under them. The order of items and the headings are therefore flexible. For example, the strengths and limitations may be stated at the end of the Results, under a separate heading, or with the Discussion or Conclusions, depending on journal requirements. It may also be possible to combine items from the checklist into one sentence. For example, limitations may be combined with a description of the included studies (i.e., items 6 and 9 from the checklist).

We have suggested reporting a minimum set of items. We do not advocate that abstracts replace full articles in informing decision making, but we recognise that for many time-pressed readers, or for those with limited access to the full texts of reports, it is important that abstracts contain as much information as is feasible within the word limit of abstracts. Indeed, for readers who do not understand the language of publication of the article, the translated abstract may have far more relevance than the full-text article.

A checklist is not sufficient to ensure good abstract writing. For example, the abstract should clearly and truthfully reflect the full report, and not selectively report results that are statistically significant while not referring to those that were not. Similarly, the abstract should only draw conclusions that are substantiated by data from the full report and analyzed as described in the protocol, rather than selectively emphasising interesting results that were a minor or ad hoc component of the analysis. In brief, the abstract should be an unbiased representation of the full report. We also suggest that peer and editorial review processes related to the abstract should explicitly check this.

A particularly difficult area is the Discussion section of an abstract. The checklist includes two items with several elements. We suggest that authors let the reader know whether they feel their question has been answered, or whether there is still uncertainty before presenting practice and policy implications. These statements should be clearly backed by the results given in the abstract, and by presentation of the strengths and limitations of the evidence in the review.

We encourage journals and conference organisers to endorse the use of PRISMA for Abstracts, in a similar way to CONSORT for Abstracts [33] . This may be done by modifying their instructions to authors and including a link to the checklist on their website. It has been demonstrated that the number of checklist items reported is improved in journals that require checklist completion as part of the submission process [34] .

Abstracts should not replace full articles in informing decision making, but for time-pressed readers and those with limited access to full text reports, the abstract must stand alone in presenting a clear and truthful account of the research. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist will guide authors in presenting an abstract that facilitates a quick assessment of review validity, an explicit summary of results, facilitates pre-publication or conference selection peer review, and enables efficient perusal of electronic search results.

Acknowledgments

We dedicate this paper to the memory of Alessandro Liberati who, among many important achievements, was instrumental in the development and implementation of the PRISMA Statement, and had many thoughtful insights to offer at the PRISMA for Abstracts consensus meeting.

Contributors

We are grateful to the other participants of the consensus meeting for their time and interest: Martin Burton, UK Cochrane Centre, UK; Trish Groves, BMJ, UK; Alessandro Liberati, Italian Cochrane Centre, Italy; Cynthia Mulrow, Annals of Internal Medicine , USA; Melissa Norton, PLOS Medicine , UK; Elizabeth Wager, Sideview, UK; and to everyone who responded to the PRISMA for Abstracts survey.

Abbreviations

Funding statement.

This research was supported (in part) by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Center for Biotechnology Information (National Library of Medicine). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• Open access
• Published: 07 November 2019

How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches

• Roberta W. Scherer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2493-1769 1 &
• Ian J. Saldanha 2 , 3  

Systematic Reviews volume  8 , Article number:  264 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

24k Accesses

149 Citations

43 Altmetric

Metrics details

While identifying and cataloging unpublished studies from conference proceedings is generally recognized as a good practice during systematic reviews, controversy remains whether to include study results that are reported in conference abstracts. Existing guidelines provide conflicting recommendations.

The main argument for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews is that abstracts with positive results are preferentially published, and published sooner, as full-length articles compared with other abstracts. Arguments against including conference abstracts are that (1) searching for abstracts is resource-intensive, (2) abstracts may not contain adequate information, and (3) the information in abstracts may not be dependable. However, studies comparing conference abstracts and fully published articles of the same study find only minor differences, usually with conference abstracts presenting preliminary results. Other studies that have examined differences in treatment estimates of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts report changes in precision, but usually not in the treatment effect estimate. However, in some cases, including conference abstracts has made a difference in the estimate of the treatment effect, not just its precision. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to include or exclude conference abstracts in systematic reviews, we suggest that systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence informing the review. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to search for conference abstracts. Further, attempts to contact authors of abstracts or search for protocols or trial registers to supplement the information presented in conference abstracts is prudent. If unique information from conference abstracts is included in a meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis with and without the unique results should be conducted.

Conclusions

Under given circumstances, it is worthwhile to search for and include results from conference abstracts in systematic reviews.

Peer Review reports

Systematic reviewers aim to be comprehensive in summarizing the existing literature addressing specific research questions. This generally involves a thorough search for published studies as well as for ongoing or recently completed studies that are not yet published. Ongoing and recently completed studies are often identified through searches of registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, and of conference proceedings. While identifying and cataloging unpublished studies from conference proceedings is generally recognized as a good practice during systematic reviews, controversy remains whether to include study results that are reported in conference abstracts. Current guidelines are conflicting. The United States Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Effective Healthcare Program, recommends that searches for conference abstracts be considered , but Cochrane and the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) both recommend always searching for and including conference abstracts in systematic reviews [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Our objectives in this commentary are to summarize the existing evidence both for and against the inclusion of conference abstracts in systematic reviews and provide suggestions for systematic reviewers when deciding whether and how to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews.

Arguments for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews

The main argument for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews is that, by doing so, systematic reviewers can be more comprehensive. In our recent Cochrane methodology review, we reported that the proportion of subsequent full publication of studies presented at conferences is low [ 4 ]. We examined 425 biomedical research reports that followed the publication status of 307,028 studies presented as conference abstracts addressing a wide range of medical, allied health, and health policy fields. A meta-analysis of these 425 reports indicated that the overall full publication proportion was only 37% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35 to 39%) for abstracts of all types of studies and only 60% (95% CI, 52 to 67%) for abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Through a survival analysis, we found that, among the 181 reports that evaluated time to publication, only 46% of abstracts of all types of studies and 69% of abstracts of RCTs were published, even after 10 years. Thus, at best, approximately 3 in 10 abstracts describing RCTs have never been published in full, implying that the voluntary participation and risk-taking by multitudes of patients have not led to fully realized contributions to science. We and others argue that the failure of trialists to honor their commitment to patients (that patient participation would contribute to science) represents an ethical problem [ 5 , 6 ].

From a systematic reviewer’s perspective, even if the unpublished abstracts were a random 3 in 10 abstracts, restricting a systematic review search to only the published literature would amount to the loss of an immense amount of information and a corresponding loss of precision in meta-analytic estimates of treatment effect. However, publication is not a matter of random chance. Those conducting systematic reviews have long grappled with this problem, known as “publication bias.” Publication bias occurs when either the likelihood of, or the time to, publication of a study is impacted by the direction of the study’s results [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. The most frequent scenario for publication bias is when studies with “positive” (or “significant”) results are selectively published, or are published sooner, than studies with either null or negative results.

Publication bias can be conceptualized as occurring in two stages: (I) from a study’s end to presentation of its results at a conference (and publication of an accompanying conference abstract) and (II) from publication of a conference abstract to subsequent “full publication” of the study results, typically in a peer-reviewed journal article [ 13 ]. In the context of publication bias arising during stage II (i.e., if abstracts with positive or significant results are selectively published in full), systematic reviews relying solely on fully published studies can be biased because positive results would be overrepresented. This would lead to a falsely inflated (or biased) estimate of the treatment effect of the intervention being evaluated in the systematic review. Indeed, in our Cochrane methodology review, we found evidence of publication bias in the studies reported in the abstracts [ 4 ]. “Positive” results were associated with full publication, whether “positive” was defined as statistically significant results (risk ratio [RR] = 1.31, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40) or as results whose direction favored the intervention (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28). Furthermore, abstracts with statistically significant results were published in full sooner than abstracts with non-significant results [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], unearthing another aspect of bias that can arise when a systematic review is performed relatively soon after the completion of a trial(s) testing a new intervention.

Arguments against including conference abstracts in systematic reviews

There are various arguments against including abstracts in systematic reviews. First, identifying relevant conferences, locating their abstracts, and sifting through the often thousands of abstracts can be challenging and resource-intensive. However, EMBASE, a commonly searched database during systematic reviews, now includes conference abstracts from important medical conferences, dating back to 2009 [ 17 ]. Inclusion of conference abstracts in this searchable database means searching for conference abstracts is less resource-intensive than in the past. Second, largely driven by their brevity, abstracts may not contain adequate information for systematic reviewers to appraise the design, methods, risk of bias, outcomes, and results of studies reported in the abstracts [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Third, the dependability of results presented in abstracts also is questionable [ 22 , 23 , 24 ], which occurs at least in part because (1) most abstracts are not peer-reviewed and (2) results reported in abstracts are often preliminary and/or based on limited analyses conducted in a rush to meet conference deadlines. The most frequent types of conflicting information between abstract and full-length journal article have pertained to authors or authorship order, sample size, and estimates of treatment effects (their magnitude or, less frequently, direction) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Mayo-Wilson and colleagues examined the agreement in reported data across a range of unpublished sources related to the same studies in bipolar depression and neuropathic pain [ 21 , 32 ]. As part of this effort, they compared abstracts with full-length journal articles and clinical study reports and reported that the information presented in abstracts was not dependable either in terms of methods or results.

What are we missing if we do not include conference abstracts in a systematic review?

Various studies have questioned whether the inclusion of “gray” literature or unpublished study results in a systematic review would change the estimates of treatment effect obtained during meta-analyses. Through “meta-epidemiologic” studies, investigators have examined the results of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts and have reported conflicting, but generally small differences in results [ 21 , 24 , 33 ]. Evidence from a recent systematic review indicates that the inclusion of gray literature (defined more broadly than just conference abstracts) in meta-analyses may change the results from significant to non-significant or from non-significant to significant, or may not change the results [ 24 , 33 ]. We conducted a similar analysis in our Cochrane methodology review [ 4 ]. We were able to do this because some of our included reports that examined full publication of conference abstracts were themselves only available as conference abstracts. Our analysis found that inclusion of reports that were conference abstracts did not change the strength or precision of our meta-analytic results. In our review, it would have been possible to exclude conference abstracts and retain accurate and precise results.

Implications of reasons for non-publication of conference abstracts

The most common reason provided by authors of abstracts for not publishing their study results in full has been reported to simply be “lack of time,” and not because the results were considered unreliable or negative [ 34 ]. This finding suggests that the identification of an abstract without a corresponding full-length journal article should prompt systematic reviewers to search for additional evidence, such as gray literature sources and/or contacting the authors. However, a reasonable argument could be made that, when the same information is available in both a published peer-reviewed article and an abstract for a given study, including the abstract in a systematic review would be superfluous and/or ill-advised because a likely more comprehensive and dependable source of the information, i.e., the peer-reviewed article, is available. Therefore, the presence of a journal article might obviate the need for including a corresponding conference abstract in a systematic review, unless unique outcomes are reported in the abstract.

Considerations when including conference abstracts in systematic reviews

Taken together, the evidence reviewed in this paper (summarized in Table  1 ) suggests that systematic reviewers should take a more nuanced approach to inclusion of conference abstracts. A simple yes or no to the question “Should we include conference abstracts in our systematic review?” is neither sufficient nor appropriate. One aspect to consider is the scope of the review. For example, will the conference abstracts be used to inform policy based on a cadre of systematic reviews or only used within a single review? Benzie and colleagues evaluated the usefulness of including conference abstracts in a “state-of-the-evidence” review and concluded that including conference abstracts validated the results of a search that included only the published literature [ 35 ]. These authors discussed four considerations for basing the decision to include conference abstracts: (1) complexity of the intervention, (2) consensus in the existing literature, (3) importance of context in evaluating the effect of the intervention, and (4) presence of other evidence [ 35 ]. Others who have incorporated conference abstracts for decision-making have noted that the lack of, or conflicting results in, published evidence often requires inclusion of conference abstracts [ 36 ]. In some instances, results in abstracts can confirm the evidence found in fully published studies, but in other instances, abstracts can provide useful additions to the evidence [ 37 ].

When considering the use of conference abstracts in systematic reviews, we largely agree with the recommendations presented in the AHRQ Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [ 1 ]. Although these recommendations generally do not espouse including conference abstracts in systematic reviews, they provide excellent guidance on when including abstracts should be considered:

• Reviewers should routinely consider conducting a search of conference abstracts and proceedings to identify unpublished or unidentified studies. • Consult the TEP [Technical Expert Panel] for suggestions on particular conferences to search and search those conferences specifically. • Search for conference abstracts of any conference identified by reading the references of key articles. • We do not recommend using conference abstracts for assessing selective outcome reporting and selective analysis reporting, given the variable evidence of concordance between conference abstracts and their subsequent full-text publications [ 1 ].

Our suggestions

Based on the empirical findings summarized in this review and on our experience, we believe that generally relying on conference abstracts is problematic for the various reasons discussed. While meta-epidemiologic studies have shown that inclusion of abstracts does not greatly impact meta-analytic results, it can sometimes make a difference. The dilemma facing a systematic reviewer is to determine when it might. We suggest the following approach (summarized in Fig.  1 ). If the evidence suggests a sizeable effect, or the absence of one (i.e., with the estimate of effect centered at or near the null), with reasonable precision, searching for conference abstracts may be unnecessary. On the other hand, if the evidence does not show a sizeable effect, is imprecise, or is conflicting, then the resources spent finding and including conference abstracts may be worth it. In other words, if only a single study in full-length form is identified, or if the studies identified are few and small, then conference abstracts should probably be searched and included. We refrain from making specific suggestions for what should be construed as a “sizeable” effect. Magnitudes of effect sizes and thresholds for what is considered relevant can vary considerably across outcomes and across fields and disciplines. We also refrain from making specific suggestions for what should be construed as “reasonable precision” because of the various problems inherent in the use of statistical significance (e.g., arbitrariness, dependence on sample size) and the arbitrary thresholds for precision that use of statistical significance can engender [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ].

Flow chart showing our suggestions for how to approach the use of conference abstracts in systematic review

If abstracts are indeed included in a systematic review, the consistent use of CONSORT reporting guidelines for abstracts [ 14 ] would facilitate extraction of information from abstracts. In many cases, however, these reporting guidelines are not followed [ 42 ], so we suggest that diligent attempts be made to contact authors of the abstracts and examine study registers, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, and published protocols to obtain all necessary unreported or unclear information on study methods and results. In addition, to examine the impact of including the abstracts, a sensitivity analysis should always be completed with and without conference abstracts.

Based on the available evidence and on our experience, we suggest that instead of arbitrarily deciding to include conference abstracts or not in a systematic review, systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to include conference abstracts. If results from conference abstracts are included, then it is necessary to make diligent attempts to contact the authors of the abstract and examine study registers and published protocols to obtain further and confirmatory information on methods and results.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Agency for Health Care Research and Quality

Confidence interval

United States National Academy of Sciences

Randomized controlled trial

Balshem H, Stevens A, Ansari M, Norris S, Kansagara D, Shamliyan Try, et al. Finding Grey Literature Evidence and Assessing for Outcome and Analysis Reporting Biases When Comparing Medical Interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): 2008-AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. 2013.

(IOM) IoM. Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, D. C: The National Academies Press; 2008.

Google Scholar  

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.

Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2018;11:Mr000005.

Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003;361:978–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, Schwarzer G, Scherer RW, Antes G, von Elm E, Meerpohl JJ. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114023.

Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8:343–53.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267:374–8.

Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993.

Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–72.

Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):MR000006. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 .

Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529–41.

von Elm E, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramer MR. More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:12.

Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2):MR000011.

Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279:281–6.

Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.

EMBASE content: List of conferences covered in Embase. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research/embase-coverage-and-content . Accessed 26 Marc 2019.

Scherer RW, Sieving PC, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials? PLoS One. 2012;7:e44183.

Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Taylor J, Dickersin K. ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:79.

Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0130619.

Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N, et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:95–110.

van Driel ML, De Sutter A, De Maeseneer J, Christiaens T. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:838–844.e833.

Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:681–4.

Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:64.

Hopewell S. Assessing the impact of abstracts from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand in Cochrane reviews. Respirology. 2003;8:509–12.

Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J. 2005;19:673–80.

Tam VC, Hotte SJ. Consistency of phase III clinical trial abstracts presented at an annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology compared with their subsequent full-text publications. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2205–11.

Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1281–7.

Saldanha IJ, Scherer RW, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Jampel HD, Dickersin K. Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication. Trials. 2016;17:213.

Weintraub WH. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 1987;22:11–3.

McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356:1228–31.

Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39–50.

Schmucker CM, Blumle A, Schell LK, Schwarzer G, Oeller P, Cabrera L, von Elm E, Briel M, Meerpohl JJ. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176210.

Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl JJ. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:803–10.

Benzies KM, Premji S, Hayden KA, Serrett K. State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2006;3:55–61.

Weizman AV, Griesman J, Bell CM. The use of research abstracts in formulary decision making by the Joint Oncology Drug Review of Canada. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8:387–91.

Dundar Y, Dodd S, Williamson P, Dickson R, Walley T. Case study of the comparison of data from conference abstracts and full-text articles in health technology assessment of rapidly evolving technologies: does it make a difference? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:288–94.

Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019;567:305–7.

Tong C. Statistical inference enables bad science; statistical thinking enables good science. Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.

Ioannidis JPA. What have we (not) learnt from millions of scientific papers with P values? Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.

Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. Am Stat. 2019;73:1–19.

Saric L, Vucic K, Dragicevic K, Vrdoljak M, Jakus D, Vuka I, et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and full-text publications of randomized controlled trials presented at four consecutive World Congresses of Pain: reporting quality and agreement of results. Eur J Pain. 2019;23(1):107–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1289 . Epub 2018 Jul 30.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Room E6138, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

Roberta W. Scherer

Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice (Primary), Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA

Ian J. Saldanha

Department of Epidemiology (Joint), Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RWS conceived the idea for the commentary. IJS developed Fig.  1 , and both authors were involved in contributing to and critically reading the commentary. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta W. Scherer .

Ethics declarations

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

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Scherer, R.W., Saldanha, I.J. How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Syst Rev 8 , 264 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0

Download citation

Received : 03 April 2019

Accepted : 05 October 2019

Published : 07 November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Promoting mental health in children and adolescents through digital technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

• Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China

Background: The increasing prevalence of mental health issues among children and adolescents has prompted a growing number of researchers and practitioners to explore digital technology interventions, which offer convenience, diversity, and proven effectiveness in addressing such problems. However, the existing literature reveals a significant gap in comprehensive reviews that consolidate findings and discuss the potential of digital technologies in enhancing mental health.

Methods: To clarify the latest research progress on digital technology to promote mental health in the past decade (2013–2023), we conducted two studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The systematic review is based on 59 empirical studies identified from three screening phases, with basic information, types of technologies, types of mental health issues as key points of analysis for synthesis and comparison. The meta-analysis is conducted with 10 qualified experimental studies to determine the overall effect size of digital technology interventions and possible moderating factors.

Results: The results revealed that (1) there is an upward trend in relevant research, comprising mostly experimental and quasi-experimental designs; (2) the common mental health issues include depression, anxiety, bullying, lack of social emotional competence, and mental issues related to COVID-19; (3) among the various technological interventions, mobile applications (apps) have been used most frequently in the diagnosis and treatment of mental issues, followed by virtual reality, serious games, and telemedicine services; and (4) the meta-analysis results indicated that digital technology interventions have a moderate and significant effect size ( g  = 0.43) for promoting mental health.

Conclusion: Based on these findings, this study provides guidance for future practice and research on the promotion of adolescent mental health through digital technology.

Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-12-0004/ , doi: 10.37766/inplasy2023.12.0004 .

1 Introduction

In recent years, the mental health status of children and adolescents (6–18 years old) has been a matter of wide societal concern. The World Health Organization noted that one in seven adolescents suffers from mental issues, accounting for 13% of the global burden of disease in this age group ( World Health Organization, 2021 ). In particular, the emergence of COVID-19 has led to an increase in depression, anxiety, and other psychological symptoms ( Jones et al., 2021 ; Shah et al., 2021 ). There is thus an urgent need to monitor and diagnose the mental health of teenagers.

The development of digital technology has brought about profound socio-economic changes; it also provides new opportunities for mental health diagnosis and intervention ( Goodyear and Armour, 2018 ; Giovanelli et al., 2020 ). First, digital technology breaks the constraints of time and space. It not only provides adolescents with mental health services at a distance but also enables real-time behavioral monitoring for the timely acquisition of dynamic data on adolescents’ mental health ( Naslund et al., 2017 ). Second, due to the still-developing stage of mental health resource building, traditional intervention methods may not be able to meet the increasing demand for mental health services among children and adolescents ( Villarreal, 2018 ; Aschbrenner et al., 2019 ). In addition, as digital natives in the information age, adolescents have the ability to use digital technology proficiently, and social media, such as the internet, has long been integrated into all aspects of adolescents’ lives ( Uhlhaas and Torous, 2019 ). However, it is worth noting that excessive reliance on digital technology (e.g., internet and smartphone addiction) are also common triggers of mental problems among youth ( Wacks and Weinstein, 2021 ). Therefore, we must be aware of the risks posed by digital technology to better utilize it for promoting the mental health of young people.

Mental health, sometimes referred to as psychological health in the literature, encompasses three different perspectives: pathological orientation, positive orientation, and complete orientation ( Keyes, 2009 ). Pathological orientation refers to whether patients exhibit symptoms of mental issues, including internalized mental disorders (e.g., depression and anxiety) and behavioral dysfunctions (e.g., aggression, self-harm) as well as other mental illnesses. Studies have indicated that both internalizing and externalizing disorders belong to different dimensions of mental disorders ( Scott et al., 2020 ), and internalizing symptoms often occur simultaneously with externalizing behaviors ( Essau and de la Torre-Luque, 2023 ). The positive orientation suggests that mental health is a positive mental state, characterized by a person’s ability to fully participate in various activities and to express positive and negative emotions ( Kenny et al., 2016 ). The complete orientation integrates pathological and positive orientation ( Antaramian et al., 2010 ), suggesting that mental health means the absence of mental issues and the presence of subjective well-being ( Suldo and Shaffer, 2008 ). The development of social emotional abilities helps to promote subjective well-being for adolescents during social, emotional, and cognitive development ( Cejudo et al., 2019 ). Adolescents with mental health issues may thus exhibit pathological symptoms or lack of subjective well-being due to a lack of social emotional abilities. In this study, mental health is defined as a psychological state advocated by the complete orientation.

Promoting mental health using digital technology involves providing help through digital tools such as computers, tablets, or phones with internet-based programs ( Hollis et al., 2017 ). Currently, various digital technologies have been tested to address mental health issues in young individuals, including apps, video games, telemedicine, chatbots, and virtual reality (VR). However, the impact of digital technology interventions is affected by various factors ( Piers et al., 2023 ). Efficacy varies based on the kind of mental health issues. Individuals with mental illness related to COVID-19 may profit more from digital interventions than those experiencing depression and anxiety. Moreover, studies reveal that several mental health conditions in young people deteriorate with age, particularly anxiety and suicide attempts ( Tang et al., 2019 ). The impact of digital technology interventions may therefore differ depending on the adolescent’s age. Having psychological problems usually indicates that people are in an unhealthy mental state for a long time, so an enduring intervention may have greater efficacy than a short-term one. Earlier studies have also suggested that the outcomes of treatment are linked to its duration, with patients receiving long-term treatment experiencing better results ( Grist et al., 2019 ).

Although more digital technologies are being used to treat mental health issues, the most important clinical findings have come from strict randomized controlled trials ( Mohr et al., 2018 ). It is still unclear how these interventions affect long-term care or how they would function in real-world settings ( Folker et al., 2018 ). There is much relevant empirical research, but it is scattered, and there is a need for systematic reviews in this area. In previous studies about technology for mental health, Grist et al. (2019) analyzed how digital interventions affect teenagers with depression and anxiety, but their study only considered mental disorders, without considering other mental health issues. Cheng et al. (2019) examined serious games and their application of gamification elements to enhance mental health; however, they overlooked various technological approaches beyond serious games and did not give adequate consideration to the diverse types and features of technology. Eisenstadt et al. (2021) reviewed how mobile apps can help adults between 18 and 45 years of age improve their emotional regulation, mental health, and overall well-being; however, they did not investigate the potential benefits of apps for teenagers.

The present study reviews research from the past decade on digital technology for promoting adolescent mental health. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis are used to explore which types and features of technology can enhance mental health. We believe that the present study makes a meaningful contribution to scholarship because it is among the earliest to report on the impact of technology-enhanced mental health interventions and has revealed crucial influencing factors that merit careful consideration during both research and practical implementation. The following three research questions guided our systematic review and meta-analysis:

1. What is the current status of global research on digital technology for promoting children and adolescent mental health?

2. What digital technology characteristics support the development of mental health among children and adolescents?

3. How effective is digital technology in promoting the mental health of children and adolescents? What factors have an impact on the effectiveness of digital technology interventions?

2 Study 1: systematic literature review

2.1.1 study design.

This study used the systematic literature review method to analyze the relevant literature on the promotion of mental health through digital technology. It followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement for the selection and use of research methods. The protocol for this study was registered with INPLASY (2023120004). Standardized systematic review protocol is used to strictly identify, screen, analyze, and integrate literature ( Bearman et al., 2012 ). To clarify the research issues, systematic literature reviews typically comprise the following six key procedures: planning, literature search, literature assessment, data extraction, data synthesis, and review composition ( Lacey and Matheson, 2011 ).

2.1.2 Literature search

To access high-quality empirical research literature from the past decade, this study selected SCIE and SSCI index datasets from the Web of Science core database and Springer Link. Abstracts containing the English search terms “mental health or psychological health or psychological wellbeing” AND “technology or technological or technologies or digital media” AND “K-12 or teenager or children or adolescents or youth” were retrieved. The search period spanned from January 1, 2013, to July 1, 2023, and 1,032 studies were obtained. To ensure the relevance of the studies to the research question, the relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based on the 1,032 studies retrieved. The specific criteria are listed in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Literature screening criteria.

In this study, we followed a systematic literature review approach and screened the retrieved studies based on the above selection criteria. We conducted three rounds of screening and supplemented new studies through snowballing, ultimately including 59 effective sample documents. The specific process is shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 . Screening process and results.

2.1.3 Coding protocol

To extract key information from the included papers, we systematically analyzed 59 studies on the basis of reading the full text. Our coding protocol encompassed the following aspects: (a) basic information about the study, including the first author, publication year, publication region, study type, study object, and intervention duration; (b) the type of technology used in the study, including apps, chatbots, serious games, VR/AR, short messaging service (SMS), telemedicine services, and others; (c) mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, mental illness, bullying, lack of social and emotional competence, mental health issues caused by COVID-19, and other mental health issues; and (d) experimental data (mean, sample size, standard deviation or p -value, t -value, etc.). By capturing basic study information, we establish a foundation for comparing and contextualizing the selected studies. The type of technology used is crucial as it reflects the innovative approaches and their technical affordances. Mental health issues are the core focus that dictates the objectives of the technological interventions as well as their suitability and relevance. Experimental data provides quantifiable evidence to support the effectiveness claims and lays a foundation for the meta-analysis. Together, these four coding aspects offer a holistic view for a comprehensive understanding and analysis of the existing literature. The document coding was completed jointly by the researchers after confirming the coding rules and details through multiple rounds of negotiation. Problems arising in the coding process were intensively discussed to ensure consistency and accuracy of the coding.

2.2 Results and discussion

2.2.1 study and sample characteristics.

As shown in Figure 2 , in terms of the time of publication, the number of studies has gradually increased from 2013 to 2021 along with the development of digital technology. The proportion of studies published in the past 5 years (2019–2023) accounted for 76.3% of the total (45/59), with a peak in 2021 with 15 papers. Social isolation, school suspension, and reduced extracurricular activities caused by COVID-19 may exacerbate mental health issues among children and adolescents, which has attracted more researchers to explore the application of digital technology to mental health treatment.

Figure 2 . Trend in the number of studies published in the past decade.

From the perspective of published journals, all of the studies were published in 41 kinds of journals, but two fields were clear leaders: 46 studies (77.97%) were published in medical journals, followed by psychological journals (13.56%). Table 2 shows the source distribution and types of the sample studies. Looking at the country of the first author, the largest number of articles came from the Americas, including the United States and Canada, accounting for 40.7%, followed by European countries, including the United Kingdom and Finland. Only one article came from the African region. In terms of the research types, experimental research was the main type, followed by mixed research, and the number of investigation- and design-based research was relatively small.

Table 2 . Coding results for sample studies.

Looking more specifically at the research objects, the age range varied from 6 to 18 years. Overall, adolescents aged 13–18 years received more attention, while only six articles considered the younger age group aged 6–12 years. In addition, by coding the sample size of the studies, we found that the quality and size of the studies varied, ranging from small pilot studies or case studies to large-scale cluster studies. For example, Orlowski et al. (2016) conducted a qualitative study on adolescents with experience of seeking help in mental health care institutions in rural Australia; in their study, 10 adolescents with an average age of 18 years were recruited for semi-structured interviews to determine their attitudes and views on the use of technology as a mental health care tool. Another large-scale, randomized controlled trial is planned to enroll 10,000 eighth graders to investigate whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) provided by a smartphone app can prevent depression ( Werner-Seidler et al., 2020 ).

2.2.2 Mental health issues and technology interventions

Based on the coding results, we present the total number of studies that correspond to both mental health issues and technological interventions in Figure 3 . Our findings indicate that apps represent the most prevalent form of digital technology, particularly in addressing depression and anxiety. Telemedicine services also rank highly in terms of utilization. Contrarily, there are comparatively fewer apps involving virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), chatbots, and serious games. Below, we delve into the specifics of digital technology application and its unique affordances, tailored to distinct mental health issues.

Figure 3 . Numbers of studies by mental health issues and technology interventions.

2.2.2.1 Depression and anxiety

Depression and anxiety in adolescents have become increasingly common, and their presence may signal the beginning of long-term mental health issues, with approximately one in five people experiencing a depressive episode before the age of 18 years ( Lewinsohn et al., 1993 ). This has a range of adverse consequences, including social dysfunction, substance abuse, and suicidal tendency. From the 59 articles considered here, 29 studies used digital technology to treat depression- and anxiety-related symptoms in adolescents. Among the many types of digital technology considered, 19 studies used apps or educational websites as intervention tools, accounting for 76%, followed by serious games, chatbots, and VR with two articles each.

Apps are a broad concept, but they typically refer to software that can be downloaded from app stores to mobile devices such as phones or tablets. Due to characteristics such as their clear structure, ease of use, accessibility, strong privacy, interactivity, and multi-modularity, apps and educational websites are commonly used as tools for technological interventions. For example, Gladstone et al. (2015) developed an interactive website called CATCH-IT to prevent depression in adolescents; the site includes 14 optional modules. The course design of each module applies educational design theories, such as attracting learners’ attention, reviewing content, enhancing memory, and maintaining transfer. Apps and websites can also combine CBT with digital technology. The theoretical framework of CBT is rooted in a core assumption that depression is caused and maintained by unhelpful cognitions and behaviors. Treatment thus focuses on improving the function of these areas by applying skill-based behavioral strategies ( Wenzel, 2017 ). Multiple studies have incorporated CBT’s emphasis on reducing cognitive errors and strengthening positive behavior into their designs by, for example, using fictional storylines to help participants correct irrational thought patterns during reflective tasks, thereby improving patients’ depression conditions ( Stasiak et al., 2014 ; Topooco et al., 2019 ; Neumer et al., 2021 ).

In addition to the intervention methods involving apps and websites, serious games have also become a prospect for treating depression due to their interesting and interactive characteristics. Low-intensity human support combined with smartphone games may potentially reduce the resource requirements of traditional face-to-face counseling. Games contain complete storylines and competitive and cooperative tasks between peers in the form of levels that encourage adolescents to reflect on quizzes at the end of each challenge ( Gonsalves et al., 2019 ). Game designs tend to use flow theory, which emphasizes the dynamic matching of game challenges and the user’s own skill level ( Csikszentmihalyi, 2014 ). During game design, it is necessary to provide users with an easy-to-use and interesting gaming experience, as well as appropriate difficulty challenges, clear rules and goals, and instant feedback, which will help them relax and relieve stress, concentrate on changing cognitive processes, and improve their mood.

Two articles also consider the use of chatbots in interventions. Chatbots act as a dialog agent ( Mariamo et al., 2021 ), which makes the intervention process more interactive. Establishing a relationship of trust between adolescents and chatbots may also help lead to better results in depression and anxiety treatment. Chatbot functions are typically integrated into apps ( Werner-Seidler et al., 2020 ) and tend to be developed as part of the program rather than as a separate technological tool.

In recent years, with the gradual marketization of head-mounted VR devices, VR technology has been increasingly applied to mental health interventions. Studies have shown that the effectiveness of VR apps is often attributed to the distraction created by immersive environments, which produce an illusion of being in a virtual world, thus reducing users’ awareness of painful stimuli in the real world ( Ahmadpour et al., 2020 ). In the treatment of depression and anxiety for adolescents, active distraction supported by VR can engage users in games or cognitive tasks to redirect their attention to virtual objects and away from negative stimuli. Studies have also shown that, in addition to providing immersion, VR should create a pleasant emotional experience (e.g., the thrill of riding a roller coaster) and embed narrative stories (e.g., adventure and exploration) to meet adolescents’ need for achievement ( Ahmadpour et al., 2019 ).

2.2.2.2 Mental illness

In this study, we define mental illness as neurological developmental problems other than depression and anxiety. Among the 59 reviewed articles, 10 were coded as mental illness, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, personality disorder, drug addiction, bipolar disorder, and non-suicidal self-injury. For the treatment of mental illness, mobile apps based on CBT appeared twice in 10 articles, while other technology types included SMS intervention, serious games, remote video conferencing, and mobile sensing technology.

Similar to apps for treating depression and anxiety, adolescent patients believe that the apps have good usability and ease of use and can encourage them to share their thoughts, feelings, and behavioral information more openly and honestly while protecting their privacy ( Adams et al., 2021 ). However, due to the severe condition of patients with mental illness, the apps not only are used independently by patients but also serves as a bridge between therapists and patients. Therapists can thus closely monitor treatment progress through behavioral records, which can provide direct feedback to both patients and therapists ( Babiano-Espinosa et al., 2021 ).

SMS interventions send specific content text messages to patients. As a longitudinal intervention method, it is convenient, easy to operate, and low cost. For example, Owens and Charles (2016) sent text messages to adolescents with non-suicidal self-injury behaviors in an attempt to reduce their self-mutilation behaviors. The ultimate effect seemed to be unsatisfactory, as interventions for adolescents with self-mutilation behaviors may be better applied in schools and adolescents’ service agencies, which can help them control their self-mutilation behaviors in the early stages and prevent such behaviors from escalating.

There are also studies that have designed six serious games based on CBT frameworks to treat typical developmental disorders in adolescents, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder ( Ong et al., 2019 ). In the safe environment provided by the game world, the research subjects shape the behavior of the characters in the context through rule learning and task repetition, which allows them to master emotional management strategies and problem-solving skills. In addition to interventions, digital technology can also be used to evaluate treatment effectiveness and the type of disease. Orr et al. (2023) used mobile sensing technology and digital phenotyping to quantify people’s behavioral data in real time, thereby allowing diagnosis and evaluation of diseases.

2.2.2.3 Bullying

Bullying generally includes traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Traditional bullying usually manifests as direct physical violence or threats of abuse against victims, as well as indirect methods such as spreading rumors and social exclusion. Cyberbullying is defined as intentional harm to others through computers, mobile phones, and other electronic devices. Data show that, as of 2021, the proportion of adolescents who have experienced cyberbullying in the United States may be as high as 45.5% ( Patchin, 2021 ), which indicates that it has become a serious social problem. Among the nine articles on the topic of bullying and cyberbullying, three used SMS intervention methods, and two used mobile apps; chatbots, technology-supported courses, and CBT-based telemedicine services were also used in the mental health treatment for patients who had been bullied and cyberbullied.

The SMS intervention for bullying implemented personalized customization, and the automatic SMS content can be customized based on the subjects’ previous questionnaire or completed self-report status ( Ranney et al., 2019 ). The subjects are required to rate their feelings at the end of the day and report whether they were bullied that day. The psychotherapist then made adjustments based on their actual situation, and if necessary, the psychotherapist would also contact specific subjects to provide offline psychological counseling services ( Ranney et al., 2019 ). In addition to having similar functions as the SMS intervention ( Kutok et al., 2021 ), mobile apps can provide opportunities for personalized learning, where a variety of learning methods can be applied (e.g., providing therapist guidance, conducting meetings, and conducting family practice activities) to promote the acquisition of mental health skills ( Davidson et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, for adolescents, touchscreen learning, interactive games, and video demonstrations can enhance their enthusiasm for participating in the treatment process.

Chatbots with specific names and images were also used to guide research subjects through a series of online tasks in the form of conversations, including watching videos involving bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents, provoking self-reflection through questions and suggestions, and providing constructive strategic advice ( Gabrielli et al., 2020 ). Digital technology-supported courses and CBT-based telemedicine services both make full use of the convenience of technology, effectively addressing the time- and location-based limitations of traditional face-to-face treatment. Digital courses can be implemented on a large scale in schools through teacher training, and compared with professional medical services, such courses have a wider target audience and can play a scientific and preventive role in bullying and cyberbullying. Telemedicine services refer to the use of remote communication technology to provide psychological services ( Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists, 2013 ). For families with severely troubled adolescents, telemedicine allows parents and children to meet together, increasing the flexibility of timing, and one-on-one video services can help to build a closer relationship between patients and therapists.

2.2.2.4 Lack of social emotional competence

In research, social emotional competence typically refers to the development of emotional intelligence in adolescents ( De la Barrera et al., 2021 ), which also includes personal abilities (self-awareness and self-management), interpersonal relationships (social awareness and interpersonal skills), and cognitive abilities (responsible decision-making) ( Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2020 ). It is an important indicator for measuring the mental health level of adolescents. People with positive social emotional intelligence are less likely to experience mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and behavioral disorders. Using digital technology to promote social emotional development is becoming increasingly common, and in six intervention studies on social emotional competence, apps, serious games, VR technology, and SMS interventions were used.

The studies considered all emphasized the importance of interactive design in digital technology to enhance social and emotional skills, as interactive technology can increase students’ engagement, resulting in positive learning experiences. For example, Cherewick et al. (2021) designed a smartphone app that can be embedded with multimedia learning materials, allowing adolescents to watch social and emotional skill–related learning videos autonomously and complete topic reflection activities with family/peers after school. The app also has rich teaching interaction functions, allowing teachers to evaluate and share course and learning materials, which can provide pleasant learning experiences to students while also improving the flexibility of teaching. In addition to teacher–student interaction, another paper also mentioned the importance of human–computer interaction for developing social emotional competence. The fun and interactivity of the app are the key to attracting adolescents to download and use it, and it can also have a positive effect on improving students’ self-management and decision-making skills ( Kenny et al., 2016 ).

Unlike the treatment of depression and anxiety, the application of VR in the cultivation of social emotional competence not only relies on its highly immersive characteristics but also emphasizes the positive effects of multi-sensory experiences on emotional regulation. By utilizing various sensor devices and visualization devices, adolescents are provided with ideal visual, auditory, and tactile guidance and regulation, which can enhance their emotional regulation abilities and relieve psychological stress ( Wu et al., 2022 ). Existing studies have integrated dance and music into virtual scenes ( Liu et al., 2021 ), using virtual harmonic music therapy to allow users to relax physically and mentally while enjoying music, thereby reducing stress and anxiety. VR technology is also highly adaptable and generalizable, which can help in building diverse scenes that meet the psychological expectations of patients based on the characteristics of the different treatment objects.

2.2.2.5 Mental health issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic

The global outbreak of COVID-19 created severe challenges for the mental health of adolescents. Factors such as lack of social contact, lack of personal space at home, separation from parents and relatives, and concerns about academics and the future have exacerbated mental health risks, leading to increased loneliness, pain, social isolation, mental disorders, and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress. The reports from five studies indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues in adolescents. During the pandemic, technology—which is not limited by time and space—became the preferred method of treatment. Apps, remote health services, and online training courses were used in research. The apps were resource-oriented and evidence-based interventions that allowed patients to interact with therapists through remote conferencing and encouraged patients to self-reflect and express themselves after the conference to improve their mental condition ( Gómez-Restrepo et al., 2022 ). Remote health services combined CBT and dialectical behavior therapy with professional counselors engaging in online communication with patients for several weeks. This was in line with research that indicates that the establishment of a positive relationship between therapists and patients is the foundation for obtaining good effect ( Zepeda et al., 2021 ).

2.2.2.6 Other mental health issues

In addition to the common mental health issues mentioned above, there were also interventions mentioned in the literature for improving body image anxiety, mental issues caused by hospitalization, and reading disabilities through digital technology means. Due to its high-immersion and simulation characteristics, VR technology was selected for improving mental health issues such as loneliness, disconnection from peers, and academic anxiety caused by hospitalization ( Thabrew et al., 2022 ). Immersive VR experience technology used 360° panoramic live broadcast and VR headphones to enable hospitalized adolescents to indirectly participate in social activities through cameras in school or home environments, as well as to contact peers and teachers through methods such as text messages; such interventions are conducive to improving social inclusion, social connectivity, and happiness. Furthermore, two studies mentioned body image anxiety, especially targeting female audiences, and the research integrated body image CBT techniques into serious games and chatbots ( Mariamo et al., 2021 ; Matheson et al., 2021 ), using interesting interactive exploration and free dialog forms to help adolescents gain a correct understanding of body image and solve body image anxiety issues.

Another study used eye-tracking technology to treat children with reading disabilities ( Davidson et al., 2019 ). The researcher developed a reading evaluation platform called Lexplore, which used eye-tracking technology to monitor children’s eye movements when reading to determine the cognitive processes behind each child’s individual reading style and then design appropriate strategies to improve their reading difficulties.

3 Study 2: meta-analysis

To explore the effect of digital technology in promoting mental health, this study used a meta-analysis to assess 10 papers. It includes both experimental and quasi-experimental research studies. CMA3.0 (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0) was used, and the meta-analysis process consisted of five phases.

Phase 1: Literature screening, based on the prior stage of literature information coding. Relevant literature was filtered using the following criteria for meta-analysis: (a) the study must compare “technical intervention” and “traditional intervention”; (b) the study should report complete data that can generate the effect amount (e.g., average, sample size, standard deviation or t -values, p -values, etc.); and (c) the dependent variables in the study should contain at least one aspect of mental health.

Phase 2: Effect size calculation. In the case of a large sample size, there is little difference between Cohen’s d, Glass, and Hedges’ g values, but Cohen’s d can significantly overestimate the effect size for studies with a small sample ( Hedges, 1981 ). Therefore, Hedges’ g was used as the effect size indicator in this study.

Phase 3: Model selection. Meta-analyses include fixed- and random-effects models. Different models may produce different effect sizes. Due to the differences in sample size, experimental procedures, and methods among the initial studies included in the meta-analysis, the estimated average effect values may not be completely consistent with the true population effect values, which results in sample heterogeneity. This study used the method proposed by Borenstein et al. (2009) to establish fixed- and random-effects models to eliminate the influence of sample heterogeneity. When the heterogeneity test ( Q value) results were significant, the random-effects model was used; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used.

Phase 4: Testing of main effects and moderating effects. Based on the selected model, a test of the main effects was conducted. Meanwhile, if heterogeneity was present, a test of moderating effects could be conducted.

Phase 5: Publication bias test. Publication bias is a common systematic error in meta-analyses and refers to a tendency for significantly significant research results to be more likely to be published than non-significant results. This study used a funnel plot to visually assess publication bias qualitatively and then further quantitatively assessed publication bias using Begg’s rank correlation method and the trim and fill method.

3.2 Results and discussion

3.2.1 inclusion and coding results.

For the studies that met the requirements of the meta-analysis, detailed classification was carried out based on the following variables one-by-one on the basis of the systematic review coding: (a) basic information (authors, year, sample size); (b) age stage, which is divided into three categories: primary school, junior high school, and senior high school; (c) mental health issues, including depression, bullying, and mental health issues caused by COVID-19; (d) technology type, including app, telemedicine, and chatbots; (e) intervention duration, coded as short-term for interventions less than a month and long-term for intervention that lasted more than a month; and (f) effect size. The coding results are shown in Table 3 .

Table 3 . Research coding results included in meta-analysis.

3.2.2 The overall effect of digital technology on mental health outcomes

According to the results of the heterogeneity test in Table 4 , the Q test is significant ( p  < 0.001), which indicates that there is significant heterogeneity among the samples. The random-effects model was therefore selected as the more reasonable option. The pooled effect size is 0.43. According to the criteria proposed by Cohen (1992) , 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered the boundaries of small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. It can be seen that the effect size for the promotion of mental health by digital technology is moderate and significant. At the same time, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 0 for each study, which indicates that the probability of the effect size being caused by chance is very small. In addition, the I 2 value is 78.164, which indicates that the heterogeneity between studies is high. Important moderating variables therefore may exist ( Higgins and Green, 2008 ), and additional moderating effect tests need to be conducted.

Table 4 . Overall effect of technology on mental health.

3.2.3 Moderating effect test

Moderating effect tests were conducted on four variables: age stage, mental health issues, technology type, and intervention duration. As shown in Table 5 , among the four moderating variables, only the age stage has a significant moderating effect ( p  < 0.05). In particular, the effect size is the largest for the primary school stage, followed by the senior high school stage with a moderate promoting effect. In addition, although the effect size for the junior high school stage is small, it is still significant, which may be related to the limited number of studies considering this population. The results also indicate that the moderating effects of mental health issues, technology type, and intervention duration are not significant. However, it can be seen that digital technology methods have the largest effect size for treating psychological problems caused by COVID-19, while compared with apps and chatbots, remote medical services can achieve better effects. In terms of treatment duration, the effect size for short-term interventions is greater than that for long-term interventions.

Table 5 . Regulatory effect test of technology (random-effect model).

3.2.4 Publication bias test

This study used funnel plots, Begg’s test, and the trim and fill method for the publication bias test. As shown in Figure 4 , the distribution of effect values in the study shows uneven and asymmetric distribution on both sides of the mean effect value, which initially suggests the possibility of publication bias. Begg’s test was thus used for further testing. Begg’s test is a method of quantitatively identifying bias using a rank correlation test, and it applies to studies with a small sample. The result of Begg’s test shows that t  = 0.267, p  = 0.283, Z  = 1.01 < 1.96, which indicates that there is no obvious publication bias. Finally, the censoring method was used to censor the literature on both sides of the effect value, and this revealed that the effect value was still significant. In summary, there is negligible publication bias.

Figure 4 . Distributions of effect sizes for mental health treatment outcomes.

4 Conclusion and implications

4.1 summary of key findings.

This study made a systematic review and meta-analysis of 59 studies on digital technology promoting adolescents’ mental health over the past decade. Based on the investigation of current research, the types and characteristics of the commonly used technology interventions for different mental health issues were analyzed, and the actual effects and potential regulatory variables of digital technology in promoting mental health were investigated in the meta-analysis. The main findings are outlined below.

• Over the past decade, especially between 2013 and 2021, the number of studies on digital technology promoting adolescents’ mental health has generally shown an upward trend, with nearly 80% of the literature being published in medical journals.

• Digital technology is most commonly used to intervene in the mental health issues of adolescents aged 13–18 years, and children in the younger age group (6–12 years old) receive relatively less attention.

• Depression and anxiety disorders are the mental health issues that received the most research attention, followed by obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and other mental illnesses. There were also studies on, in decreasing order of the number of studies, bullying, social emotional competence deficiency, and mental health issues caused by COVID-19, dyslexia, and adolescent body image anxiety.

• Apps with convenience, ease of use, interactivity, and remote communication were most commonly used to treat mental health issues. Serious games, remote health services, and text message intervention were less often used, and only three studies used VR, which is difficult to realize for mental health treatment.

• Digital technology plays a significant role in promoting the treatment of mental health issues of adolescents, especially in primary and senior high school.

4.2 Interpretation and insights

The findings of this study highlight the nuanced role played by digital technology in promoting mental health for children and adolescents. While technology has broadened the scope of mental health interventions with innovative apps and programs, it should be viewed as a complement to traditional face-to-face approaches, not a replacement ( Aguilera, 2015 ), as they cannot replicate the personal connection and empathy provided by a trained mental health professional. Moreover, different technologies vary in effectiveness for specific mental health issues, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of their benefits and limitations. For instance, virtual reality, cognitive behavioral therapy apps, and online support platforms have shown promise for in addressing depression and anxiety, but their effects vary depending on individual needs and contexts, suggesting the non-uniform efficacy of digital technologies across mental health conditions.

Furthermore, this study also draws attention to the limited incorporation of digital technology in mental health education, especially among children aged 6 to 12. Given the significance of this developmental stage, where emotional management, relationships, and mental health knowledge are crucial, innovative digital approaches that draw upon the unique affordances of mobile apps, online courses, and virtual reality are warranted to deliver interactive and personalized learning experiences. Nevertheless, this innovation poses challenges and risks, including addiction to virtual environments and a reduction in social activities, which can also negatively impact the mental health of youth ( Taylor et al., 2020 ). Therefore, striking a balance between harnessing technology’s potential and mitigating its risks is essential, emphasizing the need for responsible and targeted use of digital tools in mental healthcare and education.

4.3 Implication for practice and future research

Based on the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis, this study puts forward the relevant implications for practice and research. First, for mental health education service personnel, we suggest that the first step is to fully utilize the characteristics of digital technology and select the most appropriate digital intervention tools for different mental health issues. For example, apps are more suitable for the treatment of depression, anxiety, and mental illnesses. When facing adolescents who have been bullied, text message interventions may be a good choice. In addition, serious games and VR could play a greater role in developing adolescents’ social emotional competence.

Second, for mental health counselors or school mental health workers, it is necessary to consider learner characteristics and intervention duration, among other factors. In contrast to previous research results ( Tang et al., 2019 ), we found that the regulating effect of age was significant, so therapists need to implement personalized technical interventions for adolescents at different age stages. Short-term interventions seem to induce a greater effect size, so lengthy interventions should be avoided, as they are more likely to cause marginal effect and develop technical immunity for the youth population.

Third, for technology intervention developers, it is important to recognize that not all practitioners (e.g., psychologists, therapists) are technology savvy. In the process of designing mental health apps and VR interventions, it is necessary to provide sufficient technical support, such as instructional manuals and tutorial videos, to reduce the potential digital divide. It is also essential to arrange for appropriate technical personnel to provide safeguard services and training continuously, ensuring the personal safety and cybersecurity of practitioners and patients during intervention sessions.

For researchers, we suggest that, first, more empirical studies are needed to report first-hand experimental results. Most of the existing studies only described the experimental scheme and lacked key research results. It is hoped that future research will report the results as comprehensively as possible to improve the credibility and reliability of meta-analytical results. Second, the number of studies on moderating effects in the meta-analysis was relatively small. For example, there was only one study on the primary school population. Future research needs to focus on people who have paid less attention to existing studies and thus enhance the understanding of technology interventions in mental health. Finally, there have been few studies that analyze cost-effectiveness, which is key to determining whether technical interventions can be normalized and sustainable. Future studies need to conduct sufficient investigation and report on the cost-effectiveness of digital technology interventions, including the development and maintenance costs of VR ( Kraft, 2020 ).

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

TC: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. JO: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft. GL: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. HL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

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

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Adams, Z., Grant, M., Hupp, S., Scott, T., Feagans, A., Phillips, M. L., et al. (2021). Acceptability of an mHealth app for youth with substance use and mental health needs: iterative, mixed methods design. JMIR Form. Res. 5:e30268. doi: 10.2196/30268

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguilera, A. (2015). Digital technology and mental health interventions: opportunities and challenges. Arbor 191:a210. doi: 10.3989/arbor.2015.771n1012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmadpour, N., Randall, H., Choksi, H., Gao, A., Vaughan, C., and Poronnik, P. (2019). Virtual reality interventions for acute and chronic pain management. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 114:105568. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2019.105568

Ahmadpour, N., Weatherall, A. D., Menezes, M., Yoo, S., Hong, H., and Wong, G. (2020). Synthesizing multiple stakeholder perspectives on using virtual reality to improve the periprocedural experience in children and adolescents: survey study. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:e19752. doi: 10.2196/19752

Antaramian, S. P., Huebner, E. S., Hills, K. J., and Valois, R. F. (2010). A dual-factor model of mental health: toward a more comprehensive understanding of youth functioning. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 80, 462–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01049.x

Aschbrenner, K. A., Naslund, J. A., Tomlinson, E. F., Kinney, A., Pratt, S. I., and Brunette, M. F. (2019). Adolescents' use of digital technologies and preferences for mobile health coaching in public mental health settings. Front. Public Health 7:178. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00178

Babiano-Espinosa, L., Wolters, L. H., Weidle, B., Compton, S. N., Lydersen, S., and Skokauskas, N. (2021). Acceptability and feasibility of enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (eCBT) for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 15:47. doi: 10.1186/s13034-021-00400-7

Bearman, M., Smith, C. D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Baik, C., Hughes-Warrington, M., et al. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 31, 625–640. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.702735

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis Wiley.

Google Scholar

Cejudo, J., López-Delgado, M. L., and Losada, L. (2019). Effectiveness of the videogame “Spock” for the improvement of the emotional intelligence on psychosocial adjustment in adolescents. Comput. Hum. Behav. 101, 380–386. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.028

Cheng, V. W. S., Davenport, T., Johnson, D., Vella, K., and Hickie, I. B. (2019). Gamification in apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being: systematic review. JMIR Mental Health 6:e13717. doi: 10.2196/13717

Cherewick, M., Lebu, S., Su, C., Richards, L., Njau, P. F., and Dahl, R. E. (2021). Study protocol of a distance learning intervention to support social emotional learning and identity development for adolescents using interactive mobile technology. Front. Public Health 9:623283. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.623283

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2020), What is the CASEL framework? A framework creates a foundation for applying evidence-based SEL strategies to your community. Available at: https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/what-is-the-casel-framework/

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). “Learning, “flow,” and happiness” in Applications of flow in human development and education (Dordrecht: Springer), 153–172.

Davidson, T. M., Bunnell, B. E., Saunders, B. E., Hanson, R. F., Danielson, C. K., Cook, D., et al. (2019). Pilot evaluation of a tablet-based application to improve quality of care in child mental health treatment. Behav. Ther. 50, 367–379. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2018.07.005

De la Barrera, U., Postigo-Zegarra, S., Mónaco, E., Gil-Gómez, J.-A., and Montoya-Castilla, I. (2021). Serious game to promote socioemotional learning and mental health (emoTIC): a study protocol for randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 11:e052491. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052491

Eisenstadt, M., Liverpool, S., Infanti, E., Ciuvat, R. M., and Carlsson, C. (2021). Mobile apps that promote emotion regulation, positive mental health, and well-being in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mental Health 8:e31170. doi: 10.2196/31170

Essau, C. A., and de la Torre-Luque, A. (2023). Comorbidity between internalising and externalising disorders among adolescents: symptom connectivity features and psychosocial outcome. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 54, 493–507. doi: 10.1007/s10578-021-01264-w

Folker, A. P., Mathiasen, K., Lauridsen, S. M., Stenderup, E., Dozeman, E., and Folker, M. P. (2018). Implementing internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for common mental health disorders: a comparative case study of implementation challenges perceived by therapists and managers in five European internet services. Internet Interv. 11, 60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2018.02.001

Gabrielli, S., Rizzi, S., Carbone, S., and Donisi, V. (2020). A chatbot-based coaching intervention for adolescents to promote life skills: pilot study. JMIR Hum. Factors 7:e16762. doi: 10.2196/16762

Giovanelli, A., Ozer, E. M., and Dahl, R. E. (2020). Leveraging technology to improve health in adolescence: a developmental science perspective. J. Adolesc. Health 67, S7–S13. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.02.020

Gladstone, T. G., Marko-Holguin, M., Rothberg, P., Nidetz, J., Diehl, A., DeFrino, D. T., et al. (2015). An internet-based adolescent depression preventive intervention: study protocol for a randomized control trial. Trials 16:203. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0705-2

Gómez-Restrepo, C., Sarmiento-Suárez, M. J., Alba-Saavedra, M., Bird, V. J., Priebe, S., and van Loggerenberg, F. (2022). Adapting DIALOG+ in a school setting-a tool to support well-being and resilience in adolescents living in postconflict areas during the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a cluster randomized exploratory study. JMIR Res. Protoc. 11:e40286. doi: 10.2196/40286

Gonsalves, P. P., Hodgson, E. S., Kumar, A., Aurora, T., Chandak, Y., Sharma, R., et al. (2019). Design and development of the "POD adventures" smartphone game: a blended problem-solving intervention for adolescent mental health in India. Front. Public Health 7:238. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00238

Goodyear, V. A., and Armour, K. M. (2018). Young people’s perspectives on and experiences of health-related social media, apps, and wearable health devices. Soc. Sci. 7:137. doi: 10.3390/socsci7080137

Grist, R., Croker, A., Denne, M., and Stallard, P. (2019). Technology delivered interventions for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 22, 147–171. doi: 10.1007/s10567-018-0271-8

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. J. Educ. Stat. 6, 107–128. doi: 10.3102/10769986006002107

Higgins, J. P., and Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series . Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Hollis, C., Falconer, C. J., Martin, J. L., Whittington, C., Stockton, S., Glazebrook, C., et al. (2017). Annual research review: digital health interventions for children and young people with mental health problems – a systematic and meta-review. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 58, 474–503. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12663

Joint Task Force for the Development of Telepsychology Guidelines for Psychologists (2013). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. Am. Psychol. 68, 791–800. doi: 10.1037/a0035001

Jones, E. A. K., Mitra, A. K., and Bhuiyan, A. R. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on mental health in adolescents: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:2470. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052470

Kenny, R., Dooley, B., and Fitzgerald, A. (2016). Developing mental health mobile apps: exploring adolescents’ perspectives. Health Informatics J. 22, 265–275. doi: 10.1177/1460458214555041

Keyes, C. L. M. (2009). “Toward a science of mental health” in The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 88–96.

Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educ. Res. 49, 241–253. doi: 10.3102/0013189x20912798

Kutok, E. R., Dunsiger, S., Patena, J. V., Nugent, N. R., Riese, A., Rosen, R. K., et al. (2021). A cyberbullying media-based prevention intervention for adolescents on instagram: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health 8:e26029. doi: 10.2196/26029

Lacey, F. M., and Matheson, L. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . London: Sage.

Lewinsohn, P. M., Hops, H., Roberts, R. E., Seeley, J. R., and Andrews, J. A. (1993). Adolescent psychopathology: I. Prevalence and incidence of depression and other DSM-III—R disorders in high school students. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 102, 133–144. doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.102.1.133

Liu, T.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Wang, T.-N., Yeh, S.-C., and Kalyuga, S. (2021). Studying the effect of redundancy in a virtual reality classroom. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 69, 1183–1200. doi: 10.1007/s11423-021-09991-6

Mariamo, A., Temcheff, C. E., Léger, P.-M., Senecal, S., and Lau, M. A. (2021). Emotional reactions and likelihood of response to questions designed for a mental health chatbot among adolescents: experimental study. JMIR Hum. Factors 8:e24343. doi: 10.2196/24343

Matheson, E. L., Smith, H. G., Amaral, A. C. S., Meireles, J. F. F., Almeida, M. C., Mora, G., et al. (2021). Improving body image at scale among Brazilian adolescents: study protocol for the co-creation and randomised trial evaluation of a chatbot intervention. BMC Public Health 21:2135. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12129-1

Mohr, D. C., Riper, H., and Schueller, S. M. (2018). A solution-focused research approach to achieve an implementable revolution in digital mental health. JAMA Psychiatry 75, 113–114. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3838

Naslund, J. A., Aschbrenner, K. A., Kim, S. J., McHugo, G. J., Unützer, J., Bartels, S. J., et al. (2017). Health behavior models for informing digital technology interventions for individuals with mental illness. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 40, 325–335. doi: 10.1037/prj0000246

Neumer, S.-P., Patras, J., Holen, S., Lisøy, C., Askeland, A. L., Haug, I. M., et al. (2021). Study protocol of a factorial trial ECHO: optimizing a group-based school intervention for children with emotional problems. BMC Psychol. 9:97. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00581-y

Ong, J. G., Lim-Ashworth, N. S., Ooi, Y. P., Boon, J. S., Ang, R. P., Goh, D. H., et al. (2019). An interactive mobile app game to address aggression (regnatales): pilot quantitative study. JMIR Ser Games 7:e13242. doi: 10.2196/13242

Orlowski, S., Lawn, S., Antezana, G., Venning, A., Winsall, M., Bidargaddi, N., et al. (2016). A rural youth consumer perspective of technology to enhance face-to-face mental health services. J. Child Fam. Stud. 25, 3066–3075. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0472-z

Orr, M., MacLeod, L., Bagnell, A., McGrath, P., Wozney, L., and Meier, S. (2023). The comfort of adolescent patients and their parents with mobile sensing and digital phenotyping. Comput. Hum. Behav. 140:107603. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107603

Owens, C., and Charles, N. (2016). Implementation of a text-messaging intervention for adolescents who self-harm (TeenTEXT): a feasibility study using normalisation process theory. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 10:14. doi: 10.1186/s13034-016-0101-z

Patchin, J. W. (2021). 2021 Cyberbullying Data. Available at: https://cyberbullying.org/2021-cyberbullying-data

Piers, R., Williams, J. M., and Sharpe, H. (2023). Review: can digital mental health interventions bridge the ‘digital divide’ for socioeconomically and digitally marginalised youth? A systematic review. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 28, 90–104. doi: 10.1111/camh.12620

Ranney, M. L., Patena, J. V., Dunsiger, S., Spirito, A., Cunningham, R. M., Boyer, E., et al. (2019). A technology-augmented intervention to prevent peer violence and depressive symptoms among at-risk emergency department adolescents: protocol for a randomized control trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials 82, 106–114. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.05.009

Scott, L. N., Victor, S. E., Kaufman, E. A., Beeney, J. E., Byrd, A. L., Vine, V., et al. (2020). Affective dynamics across internalizing and externalizing dimensions of psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 8, 412–427. doi: 10.1177/2167702619898802

Shah, S. M. A., Mohammad, D., Qureshi, M. F. H., Abbas, M. Z., and Aleem, S. (2021). Prevalence, psychological responses and associated correlates of depression, anxiety and stress in a global population, during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Community Ment. Health J. 57, 101–110. doi: 10.1007/s10597-020-00728-y

Stasiak, K., Hatcher, S., Frampton, C., and Merry, S. N. (2014). A pilot double blind randomized placebo controlled trial of a prototype computer-based cognitive behavioural therapy program for adolescents with symptoms of depression. Behav. Cogn. Psychother. 42, 385–401. doi: 10.1017/s1352465812001087

Suldo, S. M., and Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond psychopathology: the dual-factor model of mental health in youth. School Psychol. Rev. 37, 52–68. doi: 10.1080/02796015.2008.12087908

Tang, X., Tang, S., Ren, Z., and Wong, D. F. K. (2019). Prevalence of depressive symptoms among adolescents in secondary school in mainland China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 245, 498–507. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.043

Taylor, C. B., Ruzek, J. I., Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., Sadeh-Sharvit, S., Topooco, N., Weissman, R. S., et al. (2020). Using digital technology to reduce the prevalence of mental health disorders in populations: time for a new approach. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:e17493. doi: 10.1177/2167702619859336

Thabrew, H., Chubb, L. A., Kumar, H., and Fouché, C. (2022). Immersive reality experience technology for reducing social isolation and improving social connectedness and well-being of children and young people who are hospitalized: open trial. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 5:e29164. doi: 10.2196/29164

Topooco, N., Byléhn, S., Dahlström Nysäter, E., Holmlund, J., Lindegaard, J., Johansson, S., et al. (2019). Evaluating the efficacy of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy blended with synchronous chat sessions to treat adolescent depression: randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 21:e13393. doi: 10.2196/13393

Uhlhaas, P., and Torous, J. (2019). Digital tools for youth mental health. NPJ Digit. Med. 2:104. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0181-2

Villarreal, V. (2018). Mental health collaboration: a survey of practicing school psychologists. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 34, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2017.1328626

Wacks, Y., and Weinstein, A. M. (2021). Excessive smartphone use is associated with health problems in adolescents and young adults. Front. Psych. 12:669042. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.669042

Wenzel, A. (2017). Basic strategies of cognitive behavioral therapy. Psychiatr. Clin. North Am. 40, 597–609. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2017.07.001

Werner-Seidler, A., Huckvale, K., Larsen, M. E., Calear, A. L., Maston, K., Johnston, L., et al. (2020). A trial protocol for the effectiveness of digital interventions for preventing depression in adolescents: the future proofing study. Trials 21:2. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3901-7

World Health Organization (2021). Mental health of adolescents. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health (Accessed December 14, 2023).

Wu, B., Zheng, C., and Huang, B. (2022). Influence of science education on mental health of adolescents based on virtual reality. Front. Psychol. 13:895196. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895196

Zepeda, M., Deighton, S., Markova, V., Madsen, J., and Racine, N. (2021). iCOPE with COVID-19: A brief telemental health intervention for children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv . doi: 10.31234/osf.io/jk32s

Keywords: children and adolescents, digital technology, systematic literature review, meta-analysis, mental health issues

Citation: Chen T, Ou J, Li G and Luo H (2024) Promoting mental health in children and adolescents through digital technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Psychol . 15:1356554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1356554

Received: 15 December 2023; Accepted: 29 February 2024; Published: 12 March 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Chen, Ou, Li and Luo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Heng Luo, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Advertisement

Supported by

Henry Louis Gates Jr. Unpacks Black Literature’s ‘Black Box’

In his latest book, the Harvard scholar shows how African American writers have used the written word to shape their reality despite constraints imposed on them from outside.

• Share full article

By Tope Folarin

Tope Folarin is a writer and critic. He is the executive director of the Institute for Policy Studies and the author of the novel “A Particular Kind of Black Man.”

THE BLACK BOX: Writing the Race , by Henry Louis Gates Jr.

By way of explaining the metaphor that serves as the title of his latest book, “The Black Box,” the Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. transcribes a conversation he had with his son-in-law after the birth of his granddaughter 10 years ago:

“Did you check the box?” I asked, apropos of nothing we had just discussed. Without missing a beat, my good son-in-law responded, “Yes, sir. I did.” “Very good,” I responded, as I poured a second shot of Pappy Van Winkle.

The box that Gates’s son-in-law checked on a birth registration form indicates that his granddaughter is Black, even though his daughter’s genetic admixture is 75 percent European, and his son-in-law is 100 percent European. In other words, as Gates notes, his granddaughter “will test about 87.5 percent European when she spits in the test tube.”

Gates offers this anecdote to suggest the arbitrariness of racial categories, and to focus our attention on the image of the box — a container that can function simultaneously as a “circumscribed enclosure” and a zone in which the confined can create a thriving “social and cultural world.”

For Gates, the box is a supple concept. Not only does it appear with surprising frequency in literature by Black Americans — from the fugitive slave author Henry Box Brown (who escaped slavery in a box) to Booker T. Washington (who described the box as a barrel) to the contemporary poet Terrance Hayes — but Gates extends the metaphor to other kinds of boxes that relate to Black experience, to ordeals withstood and survived. He cites an airplane’s flight recorder box, a device that “preserves a record of the truth amid disastrous circumstances,” and the slave ship, before arriving at his thesis: African Americans have consistently relied on the written word to express and shape their reality despite the constraints imposed on them from outside, which they have endured since they were first brought to this continent.

“The Black Box” is based on lectures Gates has delivered for many years in his Introduction to African American Studies class at Harvard. From the beginning, he shows, African Americans have turned to literary forms to validate their humanity. He quickly sketches the childhood of Phillis Wheatley — her journey to America via slave ship, her rapid mastery of English — and the varied responses to her poetry, which she began to publish as a precocious teenager.

Wheatley’s success undermined the prevailing sentiment that Black Americans were less intelligent than their white counterparts, and in response to her art some thinkers, such as Voltaire, revised their formerly negative perspectives on Black people, while others, including Thomas Jefferson, remained steadfast in their views. (Jefferson on Wheatley: “The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism.”)

Gates traces the history of slave narratives, a genre that “always told the story” of how enslaved authors “learned to read and write, and always, always, of course, of their escape to freedom.” And he describes the intense conversations within the Black American community around self-definition: “They stood on uncertain ground. Were they Africans, Americans, both, or neither?” In each of these instances, as throughout his book, Gates adroitly demonstrates how literature served as a site of self-interrogation and a pathway to liberation.

In other chapters, Gates writes about the manifold contributions of W.E.B. Du Bois; the boldness and flair of the Harlem Renaissance generation; the fierce debate between Zora Neale Hurston and Richard Wright over the proper way to represent the Black experience in literature; and the politics of passing.

Many of these ideas will be familiar to readers — Gates has written about them before. The allure of this book, and the reason for its existence, are the narrative links he draws among these people and events, and his insistence that a survey of African American history is incomplete without a special consideration of how writing has undergirded and powered it. This is a literary history of Black America, but it is also an argument that African American history is inextricable from the history of African American literature.

“The Black Box” arrives at an auspicious moment. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of a great man of American and African American letters: James Baldwin. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of “The New Negro,” an anthology of fiction, poetry, art and essays edited by Alain Locke that is widely regarded as a defining text of the Harlem Renaissance.

This is also a moment when many politicians are hard at work revising our shared history in order to justify present-day policy agendas. Gates addresses this phenomenon in his concluding chapter, portions of which appeared in The New York Times a year ago. He invokes the story of Mildred Lewis Rutherford, the historian general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who argued throughout her career that the Civil War was simply “the War Between the States,” and had nothing to do with slavery.

As Gates notes, it is important to repeat the truth about history as often as possible, and to repel efforts to redefine it, because “what is inscribed on the blackboard translates directly to social practices unfolding on the street.”

THE BLACK BOX : Writing the Race | By Henry Louis Gates Jr. | Penguin Press | 262 pp. | $30

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

You never know what’s going to go wrong in these graphic novels, where Circus tigers, giant spiders, shifting borders and motherhood all threaten to end life as we know it .

When the author Tommy Orange received an impassioned email from a teacher in the Bronx, he dropped everything to visit the students  who inspired it.

A few years ago, Harvard acquired the archive of Candida Royalle, a porn star turned pioneering director. Now, the collection has inspired a new book , challenging the conventional history of the sexual revolution.

Gabriel García Márquez wanted his final novel to be destroyed. Its publication this month  may stir questions about posthumous releases.

Do you want to be a better reader?   Here’s some helpful advice to show you how to get the most out of your literary endeavor .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

Chemical Society Reviews

Nanochemistry of gold: from surface engineering to dental healthcare applications.

* Corresponding authors

a Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Institute of Stomatology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

b School of Life and Environmental Science, Centre for Sustainable Bioproducts, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia E-mail: [email protected]

c Hainan Provincial Key Laboratory of Natural Rubber Processing, Agricultural Products Processing Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Zhanjiang, China

d School of Chemistry and Environment, Yunnan Minzu University, Kunming, China

Advancements in nanochemistry have led to the development of engineered gold nanostructures (GNSs) with remarkable potential for a variety of dental healthcare applications. These innovative nanomaterials offer unique properties and functionalities that can significantly improve dental diagnostics, treatment, and overall oral healthcare applications. This review provides an overview of the latest advancements in the design, synthesis, and application of GNSs for dental healthcare applications. Engineered GNSs have emerged as versatile tools, demonstrating immense potential across different aspects of dentistry, including enhanced imaging and diagnosis, prevention, bioactive coatings, and targeted treatment of oral diseases. Key highlights encompass the precise control over GNSs' size, crystal structure, shape, and surface functionalization, enabling their integration into sensing, imaging diagnostics, drug delivery systems, and regenerative therapies. GNSs, with their exceptional biocompatibility and antimicrobial properties, have demonstrated efficacy in combating dental caries, periodontitis, peri-implantitis, and oral mucosal diseases. Additionally, they show great promise in the development of advanced sensing techniques for early diagnosis, such as nanobiosensor technology, while their role in targeted drug delivery, photothermal therapy, and immunomodulatory approaches has opened new avenues for oral cancer therapy. Challenges including long-term toxicity, biosafety, immune recognition, and personalized treatment are under rigorous investigation. As research at the intersection of nanotechnology and dentistry continues to thrive, this review highlights the transformative potential of engineered GNSs in revolutionizing dental healthcare, offering accurate, personalized, and minimally invasive solutions to address the oral health challenges of the modern era.

• This article is part of the themed collection: Celebrating the scientific accomplishments of RSC Fellows

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

S. Zhang, N. Kong, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, C. Ni, L. Li, H. Wang, M. Yang, W. Yang and F. Yan, Chem. Soc. Rev. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3CS00894K

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements