generator of literature review

Literature Review Generator

Ai-powered academic literature review tool.

• Conduct a literature review for a dissertation or thesis: Save time and ensure a comprehensive understanding of your research topic.
• Prepare for a research proposal: Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the existing literature in your field.
• Write a research paper or article: Use the tool to generate a literature review section for your academic paper or article.
• Develop course materials: As an educator, you can use the tool to prepare literature reviews for course materials or to provide examples to students.

Literature Review Generator by AHelp

Features of Our Literature Review Generator

Advanced power of AI

Simplified information gathering

Enhanced quality

Rrl generator – your friend in academic writing.

Literature reviews can be tricky. They require your full attention and dedication, leaving no place for distractions. And with so many assignments on your hands, it must be very hard to concentrate just on this one thing.

No need to worry though. With our RRL AI Generator creating any type of paper that requires scrupulous literature will be as easy as it gets.

How to Work With Literature Review Generator

We designed our platform in a way that wouldn’t require you to spend much time figuring out how to work with it. What you have to do is just specify your topic, the subject of your literature review, and any further instructions on the style, formatting, and structure. After that you enter the number of pages you need to be written and, if there’s a requirement for that, formatting style. Wait for around 2 minutes and that’s all – our AI will give you the paper crafted according to your specifications.

What Makes AI Literature Review Generator Special

You are probably wondering how our AI bot is better than basically any other AI-powered solution you can find online. Well, we won’t say that our tool is a magical service that can do everything better. To be fair, as any AI it is not yet ideal. Still, our platform is more tailored to academic writing than most of the other bots. With its help, you can not just simply produce text, but also receive a paper with sources and properly organized formatting. This makes it a perfect match for those who specifically need help with tough papers, such as literature reviews, research abstracts, and analysis essays.

Why Use the Free Online Literature Review Generator 

With our Free Online Literature Review you will be able to finish your literature review assignments in just a few minutes. This will allow you to dedicate your free time to a) proofreading, and b) finishing or starting on more important tasks and projects. This tool can also help you understand the direction of your work, its structure, and possible sources you can use. In general, it is a more efficient way of doing your homework and organizing the writing process that can help you get better grades and improve your writing skills.

Free Literature Review Generator

Is there a free AI tool for literature review?

Yes, of course, some tools will help you with your literature review. One of the great solutions is the AHelp Literature Review Generator. It offers a quick and simple work process, where you can specify all the requirements for your paper, and then receive a fully completed task in just 2 minutes. It is a specially fitting service for those looking for a budget-friendly tool.

How to create a literature review?

Crafting a literature review calls for a systematic approach to examining existing scholarly work on a specific topic. Thus, start by defining a clear research question or thesis statement to guide your focus. Conduct a thorough search of relevant databases and academic journals to gather sources that address your topic. Read and analyze these sources, noting key themes, methodologies, and conclusions. Organize the literature by themes or methods, and synthesize the findings to provide a critical overview of the existing research. Your review should give context to the research within the field, noting areas of consensus, debate, and gaps in knowledge. Finally, write your literature review, integrating your analysis with your thesis statement, providing a clear and structured narrative that offers insights into the research topic.

Can I write a literature review in 5 days?

It is possible to write a literature review in 5 days, but you will need careful planning and dedication. Start by quickly defining your topic and research question. Dedicate a day to intensive research, finding and selecting relevant sources. Spend the next two days reading and summarizing these sources. On the fourth day, organize your notes and outline the review, focusing on arranging the main findings around key themes. Use the final day to write and revise your literature review, so that it is logically structured.

What are the 5 rules for writing a literature review?

When writing a literature review, you initially need to follow these essential rules: First, maintain a clear focus and structure. Your review should be organized around your thesis statement or key question, with each section logically leading to the next. Second, be critical and analytical rather than merely descriptive. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the research, the methodologies used, and the conclusions drawn. Third, include credible and versatile sources to represent a balanced view of the topic. Fourth, synthesize the information from your sources to create a narrative that adds value to your field of study. Finally, your writing should be clear, concise, and plagiarism-free, with all the sources appropriately cited.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Revolutionize Your Research with Jenni AI

Literature Review Generator

Welcome to Jenni AI, the ultimate tool for researchers and students. Our AI Literature Review Generator is designed to assist you in creating comprehensive, high-quality literature reviews, enhancing your academic and research endeavors. Say goodbye to writer's block and hello to seamless, efficient literature review creation.

Loved by over 1 million academics

Endorsed by Academics from Leading Institutions

Join the Community of Scholars Who Trust Jenni AI

Elevate Your Research Toolkit

Discover the Game-Changing Features of Jenni AI for Literature Reviews

Advanced AI Algorithms

Jenni AI utilizes cutting-edge AI technology to analyze and suggest relevant literature, helping you stay on top of current research trends.

Get started

Idea Generation

Overcome writer's block with AI-generated prompts and ideas that align with your research topic, helping to expand and deepen your review.

Citation Assistance

Get help with proper citation formats to maintain academic integrity and attribute sources correctly.

Our Pledge to Academic Integrity

At Jenni AI, we are deeply committed to the principles of academic integrity. We understand the importance of honesty, transparency, and ethical conduct in the academic community. Our tool is designed not just to assist in your research, but to do so in a way that respects and upholds these fundamental values.

How it Works

Start by creating your account on Jenni AI. The sign-up process is quick and user-friendly.

Define Your Research Scope

Enter the topic of your literature review to guide Jenni AI’s focus.

Citation Guidance

Receive assistance in citing sources correctly, maintaining the academic standard.

Easy Export

Export your literature review to LaTeX, HTML, or .docx formats

Interact with AI-Powered Suggestions

Use Jenni AI’s suggestions to structure your literature review, organizing it into coherent sections.

What Our Users Say

Discover how Jenni AI has made a difference in the lives of academics just like you

· Aug 26

I thought AI writing was useless. Then I found Jenni AI, the AI-powered assistant for academic writing. It turned out to be much more advanced than I ever could have imagined. Jenni AI = ChatGPT x 10.

Charlie Cuddy

@sonofgorkhali

· 23 Aug

Love this use of AI to assist with, not replace, writing! Keep crushing it @Davidjpark96 💪

Waqar Younas, PhD

@waqaryofficial

· 6 Apr

4/9 Jenni AI's Outline Builder is a game-changer for organizing your thoughts and structuring your content. Create detailed outlines effortlessly, ensuring your writing is clear and coherent. #OutlineBuilder #WritingTools #JenniAI

I started with Jenni-who & Jenni-what. But now I can't write without Jenni. I love Jenni AI and am amazed to see how far Jenni has come. Kudos to http://Jenni.AI team.

· 28 Jul

Jenni is perfect for writing research docs, SOPs, study projects presentations 👌🏽

Stéphane Prud'homme

http://jenni.ai is awesome and super useful! thanks to @Davidjpark96 and @whoisjenniai fyi @Phd_jeu @DoctoralStories @WriteThatPhD

Frequently asked questions

What exactly does jenni ai do, is jenni ai suitable for all academic disciplines, is there a trial period or a free version available.

How does Jenni AI help with writer's block?

Can Jenni AI write my literature review for me?

How often is the literature database updated in Jenni AI?

How user-friendly is Jenni AI for those not familiar with AI tools?

Jenni AI: Standing Out From the Competition

In a sea of online proofreaders, Jenni AI stands out. Here’s how we compare to other tools on the market:

Feature Featire

COMPETITORS

Advanced AI-Powered Assistance

Uses state-of-the-art AI technology to provide relevant literature suggestions and structural guidance.

May rely on simpler algorithms, resulting in less dynamic or comprehensive support.

User-Friendly Interface

Designed for ease of use, making it accessible for users with varying levels of tech proficiency.

Interfaces can be complex or less intuitive, posing a challenge for some users.

Transparent and Flexible Pricing

Offers a free trial and clear, flexible pricing plans suitable for different needs.

Pricing structures can be opaque or inflexible, with fewer user options.

Unparalleled Customization

Offers highly personalized suggestions and adapts to your specific research needs over time.

Often provide generic suggestions that may not align closely with individual research topics.

Comprehensive Literature Access

Provides access to a vast and up-to-date range of academic literature, ensuring comprehensive research coverage.

Some may have limited access to current or diverse research materials, restricting the scope of literature reviews.

Ready to Transform Your Research Process?

Don't wait to elevate your research. Sign up for Jenni AI today and discover a smarter, more efficient way to handle your academic literature reviews.

Something went wrong when searching for seed articles. Please try again soon.

No articles were found for that search term.

Author, year The title of the article goes here

LITERATURE REVIEW SOFTWARE FOR BETTER RESEARCH

“Litmaps is a game changer for finding novel literature... it has been invaluable for my productivity.... I also got my PhD student to use it and they also found it invaluable, finding several gaps they missed”

Varun Venkatesh

Austin Health, Australia

As a full-time researcher, Litmaps has become an indispensable tool in my arsenal. The Seed Maps and Discover features of Litmaps have transformed my literature review process, streamlining the identification of key citations while revealing previously overlooked relevant literature, ensuring no crucial connection goes unnoticed. A true game-changer indeed!

Ritwik Pandey

Doctoral Research Scholar – Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

Using Litmaps for my research papers has significantly improved my workflow. Typically, I start with a single paper related to my topic. Whenever I find an interesting work, I add it to my search. From there, I can quickly cover my entire Related Work section.

David Fischer

Research Associate – University of Applied Sciences Kempten

“It's nice to get a quick overview of related literature. Really easy to use, and it helps getting on top of the often complicated structures of referencing”

Christoph Ludwig

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

“This has helped me so much in researching the literature. Currently, I am beginning to investigate new fields and this has helped me hugely”

Aran Warren

Canterbury University, NZ

“I can’t live without you anymore! I also recommend you to my students.”

Professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“Seeing my literature list as a network enhances my thinking process!”

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

“Incredibly useful tool to get to know more literature, and to gain insight in existing research”

KU Leuven, Belgium

“As a student just venturing into the world of lit reviews, this is a tool that is outstanding and helping me find deeper results for my work.”

Franklin Jeffers

South Oregon University, USA

“Any researcher could use it! The paper recommendations are great for anyone and everyone”

Swansea University, Wales

“This tool really helped me to create good bibtex references for my research papers”

Ali Mohammed-Djafari

Director of Research at LSS-CNRS, France

“Litmaps is extremely helpful with my research. It helps me organize each one of my projects and see how they relate to each other, as well as to keep up to date on publications done in my field”

Daniel Fuller

Clarkson University, USA

As a person who is an early researcher and identifies as dyslexic, I can say that having research articles laid out in the date vs cite graph format is much more approachable than looking at a standard database interface. I feel that the maps Litmaps offers lower the barrier of entry for researchers by giving them the connections between articles spaced out visually. This helps me orientate where a paper is in the history of a field. Thus, new researchers can look at one of Litmap's "seed maps" and have the same information as hours of digging through a database.

Baylor Fain

Postdoctoral Associate – University of Florida

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.

🤖 AI Literature Review Generator

Unleash the power of AI with our Literature Review Generator. Effortlessly access comprehensive and meticulously curated literature reviews to elevate your research like never before!

The landscape of knowledge is vast, diverse, and ever-changing. Navigating it can seem daunting yet exciting, like reading a suspense-filled novel. Welcome to the world of a literature review, a fundamental tool that manages complexity, uncovers answers, and expands understanding in any research venture. A literature review generator simplifies this process and makes it more accessible.

Explore the review of existing literature, moving from the general to the specific, the known to the unknown. A literature review bridges the gap between raw data and informed conclusions. It defines research objectives, highlights key themes of the content, identifies gaps, and outlines future study areas.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of scholarly articles, books, and other sources concerning a particular field of study or a research question. This process involves discussing the state of the art of an area of research and identifying pivotal works and researchers in the domain.

The primary purpose of a literature review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the knowledge that already exists on your chosen subject.

This type of review usually serves as the starting point for many forms of academic research and forms a vital part of dissertations, thesis, research articles, and other documents. Its significance lies in its ability to concentrate the existing knowledge on a subject and reveal gaps that need further research.

A well-crafted literature review also clarifies the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates, and establishes a framework for interpreting the findings of your study in the context of what is already known.

Why Use a Literature Review Generator?

Universities and academic institutions require students to develop literature reviews — these targeted examinations of other studies related to your current research provide a robust foundation for your work.

While these are satisfactory to develop your academic writing skills, they can be time-consuming and challenging due to the extensive research involved. With the contemporary integration of technological tools into our daily lives, literature review generators have become a lifeline for many students.

Now, let’s take a closer look at why you should embrace these generators in the literature review process, and explore the benefits that they pose.

• Ease of Information Gathering : Comprehensive studies require extensive reading and diligent research, which often takes hours to complete. Literature review generators automate the information-gathering process, retrieving relevant articles, journals, and related publications in a matter of seconds. This ensures a momentous saving of time and relieves the user from the tedious job of slogging through numerous resources.
• Coherent and Well-Structured Reviews : Structuring the review in a logical and coherent manner can be a difficult task. These intelligent tools present well-structured reviews, offering well-organized input which can guide you in writing your own well-formulated literature review.
• Finds Good Matches : A literature review generator is designed to find the most relevant literature content according to your research topic. The expertise of these software tools allows users to ease the process of finding relevant scholarly articles and other documents, making it more accurate and faster than doing it manually.
• Reduces Errors and Improves Quality : Humans are prone to making mistakes, especially when tasked with analyzing extensive volumes of data. Literature review generators minimize errors by ensuring access to the most accurate data and providing proper citations hence enhancing the quality of the review.
• Pedagogical Benefits : Using a Literature review generator does not only provide a quick fix for students but it also serves as a tool for learning. It allows the users to understand how professional literature reviews should be structured and can guide them in crafting their work.

How To Use This AI Generator:

• Click “Use Generator” to create a project instantly in your workspace.
• Click “Save Generator” to create a reusable template for you and your team.
• Customize your project , make it your own, and get work done!

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

RAxter is now Enago Read! Enjoy the same licensing and pricing with enhanced capabilities. No action required for existing customers.

Your all in one AI-powered Reading Assistant

A Reading Space to Ideate, Create Knowledge, and Collaborate on Your Research

• Smartly organize your research
• Receive recommendations that cannot be ignored
• Collaborate with your team to read, discuss, and share knowledge

From Surface-Level Exploration to Critical Reading - All in one Place!

Fine-tune your literature search.

Our AI-powered reading assistant saves time spent on the exploration of relevant resources and allows you to focus more on reading.

Select phrases or specific sections and explore more research papers related to the core aspects of your selections. Pin the useful ones for future references.

Our platform brings you the latest research related to your and project work.

Speed up your literature review

Quickly generate a summary of key sections of any paper with our summarizer.

Make informed decisions about which papers are relevant, and where to invest your time in further reading.

Get key insights from the paper, quickly comprehend the paper’s unique approach, and recall the key points.

Bring order to your research projects

Organize your reading lists into different projects and maintain the context of your research.

Quickly sort items into collections and tag or filter them according to keywords and color codes.

Experience the power of sharing by finding all the shared literature at one place.

Decode papers effortlessly for faster comprehension

Highlight what is important so that you can retrieve it faster next time.

Select any text in the paper and ask Copilot to explain it to help you get a deeper understanding.

Ask questions and follow-ups from AI-powered Copilot.

Collaborate to read with your team, professors, or students

Share and discuss literature and drafts with your study group, colleagues, experts, and advisors. Recommend valuable resources and help each other for better understanding.

Work in shared projects efficiently and improve visibility within your study group or lab members.

Keep track of your team's progress by being constantly connected and engaging in active knowledge transfer by requesting full access to relevant papers and drafts.

Find papers from across the world's largest repositories

Testimonials

Privacy and security of your research data are integral to our mission..

Everything you add or create on Enago Read is private by default. It is visible if and when you share it with other users.

You can put Creative Commons license on original drafts to protect your IP. For shared files, Enago Read always maintains a copy in case of deletion by collaborators or revoked access.

We use state-of-the-art security protocols and algorithms including MD5 Encryption, SSL, and HTTPS to secure your data.

JavaScript required

We’re sorry, but Coda doesn’t work properly without JavaScript enabled.

Research Sources Log

Welcome aboard, how to get started, how to use the template, starting with research sources log, it’s okay if you don’t fill out all of the fields. the more fields filled out, the more accurate the analysis., hint: to view a bigger view of the field. click on the field and click on the “ ⤢ ” icon..

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Automate your literature review with AI

Table of Contents

Traditional methods of literature review can be susceptible to errors . Whether it’s overcoming human bias ">human bias or sifting through an incredibly large amount of scientific research being published today. Not to forget all the papers that have already been published in the past 100 years. Putting both together makes a heap of information that is humanly impossible to sift through. At least do so in an efficient way.

Thanks to artificial intelligence, long and tedious literature reviews are becoming quick and comprehensive. No longer do researchers have to spend endless hours combing through stacks of books and journals.

In this blog post, we'll dive deep into the world of automating your literature review with AI, exploring what a literature review is, why it's so crucial, and how you can harness AI tools to make the process more effective.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is essentially the foundation of a scientific research project, providing a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a specific topic. It gives an overview of your chosen topic and summarizes key findings, theories, and methodologies from various sources.

This critical analysis not only showcases the current state of understanding but also identifies gaps and trends in the scientific literature. In addition, it also shows your understanding of your field and can help provide credibility to your research paper .

Types of literature review

There are several types of literature reviews but for the most part, you will come across five versions. These are:

1. Narrative review: A narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of a topic, usually without a strict methodology for selection.

2. Systematic review: Systematic reviews are a strategic synthesis of a topic. This type of review follows a strict plan to identify, evaluate, and critique all relevant research on a topic to minimize bias.

3. Meta-analysis: It is a type of systematic review that uses research data from multiple articles to draw quantitative conclusions about a specific phenomenon.

4. Scoping review: As the name suggests, the purpose of a scoping review is to study a field, highlight the gaps in it, and underline the need for the following research paper.

5. Critical review: A critical literature review assesses and critiques the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature, challenging established ideas and theories.

Benefits of using literature review AI tools?

Using literature review AI tools can be a complete game changer in your research. They can make the literature review process smarter and hassle-free. Here are some practical benefits:

AI tools for literature review can skim through tons of research papers and find the most relevant one for your topic in no time, thus saving you hours of manual searching.

Comprehensive insights

No matter how complex the topic is or how long the research papers are, AI tools can find key insights like methodology, datasets, limitations, etc, by simply scanning the abstracts or PDF documents.

Eliminate bias

AI doesn't have favorites. Based on the data it’s fed, it evaluates research papers objectively and reduces as much bias in your literature review as possible.

Faster research questions

AI tools present loads of research papers in the same place. Some AI tools let you create visual maps and connections, thus helping you identify gaps in existing literature and arriving at your research question faster.

Consistency

AI tools ensure your review is consistently structured and formatted . They can also check for proper grammar and citation style, which is crucial for scholarly writing.

Multilingual support

There are heaps of non-native English-speaking researchers who can struggle with understanding scientific jargon in English. AI tools with multilingual support can help such academicians conduct their literature review in their own language.

How to write a literature review with AI

Now that we understand the benefits of a literature review using artificial intelligence, let's explore how you can automate the process. Literature reviews with AI-powered tools can save you countless hours and allow a more comprehensive and systematic approach. Here's one process you can follow:

Choose the right AI tool

Several AI search engines like Google Scholar, SciSpace, Semantic Scholar help you find the most relevant papers semantically. Or in other words even without the right keywords. These tools understand the context of your search query and deliver the results.

Find relevant research papers

Once you input your research question or keywords into a search engine like Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, or SciSpace, it scours millions of papers worth of databases to find relevant articles. After that, you can narrow your search results to a certain time period, journals, number of citations, and other parameters for more accuracy.

Analyze the search results

Now that you have your list of relevant academic papers, the next step would be reviewing these results. A lot of AI-powered tools for literature review will often provide summaries along with the paper. Some sophisticated tools also help you gather key points from multiple papers at once and let you ask questions regarding that topic. This way, you can get an understanding of the topic and further have a better understanding of your field.

Organize your collection

Whether you’re writing a literature review or your paper, you will need to keep track of your references. Using AI tools, you can efficiently organize your findings, store them in reference managers, and instantly generate citations automatically, saving you the hassle of manually formatting references.

Write the literature review

Now that you’ve done your groundwork, you can start writing your literature review. Although you should be doing this yourself, you can use tools like paraphrasers, grammar checkers, and co-writers to help you refine your academic writing and get your point across with more clarity.

Best AI Tools for Literature Review

Since generative AI and ChatGPT came into the picture, there are heaps of AI tools for literature review available out there. Some of the most comprehensive ones are:

SciSpace is a valuable tool to have in your arsenal. It has a repository of 270M+ papers and makes it easy to find research articles. You can also extract key information to compare and contrast multiple papers at the same time. Then, go on to converse with individual papers using Copilot, your AI research assistant.

Love using SciSpace tools? Enjoy discounts! Use SR40 (40% off yearly) and SR20 (20% off monthly). Claim yours here 👉 SciSpace Premium

Research Rabbit

Research Rabbit is a research discovery tool that helps you find new, connected papers using a visual graph. You can essentially create maps around metadata, which helps you not only explore similar papers but also connections between them.

Iris AI is a specialized tool that understands the context of your research question, lets you apply smart filters, and finds relevant papers. Further, you can also extract summaries and other data from papers.

If you already don’t know about ChatGPT , you must be living under a rock. ChatGPT is a chatbot that creates text based on a prompt using natural language processing (NLP). You can use it to write the first draft of your literature review, refine your writing, format it properly, write a research presentation, and many more things.

Things to keep in mind when using literature review AI tools

While AI-powered tools can significantly streamline the literature review process, there are a few things you should keep in mind while employing them:

Quality control

Always review the results generated by AI tools. AI is powerful but not infallible. Ensure that you do further analysis by yourself and determine that the selected research articles are indeed relevant to your research.

Ethical considerations

Be aware of ethical concerns, such as plagiarism and AI writing. Use of AI is still frowned upon so make sure you do a thorough check for originality of your work, which is vital for maintaining academic integrity.

Stay updated

The world of AI is ever-evolving. Stay updated on the latest advancements in AI tools for literature review to make the most of your research.

In conclusion

Artificial intelligence is a game-changer for researchers, especially when it comes to literature reviews. It not only saves time but also enhances the quality and comprehensiveness of your work. With the right AI tool and a clear research question in hand, you can build an excellent literature review.

A few more good reads for you!

Types of Essays in Academic Writing

How to Write a Conclusion for a Research Paper

You might also like

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

The Impact of Visual Abstracts on Boosting Citations

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

Free Online Literature Review Generator

It’s free and easy to use. A simple upload of your content and your Literature Reviews are autogenerated.

Create Literature Reviews by repurposing audio or video content

The AI works fully automated

No prompt engineering required

Experience the power of AI without needing prompts

Train your AI to exactly sound like you

You can train your AI on a piece of content of yours

Autogenerate Literature Reviews

Create Literature Reviews based on the best templates from top-marketers. You will get your insights in the best format possible.

Extracted from your existing content

Work with your team, edit and download Literature Reviews

Literature Reviews that sound like you

You can train your Free Online Literature Review Generator to sound like you, so you Literature Reviews are always in your own tone and style—the opposite of generating generic-sounding content out of thin air.

AI-based content repurposing for your Literature Reviews

Creating Literature Reviews is part of every good content marketing strategy. And now it has become even more accessible with Free Online Literature Review Generator.

The best Free Online Literature Review Generator.

Create Literature Reviews based on your insights, and that sounds like you inside Unifire, thanks to all the Free Online Literature Review Generator’s unique AI-powered features.

Your content is generated based on the best creator templates and hook frameworks.

Collaboration

Unifire is built for collaboration. Live editing, unlimited team members and workspaces included.

Train your AI

AI’s that can sound like you and learn your own writing style. From vocabulary to sentence structure.

What are Literature Reviews?

Literature reviews are critical assessments of existing research on a specific topic. They synthesize key findings, identify trends, and highlight gaps in the literature, guiding future research directions and informing readers about the current state of knowledge.

How to use the Free Online Literature Review Generator

It couldn’t be easier: Upload a piece of content, audio or video. Let the tool transcribe it and produce your Literature Reviews.

You can upload audio & video files, directly or via a link. After 2-4 mins you will receive your transcript. Autogenerated.

Auto transcription

We have the best transcription running in the background. 97% accuracy on even the most technical topics speaks for itself.

Edit your transcription

No AI is 100% perfect. So, we let you edit your transcript before hitting the generate content button.

Autogeneration

Free Online Literature Review Generator automatically generates your Literature Reviews, based on the best templates we could find. So your content is in the best shape when you get it.

Edit & Collaborate

Free Online Literature Review Generator is entirely collaborative and comes with unlimited team seats, workspaces and a full collaborative suite.

Once you’re ready to distribute, simply copy & paste your content into your favourite tools.

Questions about the Free Online Literature Review Generator

It’s free for your first upload. You get 900 credits every month for free to use.

This is dependent on the length of your upload. If you upload 5 hours it will create much more content than if you upload only 5 mins.

Yes, you can train the AI to adopt your own tone & style. This includes sentence structures, vocabulary and more.

Some of the best Free Online Literature Review Generator include Jasper, Reword, Anyword, and others.

Youtube Tag Extractor for creating perfect YouTube Tags

Ai-based content generator for creating perfect content, linkedin text formatter for creating perfect linkedin posts, youtube audio clip maker for creating perfect audio clips, content hook generator for creating perfect content hook generator, ai facebook post generator for creating perfect facebook posts, automatic ebook generator for creating perfect ebooks, ai memo writer for creating perfect memos, contents page generator for creating perfect content pages, ai article title generator for creating perfect article titles, your literature reviews deserve to be perfect, and so does the rest of your content.

Repurpose and scale content whether you are a seasoned marketer or a total novice.

Screen, analyse and summarise articles faster with Scholarcy

Try it for free, subscribe today.

Scholarcy is used by students around the world to read and analyse research papers in less time. Upload your articles to Scholarcy to:

• Cut your reading time in half and feel more in control
• Identify the papers that matter in less time
• Jump straight to the most important information
• Compare a collection of articles more easily

With Scholarcy Library, you can import all your papers and search results, and quickly screen them with the automatically generated ‘key takeaway’ headline.

Take the stress out of your literature review

While there are lots of tools that help you discover articles for your research, how do you analyse and synthesise the information from all of those papers?

3 easy ways to import articles

Scholarcy lets you quickly import your articles for screening and analysing.

Import papers in PDF, Word, HTML and LaTeX format

Import search results from PubMed or any service that provides results in RIS or BibTeX format

Import publisher RSS feeds

Build your literature matrix in minutes

Our Excel export feature generates a literature synthesis matrix for you, so you can

Compare papers side by side for their study sizes, key contributions, limitations, and more.

Export literature-review ready data in Excel, Word, RIS or Markdown format

Integrates with your reference manager and ‘second brain’ tools such as Roam, Notion and Obsidian

Carrying out a systematic review?

Scholarcy breaks papers down into our unique summary flashcard format.

The Study subjects and analysis tab shows you study population, intervention, outcome, and statistical analyses from the paper.

And the Excel synthesis matrix generated shows the key methods and quantitative findings of each paper, side by side.

Build a knowledge graph from your papers

If you’re a fan of the latest generation of knowledge management tools such as  Roam  or  Obsidian , you’ll love our  Markdown  export.

This creates a knowledge graph of all the papers in your library by connecting them via key terms, methods, and shared citations.

What People Are Saying

“Quick processing time, successfully summarized important points.”

“It’s really good for case study analysis, thank you for this too.”

“I love this website so much it has made my research a lot easier thanks!”

“The instant feedback I get from this tool is amazing.”

“Thank you for making my life easier.”

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, 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 transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 8 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• Literature review tool
• Home &nbsp / &nbsp

The following tool will help you learn how to conduct a solid review of literature. To do so, you will have to answer the questions posed in the form you will find on the lower left side, while checking the resources provided on the right side.

Positionality is the notion that identity , paradigmatic views , and location in time and space influence how one understands the world. Consequently, it is essential to take into account positionality before engaging in research, including research synthesis. Learn more about identity, approaches or paradigmatic views such as positivism, interpretivism, constructivism, and others here

The second step in the generation of the literature review design is setting purposes and objectives that will drive the review process.  Your searching strategies, the literature analysis, and even a review structure depend on the purposes of a review, the same way as the goals and research questions in a research study shape its design. Learn more about the purposes and objectives of a traditional literature "nested" in a research study and a research synthesis.

There are key things to think about before you start searching for literature or conduct research synthesis.  You should define and narrow your topic. Since each disciplinary domain has its own thesaurus, index, and databases,  contemplate in which disciplines or areas of study your research synthesis will be conducted. Formulate the initial research question that you will develop further during the search for the literature and the design step. Learn more here.

The conceptual & theoretical framework of your study is the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research. It is a formulation of what you think is going on with what you are studying—a tentative theory of what is happening and why. Read more about "concepts" and how to search for and clarify them, how to find a relevant theory,   here .

Secondary data analysis and review of literature involve collecting and analyzing a vast array of information and sources.  To help you stay focused, your first step should be to develop a research design or a step-by-step plan or a protocol that guides data collection and analysis. Get familiar with different types if the research designs on this page .

As with any research study, the basic purpose of data collection is to create a systematically organized set of materials that will be analyzed or interpreted. Any type of reviews, not only a systematic review,  benefit from applying relatively systematic methods of searching and collecting secondary data. In this part of the guide , I describe sampling methods, instruments (or searching techniques), and organization of sources.

The seventh step regards the selection and definition of the data analysis strategies that will be used in your study, depending on the research approach followed. You can find here resources that might be of help to better understand the way data analysis work. 

After analyzing studies or literature in a depth and the systematic way one should move to the iterative process of exploring, commonalities and contradictions across relevant studies, emergent themes in order to build a theory, frame future research, or creating a final integrated presentation of finding. Find out more here.

Ethical considerations of conducting literature reviews and the issues of quality are not widely discussed in the literature. Consult t his guide where you will find references to work on ethics of conducting systematic reviews, checklists for quality of meta-analysis and research synthesis.

The following AI tools can assist you in step 9 of the process of generating your design:

Google Bard can be used to identify potential ethical principles a researcher could define to ethically conduct a given study.

For instance, we could use the following prompt: What principles could a researcher define to ethically conduct a qualitative case study regarding the long-term impact of competency-based assessment on secondary education students in a secondary school in Marietta (Georgia)?

The following AI tools can assist you in step 8 of the process of generating your design:

Google Bard can be used to identify potential strategies we could implement as researchers to ensure the trustworthiness/validity of a given study.

For instance, we could use the following prompt: What strategies could a researcher use to ensure the trustworthiness qualitative case study regarding the long-term impact of competency-based assessment on secondary education students in a secondary school in Marietta (Georgia).

The following AI tools can assist you in step 7 of the process of generating your design:

AI data analysis is on the rise. For instance,  the AI module of Atlas.ti can be used to analyze qualitative data.

The following AI tools can assist you in step 5 of the process of generating your design:

Consensus could be used to identify research questions that have been used in previously published studies. Consensus is an AI-powered search engine designed to take in research questions, find relevant insights within research papers, and synthesize the results using large language models. It is not a chatbot. Consensus only searches through peer-reviewed scientific research articles to find the most credible insights to your queries.

AI: Google Bard could be used to identify potential questions for a particular research tradition or design.

For instance, we could use the following prompt: Generate examples of research questions that could be used to drive a qualitative case study regarding the long-term impact of competency-based assessment on secondary education students in a secondary school in Marietta (Georgia).

The following AI tools can assist you in step 4 of the process of generating your design:

Google Bard could be used to help users of Hopscotch understand the differences between research traditions for a certain topic.

For instance, we could use the following prompt:   Generate a brief description of the key elements of a qualitative case study research design regarding the long-term impact of competency-based assessment on secondary education students in a secondary school in Marietta (Georgia). To do this, use the following nine steps proposed by the Hopscotch Model:

Step 1: Paradigmatic View of the Researcher

Step 2: Topics & Goals of the Study

Step 3: Conceptual framework of the study

Step 4: Research Design/tradition

Step 5: Research Questions

Step 6: Data Gathering Methods

Step 7: Data Analysis

Step 8: Trustworthiness/Validity

Step 9: Ethics driving the study

The following AI tools can assist you in step 3 of the process of generating your design:

AI: ResearchRabbit is a scholarly publication discovery tool supported by artificial intelligence (AI). The tool is designed to support your research without you switching between searching modes and databases, a process that is time-consuming and often escalates into further citation mining; a truly unpleasant rabbit hole (and that’s what inspired the name ResearchRabbit)

AI: 2Dsearch  is a radical alternative to conventional ‘advanced search’. Instead of entering Boolean strings into one-dimensional search boxes, queries are formulated by manipulating objects on a two-dimensional canvas. This eliminates syntax errors, makes the query semantics more transparent, and offers new ways to collaborate, share, and optimize search strategies and best practices.

Welcome to ResearchRabbit from ResearchRabbit on Vimeo .

The following AI tools can assist you in step 2 of the process of generating your design:

AI: Consensus could be used to assist users in the identification of relevant topics that have been published in peer-reviewed articles. Consensus is an AI-powered search engine designed to take in research questions, find relevant insights within research papers, and synthesize the results using large language models. It is not a chatbot. Consensus only searches through peer-reviewed scientific research articles to find the most credible insights to your queries.

AI: Carrot2 could be used to identify potential research topics. Carrot2  organizes your search results into topics. With an instant overview of what’s available, you will quickly find what you’re looking for.

The following AI tools can assist you in step 1 of the process of generating your design:

You could use Google Bard , Perplexity , or ChatGPT , to ask for the differences between the key wordlviews that a researcher can bring to a given study.

For instance, we could use the following prompt:   What are the defining characteristics of the main worldviews or paradigmatic positioning (positivistic worldviews, post-positivistic worldview; constructivistic worldview; transformative worldview, and; pragmatic worldview) a researcher can bring to a given study?

The following AI tools can assist you in step 6 of the process of generating your design:

We could use Google Bard to develop a draft of a data collection protocol for a given study.

For instance, we could use the following prompt: Generate an interview protocol for students involved in a qualitative case study regarding the long-term impact of competency-based assessment on secondary education students in a secondary school in Marietta (Georgia).

You can use the following AI tools to assist you in the process of generating your design:

Step 1: Paradigmatic View of the Researcher 

AI: You could use Google Bard , Perplexity , or ChatGPT , to ask for the differences between the key wordlviews that a researcher can bring to a given study.  

Step 2: Topics & Goals of the Study

AI: Google Bard could be used to help users of Hopscotch understand the differences between research traditions for a certain topic.  

AI: Consensus could be used to identify research questions that have been used in previously published studies. Consensus is an AI-powered search engine designed to take in research questions, find relevant insights within research papers, and synthesize the results using large language models. It is not a chatbot. Consensus only searches through peer-reviewed scientific research articles to find the most credible insights to your queries.

AI: We could use Google Bard to develop a draft of a data collection protocol for a given study.

AI: We could use the AI module of Atlas.ti to analyze qualitative data

AI: Google Bard could be used to identify potential strategies we could implement as researchers to ensure the trustworthiness/validity of a given study.

AI: Google Bard   could be used to identify potential ethical principles a researcher could define to ethically conduct a given study.

Consensus uses AI to find answers in research papers. You can search for previous research in your field of study that might be helpful to better support the relevance of your research topic and the need to conduct the study that you are proposing. The best way to search is to ask a question.

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

All-in-one Literature Review Software

Start your free trial.

Free MAXQDA trial for Windows and Mac

Your trial will end automatically after 14 days and will not renew. There is no need for cancelation.

MAXQDA The All-in-one Literature Review Software

MAXQDA is the best choice for a comprehensive literature review. It works with a wide range of data types and offers powerful tools for literature review, such as reference management, qualitative, vocabulary, text analysis tools, and more.

Document viewer

Your analysis.

As your all-in-one literature review software, MAXQDA can be used to manage your entire research project. Easily import data from texts, interviews, focus groups, PDFs, web pages, spreadsheets, articles, e-books, and even social media data. Connect the reference management system of your choice with MAXQDA to easily import bibliographic data. Organize your data in groups, link relevant quotes to each other, keep track of your literature summaries, and share and compare work with your team members. Your project file stays flexible and you can expand and refine your category system as you go to suit your research.

Developed by and for researchers – since 1989

Having used several qualitative data analysis software programs, there is no doubt in my mind that MAXQDA has advantages over all the others. In addition to its remarkable analytical features for harnessing data, MAXQDA’s stellar customer service, online tutorials, and global learning community make it a user friendly and top-notch product.

Sally S. Cohen – NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing

Literature Review is Faster and Smarter with MAXQDA

Easily import your literature review data

With a literature review software like MAXQDA, you can easily import bibliographic data from reference management programs for your literature review. MAXQDA can work with all reference management programs that can export their databases in RIS-format which is a standard format for bibliographic information. Like MAXQDA, these reference managers use project files, containing all collected bibliographic information, such as author, title, links to websites, keywords, abstracts, and other information. In addition, you can easily import the corresponding full texts. Upon import, all documents will be automatically pre-coded to facilitate your literature review at a later stage.

Capture your ideas while analyzing your literature

Great ideas will often occur to you while you’re doing your literature review. Using MAXQDA as your literature review software, you can create memos to store your ideas, such as research questions and objectives, or you can use memos for paraphrasing passages into your own words. By attaching memos like post-it notes to text passages, texts, document groups, images, audio/video clips, and of course codes, you can easily retrieve them at a later stage. Particularly useful for literature reviews are free memos written during the course of work from which passages can be copied and inserted into the final text.

Find concepts important to your generated literature review

When generating a literature review you might need to analyze a large amount of text. Luckily MAXQDA as the #1 literature review software offers Text Search tools that allow you to explore your documents without reading or coding them first. Automatically search for keywords (or dictionaries of keywords), such as important concepts for your literature review, and automatically code them with just a few clicks. Document variables that were automatically created during the import of your bibliographic information can be used for searching and retrieving certain text segments. MAXQDA’s powerful Coding Query allows you to analyze the combination of activated codes in different ways.

Aggregate your literature review

When conducting a literature review you can easily get lost. But with MAXQDA as your literature review software, you will never lose track of the bigger picture. Among other tools, MAXQDA’s overview and summary tables are especially useful for aggregating your literature review results. MAXQDA offers overview tables for almost everything, codes, memos, coded segments, links, and so on. With MAXQDA literature review tools you can create compressed summaries of sources that can be effectively compared and represented, and with just one click you can easily export your overview and summary tables and integrate them into your literature review report.

Powerful and easy-to-use literature review tools

Quantitative aspects can also be relevant when conducting a literature review analysis. Using MAXQDA as your literature review software enables you to employ a vast range of procedures for the quantitative evaluation of your material. You can sort sources according to document variables, compare amounts with frequency tables and charts, and much more. Make sure you don’t miss the word frequency tools of MAXQDA’s add-on module for quantitative content analysis. Included are tools for visual text exploration, content analysis, vocabulary analysis, dictionary-based analysis, and more that facilitate the quantitative analysis of terms and their semantic contexts.

Visualize your literature review

As an all-in-one literature review software, MAXQDA offers a variety of visual tools that are tailor-made for qualitative research and literature reviews. Create stunning visualizations to analyze your material. Of course, you can export your visualizations in various formats to enrich your literature review analysis report. Work with word clouds to explore the central themes of a text and key terms that are used, create charts to easily compare the occurrences of concepts and important keywords, or make use of the graphical representation possibilities of MAXMaps, which in particular permit the creation of concept maps. Thanks to the interactive connection between your visualizations with your MAXQDA data, you’ll never lose sight of the big picture.

AI Assist: literature review software meets AI

AI Assist – your virtual research assistant – supports your literature review with various tools. AI Assist simplifies your work by automatically analyzing and summarizing elements of your research project and by generating suggestions for subcodes. No matter which AI tool you use – you can customize your results to suit your needs.

Free tutorials and guides on literature review

MAXQDA offers a variety of free learning resources for literature review, making it easy for both beginners and advanced users to learn how to use the software. From free video tutorials and webinars to step-by-step guides and sample projects, these resources provide a wealth of information to help you understand the features and functionality of MAXQDA for literature review. For beginners, the software’s user-friendly interface and comprehensive help center make it easy to get started with your data analysis, while advanced users will appreciate the detailed guides and tutorials that cover more complex features and techniques. Whether you’re just starting out or are an experienced researcher, MAXQDA’s free learning resources will help you get the most out of your literature review.

Free MAXQDA Trial for Windows and Mac

Get your maxqda license, compare the features of maxqda and maxqda analytics pro, faq: literature review software.

Literature review software is a tool designed to help researchers efficiently manage and analyze the existing body of literature relevant to their research topic. MAXQDA, a versatile qualitative data analysis tool, can be instrumental in this process.

Literature review software, like MAXQDA, typically includes features such as data import and organization, coding and categorization, advanced search capabilities, data visualization tools, and collaboration features. These features facilitate the systematic review and analysis of relevant literature.

Literature review software, including MAXQDA, can assist in qualitative data interpretation by enabling researchers to organize, code, and categorize relevant literature. This organized data can then be analyzed to identify trends, patterns, and themes, helping researchers draw meaningful insights from the literature they’ve reviewed.

Yes, literature review software like MAXQDA is suitable for researchers of all levels of experience. It offers user-friendly interfaces and extensive support resources, making it accessible to beginners while providing advanced features that cater to the needs of experienced researchers.

Getting started with literature review software, such as MAXQDA, typically involves downloading and installing the software, importing your relevant literature, and exploring the available features. Many software providers offer tutorials and documentation to help users get started quickly.

For students, MAXQDA can be an excellent literature review software choice. Its user-friendly interface, comprehensive feature set, and educational discounts make it a valuable tool for students conducting literature reviews as part of their academic research.

MAXQDA is available for both Windows and Mac users, making it a suitable choice for Mac users looking for literature review software. It offers a consistent and feature-rich experience on Mac operating systems.

When it comes to literature review software, MAXQDA is widely regarded as one of the best choices. Its robust feature set, user-friendly interface, and versatility make it a top pick for researchers conducting literature reviews.

Yes, literature reviews can be conducted without software. However, using literature review software like MAXQDA can significantly streamline and enhance the process by providing tools for efficient data management, analysis, and visualization.

Systematic Literature Reviews Reinvented

Literature Review by ReadCube introduces a new end-to-end solution for teams tasked with systematically monitoring and analyzing published literature related to your company’s products and discoveries.

Let's discover if ReadCube's Literature Review is the ideal choice for your business.

Next steps: sync an email add-on, schedule a personalized demo to learn more..

Rising Regulatory Requirements & Growing Literature Volume

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) play a crucial role in assessing therapeutic interventions, but historically have demanded significant investments of time and resources to conduct each review. Most traditional workflows involve coordinating multiple systems in a predominantly manual process.

The era of a thousand clicks is over.

Literature Review by ReadCube is the all-in-one solution that brings each review step together into a single platform, saving your team critical minutes and minimizing the opportunity for error. Not only can it handle the traditional requirements of a regulatory SLR process today, the configurable AI capabilities within ReadCube provide a future-proof platform ready to support organizations in navigating the growing volume of information and increasingly stringent regulatory demands.

Build custom review workflows

• Implement multi-level screening for an in-depth literature review and screening.
• Streamline the review process with your predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Easily identify, manage, and review any conflicts in data entries when working with multiple reviewers, ensuring alignment and consistency.
• Seamlessly integrate data from past reviews, ensuring continuity and time-saving efficiency.

Depending on your department, industry, and goals, literature reviews vary greatly. ReadCube’s flexible and customizable Literature Review makes it simple for you to design the review that makes the most sense for your team.

Ask the right questions

• Design and manage systematic review forms and questions with ease
• Create subforms, select specific fields, implement conditional hidden fields, and manage shared fields
• Build advanced, calculated fields for enhanced accuracy in data assessment

Design the literature review workflow that actually works for your team with advanced and flexible form builder options.

Share your findings

• Utilize PRISMA for structured reporting and visualization, providing detailed flow diagrams in editable formats.
• Customize exports for reporting - including citation metadata, form data, and custom metadata fields.
• Maintain a detailed audit log of all imports, changes, and identified conflicts, ensuring transparency and traceability.

What’s the point of a review if it’s difficult to share results? Simplified and automatic reporting make it easy to share what you’ve learned - so your organization can make better evidence-based decisions.

Manage your reviews.

• Seamlessly import data using common file types such as RIS, CSV, and nBib from third party databases
• Automatically flag duplicates upon import or manually flag duplicates as part of your review
• Admin dashboards show an overarching view of all projects, with the ability to assign form templates, construct new form templates, delegate reviewers to specific projects, and manage the status of ongoing projects.
• Reviewer dashboards show only the projects and citations relevant to a reviewer’s role. Understand current project status, pinpoint potential conflicts, and seamlessly access reporting features for exclusion, inclusion, and PRISMA.

Ensure your team is on track and making progress with advanced governance features.

From startups to leading global organizations, hundreds of companies trust ReadCube’s award-winning platform to transform the way their team works with scholarly literature.

Request a personalized demo to see what Literature Review can do for your team.

Paperless Is Not a Pedagogy

Alice keeler, are you trying to do a literature review.

Rethinking Learning: The Power of Spaced Repetition Over Mass Practice

Light Up Your Maker Space: Why the Longer Ray5 Laser Engraver is a Must-Have for Schools

Imagine having a research assistant who can sift through mountains of scientific papers and present you with the key findings in a matter of seconds. That’s the power of SciSummary , an AI-powered tool designed to revolutionize the way you conduct literature reviews . This innovative platform could be the lit review game-changer you’ve been waiting for, transforming the daunting task of summarizing research into a streamlined and efficient process.

SciSummary an AI Powered Research Summary Tool

SciSummary has become an indispensable tool in my research arsenal. From the first use, I knew I would never conduct research without it again. As much as I enjoy delving into research papers, the reality is that many downloaded articles end up being less relevant than anticipated. This is where SciSummary shines. It’s a lifesaver for graduate students and teachers pursuing advanced degrees , offering a way to quickly assess the relevance of research without investing hours in reading. At just $35 per year , it’s an investment that pays for itself in saved time and streamlined research.

An Intuitive Interface

SciSummary stands out as one of the best-designed products I’ve encountered, especially in the higher education market, where clunky interfaces are all too common. SciSummary’s intuitive design allows for quick and easy onboarding, ensuring you can dive into your research without a steep learning curve.

Upload your research files and let AI organize the paper to make the literature review process easier. 

Upload Research Articles

SciSummary respects your data privacy. Your uploaded files are not used to train their models, ensuring the confidentiality and security of your research.

Not Just a ChatGPT Wrapper

While the abundance of AI tools utilizing ChatGPT can be enticing, the question of value often arises. Are these tools worth the subscription fees when ChatGPT itself offers vast versatility? SciSummary, however, distinguishes itself from the crowd. It’s not merely a ChatGPT wrapper but a comprehensive research tool that goes beyond simple summarization. By organizing research, analyzing charts in context, and offering features specifically tailored for literature reviews, SciSummary proves its worth as a valuable investment for researchers and students alike.

As a paid ChatGPT subscriber with experience summarizing research papers through its interface, and someone fairly proficient in prompt engineering, I can confidently say that SciSummary is a significant step up. Even with my expertise, SciSummary offers a level of efficiency and comprehensiveness in research summarization that surpasses my expectations.

Recent Teacher Tech Blog Posts

AI is NOT Magic – The Need for Expertise

Add Google Sites to Your EdTech Toolbox

How to Convert Markdown in Google Docs

Array of Sunshine for Your Google Sheets

Stop clicking, start Apps Scripting

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

© 2024 All Rights Reserved.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/review-literature-voter-verification-and-ballot-review

A Review of the Literature on Voter Verification and Ballot Review

Download paper, additional citation formats.

• Google Scholar

If you have any questions about this publication or are having problems accessing it, please contact [email protected] .

• Site Navigation
• View all Treatments
• Single-Tablet Regimens

• Long-Acting Injectable Regimens
• Injectable cabotegravir and Rilpivirine Cabenuva
• Capsid Inhibitors
• Lenacapavir Sunlenca
• Entry Inhibitors

Integrase Inhibitors (INSTI)

• Cabotegravir Apretude

Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTI)

Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NNRTI)

Protease Inhibitors (PI)

• Pharmacokinetic Enhancers

• View all Course Modules

Self-Study Module 3rd Edition CNE/CME Available

• Screening and Diagnosis: Self-Study CNE/CME
• Epidemiology of HIV
• HIV Screening Recommendations
• HIV Diagnostic Testing
• Acute and Recent HIV Infection
• Linkage to HIV Care
• Certificate Requirements CNE/CME

Quick Reference 3rd Edition

• Screening and Diagnosis: Overview
• Basic HIV Primary Care: Self-Study CNE/CME
• Initial Evaluation
• Oral Manifestations
• Cutaneous Manifestations
• Immunizations in Adults
• Primary Care Management
• Screening for Mental Health Conditions
• Substance Use Disorders
• Retention in HIV Care
• Basic HIV Primary Care: Overview
• Antiretroviral Therapy: Self-Study CNE/CME
• Antiretroviral Medications and Initial Therapy
• Adverse Effects of Antiretroviral Medications
• Drug Interactions with Antiretroviral Medications
• Switching or Simplifying Antiretroviral Therapy
• Evaluation and Management of Virologic Failure
• Antiretroviral Therapy: Overview
• Co-Occurring Conditions: Self-Study CNE/CME
• Latent Tuberculosis Infection
• Opportunistic Infections: Prevention
• Opportunistic Infections: Treatment
• Sexually Transmitted Infections
• Hepatitis B Coinfection
• Hepatitis C Coinfection
• Co-Occurring Conditions: Overview
• Prevention of HIV: Self-Study CNE/CME
• Preventing Perinatal HIV Transmission
• Preventing HIV Transmission in Persons with HIV
• Occupational Postexposure Prophylaxis
• Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis
• HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)
• Prevention of HIV: Overview
• Key Populations: Self-Study CNE/CME
• HIV in Infants and Children
• HIV in Adolescents and Young Adults
• HIV in Women
• HIV in Older Adults
• HIV and Corrections
• HIV in Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations
• HIV in Sexual and Gender Minority Populations
• HIV-2 Infection
• Key Populations: Overview
• Question Bank
• HIV Podcast
• Mini- Lectures
• Anxiety: GAD-2 Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD-2)
• Anxiety: GAD-7 Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7)
• Dementia: IHDS International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS)
• Depression: PHQ-2 Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2)
• Depression: PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)
• PTSD: PC-PTSD-5 Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5)
• Alcohol: AUDIT-C Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C)
• Alcohol: CAGE CAGE Alcohol Questionnaire
• CAGE-AID CAGE-AID Questionnaire
• Drug Use: TICS Two-Item Conjoint Screen (TICS) for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems
• Opioid: Risk Tool Opioid Risk Tool (ORT)
• APRI Calculator AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI) Calculator
• BMI Calculator Body Mass Index (BMI) Calculator
• CrCl Calculator Creatinine Clearance (CrCl) Calculator
• CTP Calculator Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) Calculator
• FIB-4 Calculator Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) Calculator
• FEPO4 Calculator Fractional Excretion of Phosphate (FEPO4) Calculator
• GFR Calculator Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) Estimate by MDRD 4-Variable Equation
• Symptom Guides
• Search Search for Use this Search to quickly find items or navigate the site.

The SLIM LIVER Study: Use of Semaglutide for Persons with HIV

• CVD and HIV

• spotify-podcast-badge-wht-grn-165x40 Created with Sketch.

Read along with the audio or jump to a particular chapter.

introduction [00:00] Introduction

Hello everyone. I'm Dr. Brian Wood from the University of Washington in Seattle. Welcome to the National HIV Curriculum podcast. This podcast is intended for health care professionals who are interested in learning more about the diagnosis, management, and prevention of HIV. 

In today’s episode, I am going to review a recent publication on the use of a GLP-1 receptor agonist drug called semaglutide for people with HIV (PWH) who have clinical evidence of MASLD, a term that stands for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease which we will talk about. This is one of the first publications of a clinical trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for people with HIV. I think the findings have important implications for clinical practice, and I’m excited to review this for you. 

The full title of the publication is “The effect of open-label semaglutide on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in people with HIV.” The paper was published by Dr. Jordan Lake and colleagues as a brief research report in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It first came out online in April 2024 and in print in June 2024. With permission from the journal, we are going to include copies of the tables as part of the podcast transcript, so if you are in a place where you can look at the podcast transcript or look at the actual paper while you listen, you will be able to see the full tables of results If not, I will summarize the results for you.

glp-1-basics [1:40] GLP-1 Basics

Now, this is the first literature review in our National HIV Curriculum Podcast and before we dive into details of the study, I’d like to offer some background and definitions.

First, I’m sure many listeners are familiar with the GLP-1 family of medications, but let’s review some basics so that we’re all on the same page. The GLP-1 receptor agonist (or GLP-1 RA) drugs, also called GLP-1 analogs, have been in the press a lot lately. These drugs are synthetic compounds that mimic a natural hormone called GLP-1 (or glucagon-like peptide 1). That hormone is released by our intestines after eating after we eat and that hormone has a number of effects. It stimulates pancreatic beta cells to release insulin, while also suppresses the release of glucagon from pancreatic alpha cells; the net effect is the lowering of blood sugars, but there are a number of other effects as well. The GLP-1 hormone decreases pancreatic beta cell apoptosis, delays gastric emptying, decreases glucose production by the liver, increases glucose uptake by muscles, and also reduces feelings of hunger through actions by the hypothalamus. There is a related drug that combines a GLP-1 receptor agonist with a GIP analog; GIP stands for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. GIP is a hormone that has similar effects as GLP-1.

So, all of the drugs in this family have been found to have potential benefits for people who use them regularly. They’ve been found in studies to induce weight loss, improved A1C, improve blood pressure and cholesterol levels, as well as improve cardiac function and reduce risk of major cardiac adverse effects. There’s also been data showing prevention of progression of diabetic nephropathy, and there’s been a lot written in the literature and the press about potential other benefits as well. There are certainly downsides to these drugs. There’s absolutely concerns, potential adverse effects, and, I would say, a lot of unanswered questions, and I will come back to some of these issues and concerns later, but clearly many people can benefit from these meds. Certainly, many people are interested in the meds. I get a lot of questions about them in my clinical practice. There have been supply shortages around the world. They’ve been in the news a lot, so I do think it’s worthwhile to have an awareness of these medications. I think a lot of the unanswered questions people are exploring through research and people are figuring out to optimize them in their clinical practice and specifically I think it’s important that we build data on efficacy and safety for our patients who have HIV.

Now, I won’t go into a lot of detail about the specific GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs or the related meds. I think it’s important to know that there are subcutaneous and oral options, as well as weekly or daily dosing options, all approved by the FDA. I’m sure you have experience in your clinic medical practice helping people choose which is right for them and helping get insurance approval. I’m sure many of you know how challenging that can be. But, again, I think it’s important to build our understanding of these medications, including both the efficacy and the safety.

study-terminology [5:32] Study Terminology

Let me next just give three definitions that I think will help when interpreting the specific study I’m reviewing today.

• First, MASLD, as I mentioned, is an important term defined as steatosis of the liver plus metabolic syndrome. It’s the new nomenclature for what was previously called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. I just want to say I agree with the new naming. I think it’s less stigmatizing. I think it’s also a more accurate description of the overall disease process and some of the corollary risks.
• In the paper, if you review it, you’ll see the abbreviation SLD, which stands for steatotic liver disease. That’s an overarching term for a buildup of excess fat content in the liver, which can be caused by either metabolic dysfunction, alcohol use or both. 
• And the authors of this publication also use the abbreviation IHTG. I’ll admit I wasn’t very familiar with that before reading this study but that stands for intra-hepatic triglyceride content. It’s a way to measure the fat content in the liver. To measure it, the investigators used a specialized MRI protocol termed MRI-PDFF for magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction. I won’t go into details about that type of MRI. Honestly, I couldn’t even if I tried, but I just want you to be familiar with some of the terminology, and I will be using some of these abbreviations.

study-rationale [07:12] Study Rationale

Now, let’s review some of the details of this specific study. This trial was called ACTG5391 or the SLIM LIVER trial. It focused on the effects of semaglutide, or semaglutide if you prefer, primarily on liver health but also on other outcomes for people with HIV. The authors provide the following basis for the study: First, MASLD is a growing epidemic and is highly prevalent in individuals with HIV. Second, steatotic liver disease is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular adverse events and people with HIV have overall higher cardiovascular disease risk than people without HIV, so addressing steatotic liver disease both for liver health and as a risk factors for major cardiovascular adverse events is really critical for care for people with HIV.   

Now, semaglutide is a GLP-1 receptor agonist drug approved by the US FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for diabetes, also for weight loss, also now for cardiovascular disease prevention in people with cardiovascular disease and obesity. It’s been shown to improve cardiovascular disease risk and steatotic liver disease for people without HIV who have diabetes, and there’s definitely a lot of interest and relevance to the field of HIV medicine.

study-design [08:50] Study Design

Thinking of the objectives of this specific trial, the authors describe it as a pilot study with the goal of assessing the effects of semaglutide on intrahepatic triglyceride level in people with HIV with clinical evidence of MASLD. Their hypothesis was that semaglutide would reduce IHTG and improve cardiometabolic parameters.

• Their study design was a phase 2b, single-group, open-label trial of semaglutide for people with HIV who had documented central adiposity, insulin resistance, or prediabetes, plus evidence of steatotic liver disease not caused by alcohol use. I’ll give some more detail about the inclusion criteria and how they defined some of those things shortly.
• The primary endpoint of the trial was 24-week change in IHTG as quantified by that MRI protocol I mentioned.
• The study enrolled in the U.S. and Brazil. Eligible participants were age 18 or older. All had suppressed HIV RNA levels on ART [antiretroviral therapy]. And all had evidence of liver steatosis; their criteria for that was at least 5% IHTG by a baseline MRI. Participants reported no significant alcohol consumption, and as I mentioned, all had evidence of metabolic syndrome in addition to evidence of liver steatosis. Specifically, all had elevated waist circumference and laboratory evidence of insulin resistance or prediabetes.
• Based on power calculations, investigators calculated a need for 50 participants in order to achieve at least 90% power to detect an absolute change of IHTG of 5% or more. When we get into results, I’ll note the results primarily come from a per-protocol analysis, meaning they included participants who received semaglutide within 4 weeks of their week-24 MRI.
• The study intervention, again with semaglutide, but I want to note the way they did this. It was self-administration each week by subcutaneous injection, titrating up to a dose of 1 mg each week. I note the dose because 1 mg weekly is the dose approved by the FDA for diabetes, and it’s lower than the dose approved and sometimes recommended or used for weight loss, which is 2.4 mg weekly. My understanding is that during development of the protocol for this trial, that weight-loss dose had not yet been approved and that’s what led to the choice of 1 mg weekly. Participants in the trial administered the semaglutide for up to 24 weeks.

baseline-characteristics [12:06] Baseline Characteristics

Turning to findings and results. If you are reviewing the publication, I refer you to Table 1 to see the baseline characteristics of the participants. I’ll just summarize what I think is important:   

• There were 51 enrolled participants overall, 49 included in the per-protocol analysis. The median age was 52, over half were cisgender men, just over one-third were cisgender women, and there were a small number of transgender women as well. 
•  Participants were racially and ethnically diverse.
• The median BMI at baseline was 35, which qualifies as class 3 obesity; the median waist circumference was elevated at baseline.
• And, as I mentioned, all participants had well-controlled HIV. The median CD4 count was about 700 and 100% had baseline HIV RNA levels below 50 copies. At enrollment, most participants were taking an integrase inhibitor-anchored regimen, a smaller number were taking an NNRTI as the anchor, and very few taking a protease inhibitor.

study-outcomes [13:25] Study Outcomes

If you have the paper in front of you, Table 2 shows the changes in various outcomes. Again, this is comparing baseline to 24 weeks by the per-protocol analysis as I described. Now, the primary result is significant. Investigators did observe a significant reduction in intrahepatic triglyceride content over the 24 weeks of semaglutide use. There are a couple of other really important findings that are emphasized in the paper: 

• Twenty-nine percent of participants actually experienced complete resolution of MASLD. I think that’s a very impressive finding. 
• Plus, 58% had a relative reduction in the IHTG content of at least 30%, so a very dramatic reduction in IHTG level. And the investigators emphasized that a reduction of 30% is important because that’s the threshold when histological improvement is generally seen on a liver biopsy. 

So, overall, there were significant improvements in intrahepatic triglyceride content, in steatotic liver disease, and in clinical criteria for MASLD.

Now, some corollary finds: Did weight decrease? Yes. For most participants, weight did decrease, consistent with other studies of GLP1-receptor agonists in people with or without HIV. The mean weight, mean BMI, and mean waist circumference did decrease for most participants. The mean weight loss was around 17 lbs. at 24 weeks. Participants also experienced improvements in other markers of cardiometabolic health. There were improvements in fasting glucose, A1C, lipids, as well as ALT levels. There also were improvements in anthropometric measurements, glucose regulation markers, triglyceride concentrations, and other cardiometabolic health measurements. 

Now, I’ve heard the investigators of this trial comment in other forums and other settings in this specific publication that weight loss and improvements in liver fat content were tightly correlated. Participants who responded to semaglutide and experienced weight loss were the participants who were most likely to experience improvements in liver fat content and the other markers of cardiometabolic health. A small proportion of participants did not respond to semaglutide, and that’s been found in persons without HIV as well.

Overall, the drug was very well tolerated. Most adverse events were grade 1 GI [gastrointestinal] symptoms, which is what we would expect in people without HIV. There were no specific tolerability or toxicity concerns related to the HIV itself or the ART.

study-discussion [16:30] Study Discussion

So, turning to the discussion and some conclusions. Overall, this pilot study demonstrated that semaglutide is highly effective as therapy for MASLD for people with HIV. The drug induced clinically significant improvements in intrahepatic triglyceride content and in traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors. So I think an important conclusion can be made that semaglutide has the potential to reduce cardiovascular disease risk for people with HIV and also to prevent progression of liver disease. Again, there were no specific HIV-related safety concerns and that’s important. 

In the discussion portion of the paper, the investigators note that the findings are similar to a different study of people without HIV that used a higher dose of semaglutide (approximately 2.8 mg weekly for 72 weeks), so they note that a implication of the current study is individuals do not need so high a dose and do not need such a long duration in order to see the benefits to steatosis in the liver or to cardiovascular disease risk. Now, the authors of the study do acknowledge several limitations, including a small sample size and the absence of a control group.

take-home-questions [17:57] Take-Home and Questions

So, what are the biggest take-home messages from this trial and what are the outstanding questions? I think a take-home message is that semaglutide and related drugs certainly can benefit people with HIV. The benefits can be expanded to include steatotic liver disease and to include MASLD; clearly, this drug led to very significant improvements in these parameters. I think the outstanding question is, given the insurance barriers, given drug shortages, given challenges of getting these meds to people who need them, how should we prioritize them in our clinical practice? And I think that that is an outstanding question that is absolutely open to debate. But, overall, I think it’s important to know from this trial that patients lost weight. They experienced benefit to liver health and cardiovascular health even with lower than approved standard weight-loss doses. 

So, what this reinforces to me is that for patients for whom we do prescribe these meds, we can start at low doses, titrate up slowly, and help them to find the right dose which balances benefits along with tolerability and minimizing side effects. For many that optimal dose is going to be lower than the highest possible or even recommended dose.

There are certainly a lot of remaining questions about these drugs, both for people with HIV and without HIV. Questions like, if a patient experiences a plateau in the benefits after starting the drug, how can we help to optimize that? How long should the drugs be continued and what happens after they stop? How much of the benefits revert?  And also, what is the best way to address side effects, improve tolerability, and help people be successful with these meds? I would say that most of these questions and concerns are generalizable and relevant to people with HIV and without HIV.

In terms of concerns specific to people with HIV, I encourage you to look at an important study that was presented during the ID Week 2023 Conference by Dr. Grace McComsey and colleagues. The presentation was titled “ Effects of Semaglutide on Adipose Tissue in HIV-Associated Lipohypertrophy .” A link is available in this episode’s transcript. Alot of benefits were found and one specific concern that came up was potential loss of subcutaneous adipose tissue and the potential impact on individuals who are already struggling with lipoatrophy. So that’s one concern that might be more specific to people who have HIV.

Another general concern about these agents is that while they lead to loss of fat and the benefits we talked about, they may also lead to loss of muscle and decreases in physical function. I won’t go into a lot of detail; I will just comment that there was an abstract presented at CROI [Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections] that I thought was very important. This abstract was titled “ Effects of semaglutide on muscle structure and function in the SLIM LIVER study ” and the abstract was presented by Grace Ditzenberger. A link is available in this episode’s transcript.  It also was an analysis of participants in the SLIM LIVER trial and in that sub analysis, investigators looked at changes to muscle content, muscle volume, and also physical function, and I would encourage you to look at that one as well. Overall, I would say the findings were reassuring, but I do think we need more studies. We need a better understanding of the risks over time and also how best to prevent muscle and physical function loss in patients for whom we’re prescribing these drugs. I know there are ongoing studies that look at use of the GLP-1 RA drugs combined with physical exercise. I’m eager to see that data.

When I counsel my patients who are starting these meds, I always include encouragement for ongoing healthy eating, engagement with a nutritionist, ongoing cardiovascular exercise, and strength training exercise, and I talk about the potential for loss of muscle mass. So, I think that’s something we need to better understand and keep in mind when we are discussing these meds or patients. 

I will just end by noting that I’m also looking forward to future conversations about these medications here on the National HIV Curriculum Podcast. I’m planning a conversation with an expert in the field to get more into details of the research around use of these meds for people with HIV and also talk more about clinical practice and experience. So stay tuned for future episodes that will explore the pros and cons of these meds for people with HIV in more detail.  

But for now, thank you very much for listening to the National HIV Curriculum Podcast and stay tuned for future episodes. 

credits [23:18] Credits

Transcripts and references for this podcast can be found on our website, the National HIV Curriculum at www.hiv.uw.edu . The production of this National HIV Curriculum podcast was supported by Grant U10HA32104 from the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the University of Washington IDEA program and do not necessarily represent the official views of HRSA or HHS.

• Integrase Inhibitors
• Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
• Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
• Protease Inhibitors
• Screening and Diagnosis
• Basic HIV Primary Care
• Antiretroviral Therapy
• Co-Occurring Conditions
• Prevention of HIV
• Key Populations
• Clinical Calculators
• Mental Health Screening
• Substance Use Screening

Since you've received 80% or better on this quiz, you may claim continuing education credit.

You seem to have a popup blocker enabled. If you want to skip this dialog please Always allow popup windows for the online course .

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Collections
• Supplements
• InSight Papers
• BSR Registers Papers
• Virtual Roundtables
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Rheumatology
• About the British Society for Rheumatology
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, supplementary material, data availability, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Philip J Mease, Dafna D Gladman, Joseph F Merola, Peter Nash, Stacy Grieve, Victor Laliman-Khara, Damon Willems, Vanessa Taieb, Adam R Prickett, Laura C Coates, Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis, Rheumatology , Volume 63, Issue 7, July 2024, Pages 1779–1789, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kead705

• Permissions Icon Permissions

To understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) for PsA using network meta-analysis (NMA).

A systematic literature review (most recent update conducted on 1 January 2023) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of b/tsDMARDs in PsA. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for efficacy outcomes at Weeks 12–24 for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients. Safety at Weeks 12–24 was analysed in a mixed population. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change with the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated for the best-fitting models, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine relative rank.

The NMA included 41 RCTs for 22 b/tsDMARDs. For minimal disease activity (MDA), bimekizumab ranked 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th, 5th and 3rd for ACR response ACR20/50/70, respectively. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st, 2nd and 1st for ACR20/50/70, respectively. For Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100, bimekizumab ranked 2nd and 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, respectively, and 1st and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients, respectively. Bimekizumab was comparable to b/tsDMARDs for serious adverse events.

Bimekizumab ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDs for efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes, and showed comparable safety, suggesting it may be a beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.

For joint efficacy, bimekizumab ranked highly among approved biologic/targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs).

Bimekizumab provides better skin efficacy (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, PASI100 and PASI90) than many other available treatments in PsA.

For minimal disease activity, bimekizumab ranked highest of all available b/tsDMARDs in b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor–experienced patients.

PsA is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory disease in which patients experience a high burden of illness [ 1–3 ]. PsA has multiple articular and extra-articular disease manifestations including peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin psoriasis (PSO) and psoriatic nail disease [ 4 , 5 ]. Patients with PsA can also suffer from related inflammatory conditions, uveitis and IBD [ 4 , 5 ]. Approximately one fifth of all PSO patients, increasing to one quarter of patients with moderate to severe PSO, will develop PsA over time [ 6 , 7 ].

The goal of treatment is to control inflammation and prevent structural damage to minimize disease burden, normalize function and social participation, and maximize the quality of life of patients [ 1 , 4 ]. As PsA is a heterogeneous disease, the choice of treatment is guided by individual patient characteristics, efficacy against the broad spectrum of skin and joint symptoms, and varying contraindications to treatments [ 1 , 4 ]. There are a number of current treatments classed as conventional DMARDs such as MTX, SSZ, LEF; biologic (b) DMARDs such as TNF inhibitors (TNFi), IL inhibitors and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4)-immunoglobulin; and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs which include phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors [ 1 , 8 ].

Despite the number of available treatment options, the majority of patients with PsA report that they do not achieve remission and additional therapeutic options are needed [ 9 , 10 ]. Thus, the treatment landscape for PsA continues to evolve and treatment decisions increase in complexity, especially as direct comparative data are limited [ 2 ].

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, which is approved for the treatment of adults with active PsA in Europe [ 11 , 12 ]. Both IL-17A and IL-17F are pro-inflammatory cytokines implicated in PsA [ 11 , 13 ]. IL-17F is structurally similar to IL-17A and expressed by the same immune cells; however, the mechanisms that regulate expression and kinetics differ [ 13 , 14 ]. IL-17A and IL-17F are expressed as homodimers and as IL-17A–IL-17F heterodimers that bind to and signal via the same IL-17 receptor A/C complex [ 13 , 15 ].

In vitro studies have demonstrated that the dual inhibition of both IL-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab was more effective at suppressing PsA inflammatory genes and T cell and neutrophil migration, and periosteal new bone formation, than blocking IL-17A alone [ 11 , 14 , 16 , 17 ]. Furthermore, IL-17A and IL-17F protein levels are elevated in psoriatic lesions and the superiority of bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) over the IL-17A inhibitor, secukinumab, in complete clearance of psoriatic skin was demonstrated in a head-to-head trial in PSO [ 16 , 18 ]. Collectively, this evidence suggests that neutralizing both IL-17F and IL-17A may provide more potent abrogation of IL-17-mediated inflammation than IL-17A alone.

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W demonstrated significant improvements in efficacy outcomes compared with placebo, and an acceptable safety profile in adults with PsA in the phase 3 RCTs BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) (b/tsDMARD-naïve patients) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581) (TNFi inadequate responders) [ 19 , 20 ].

The objective of this study was to establish the comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W vs other available PsA treatments, using network meta-analysis (NMA).

Search strategy

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines [ 21 ] and adhered to the principles outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare, and Methods for the Development of National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Public Health Guidance [ 22–24 ]. The SLR of English-language publications was originally conducted on 3 December 2015, with updates on 7 January 2020, 2 May 2022 and 1 January 2023 in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE ® ), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase ® ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for literature published from January 1991 onward using the Ovid platform. Additionally, bibliographies of SLRs and meta-analyses identified through database searches were reviewed to ensure any publications not identified in the initial search were included in this SLR. Key clinical conference proceedings not indexed in Ovid (from October 2019 to current) and ClinicalTrials.gov were also manually searched. The search strategy is presented in Supplementary Table S1 (available at Rheumatology online).

Study inclusion

Identified records were screened independently and in duplicate by two reviewers and any discrepancies were reconciled via discussion or a third reviewer. The SLR inclusion criteria were defined by the Patient populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcome measures, and Study designs (PICOS) Statement ( Supplementary Table S2 , available at Rheumatology online). The SLR included published studies assessing approved therapies for the treatment of PsA. Collected data included study and patient population characteristics, interventions, comparators, and reported clinical and patient-reported outcomes relevant to PsA. For efficacy outcomes, pre-crossover data were extracted in studies where crossover occurred. All publications included in the analysis were evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials as described in the Cochrane Handbook [ 25 ].

Network meta-analysis methods

NMA is the quantitative assessment of relative treatment effects and associated uncertainty of two or more interventions [ 26 , 27 ]. It is used frequently in health technology assessment, guideline development and to inform treatment decision making in clinical practice [ 26 ].

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was compared with current b/tsDMARDs at regulatory-approved doses ( Table 1 ) by NMA. All comparators were selected on the basis they were relevant to clinical practice, i.e. recommended by key clinical guidelines, licensed by key regulatory bodies and/or routinely used.

NMA intervention and comparators

See Supplementary Table S4 , available at Rheumatology online for additional dosing schedules used in included studies. BID: twice daily; CTLA4-Ig: cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4-immunoglobulin; IL-17A/17Fi: IL-17A/17F inhibitor; IL-17Ai: IL-17A inhibitor; IL-12/23i: IL-12/23 inhibitor; IL-23i: IL-23 inhibitor; JAKi: Janus kinase inhibitor; NMA: network meta-analysis; PDE-4i: phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor; Q1W: once weekly; Q2W: every 2 weeks; Q4W: every 4 weeks; Q8W: every 8 weeks; Q12W: every 12 weeks; QD: once daily; TNFi: TNF inhibitor.

Two sets of primary analyses were conducted, one for a b/tsDMARD-naïve PsA population and one for a TNFi-experienced PsA population. Prior treatment with TNFis has been shown to impact the response to subsequent bDMARD treatments [ 28 ]. In addition, most trials involving b/tsDMARDs for the treatment of PsA (including bimekizumab) report separate data on both b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced subgroups, making NMA in each of these patient populations feasible.

For each population the following outcomes were analysed: American College of Rheumatology response (ACR20/50/70), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90/100), and minimal disease activity (MDA). The analysis of serious adverse events (SAE) was conducted using a mixed population (i.e. b/tsDMARD-naïve, TNFi-experienced and mixed population data all were included) as patients’ previous TNFI exposure was not anticipated to impact safety outcomes following discussions with clinicians. The NMA included studies for which data were available at week 16, if 16-week data were not available (or earlier crossover occurred), data available at weeks 12, 14 or 24 were included. Pre-crossover data were included in the analyses for efficacy outcomes to avoid intercurrent events.

Heterogeneity between studies for age, sex, ethnicity, mean time since diagnosis, concomitant MTX, NSAIDs or steroid use was assessed using Grubb’s test, also called the extreme Studentized deviate method, to identify outlier studies.

All univariate analyses involved a 10 000 run-in iteration phase and a 10 000-iteration phase for parameter estimation. All calculations were performed using the R2JAGS package to run Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) 3.2.3 and the code reported in NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU) Technical Support Document Series [ 29–33 ]. Convergence was confirmed through inspection of the ratios of Monte-Carlo error to the standard deviations of the posteriors; values >5% are strong signs of convergence issues [ 31 ]. In some cases, trials reported outcome results of zero (ACR70, PASI100, SAE) in one or more arms for which a continuity correction was applied to mitigate the issue, as without the correction most models were not convergent or provided a large posterior distribution making little clinical sense [ 31 ].

Four NMA models [fixed effects (FE) unadjusted, FE baseline risk-adjusted, random effects (RE) unadjusted and RE baseline risk-adjusted] were assessed and the best-fit models were chosen using methods described in NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2 [ 31 ]. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change (MC) with the associated 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for each treatment comparison in the evidence network for the best fitting models and presented in league tables and forest plots. In addition, the probability of bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W being better than other treatments was calculated using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to determine relative rank. Conclusions (i.e. better/worse or comparable) for bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W vs comparators were based on whether the pairwise 95% CrIs of the ORs/difference of MC include 1 (dichotomous outcomes), 0 (continuous outcomes) or not. In the case where the 95% CrI included 1 or 0, then bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W and the comparator were considered comparable. If the 95% CrI did not include 1 or 0, then bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was considered either better or worse depending on the direction of the effect.

Compliance with ethics guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Study and patient characteristics

The SLR identified 4576 records through databases and 214 records through grey literature, of which 3143 were included for abstract review. Following the exclusion of a further 1609 records, a total of 1534 records were selected for full-text review. A total of 66 primary studies from 246 records were selected for data extraction. No trial was identified as having a moderate or high risk of bias ( Supplementary Table S3 , available at Rheumatology online).

Of the 66 studies identified in the SLR, 41 studies reported outcomes at weeks 12, 16 or 24 and met the criteria for inclusion in the NMA in either a b/tsDMARD-naïve population ( n  = 20), a TNFi-experienced population ( n  = 5), a mixed population with subgroups ( n  = 13) or a mixed PsA population without subgroups reported ( n  = 3). The PRISMA diagram is presented in Fig. 1 . Included and excluded studies are presented in Supplementary Tables S4 and S5 , respectively (available at Rheumatology online).

PRISMA flow diagram. The PRISMA flow diagram for the SLR conducted to identify published studies assessing approved treatments for the treatment of PsA. cDMARD: conventional DMARD; NMA: network meta-analysis; NR: not reported; PD: pharmacodynamic; PK: pharmacokinetic; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SLR: systematic literature review

The baseline study and patient characteristics (where reported) are presented in Supplementary Table S6 (available at Rheumatology online). There were 20–483 patients included in treatment arms. The median age of patients was 48.9 years, the median percentage of males was 50.3% and a median of 92.3% of patients were Caucasian. Patients had a mean time since diagnosis of 7.6 years and a mean PASI score of 8.7. The mean (range) use of concomitant MTX, NSAIDs and steroids were 53.9% (29.1% to 84.0%), 72.4% (33.3% to 100.0%) and 16.8% (9.2% to 30.0%), respectively. Heterogeneity was generally low across studies except for the concomitant use of MTX, NSAIDs and steroids. Using an approach consistent with established NMA methods in PsA [ 34–36 ], a meta-regression model using JAGS code reported in NICE DSU Technical Support Document 3 [ 33 ] was used to account for variation in placebo responses when model-fit statistics suggested that baseline risk-adjusted models provided a better fit to the data.

NMA results

The network diagrams for ACR50 in b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients are presented in Fig. 2A and B with network diagrams for other outcomes presented in Supplementary Fig. S1 (available at Rheumatology online). The networks for ACR response were larger, in terms of both number of studies and patients included, than the networks for PASI. Similarly, the networks for b/tsDMARD-naïve patients were larger than TNFi-experienced patients across all outcomes analysed. Placebo was used as a common comparator in all networks and there were a few studies that included more than two arms (OPAL-Broaden, Select-PsA-1, SPIRIT-P1 and BE OPTIMAL) that included adalimumab as the reference arm in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients. Lastly, networks included studies where the primary outcome was evaluated at time points longer than 16 weeks (e.g. EXCEED study at 52 weeks) but as per the methods, 16-week data formed the network.

Network of evidence for ACR50. ( A ) b/tsDMARD-naïve patients. ( B ) TNFi-experienced patients. The size of the circle representing each intervention is proportional to the number of patients included in the analysis. The line width is proportional to the number of studies connecting the interventions. ABA: abatacept; ADA: adalimumab; APR: apremilast; b/tsDMARD-naïve: biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD-naïve; BKZ: bimekizumab; CZP: certolizumab pegol; ETA: etanercept; GOL: golimumab; GUS: guselkumab; IFX: infliximab; IV: intravenous; IXE: ixekizumab; PBO: placebo; Q4W: every 4 weeks; Q8W: every 8 weeks; RIS: risankizumab; SEC: secukinumab; TNFi-experienced: TNF inhibitor–experienced; TOF: tofacitinib; UPA: upadacitinib; UST: ustekinumab; w/o LD: without loading dose

The best-fit model is noted for each outcome with full model fit statistics for all outcomes presented in Supplementary Table S7 (available at Rheumatology online). Forest plots for ACR50 and PASI100 are presented in Figs 3 and 4 , with forest plots for other outcomes, along with the league tables in Supplementary Fig. S2 and Table S8 , respectively (available at Rheumatology online).

ACR50. The results for the NMA on ACR50 at week 16. ( A ) b/tsDMARD-naïve patients including forest plot and SUCRA values. FE baseline–adjusted model DIC = 469.59. ( B ) TNFi-experienced patients including forest plot and SUCRA values. RE-unadjusted model DIC = 205.33. a Week 24 data were used as week 16 data was not available. * The 95% CrI does not include 1; bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W is considered either better or worse depending on the direction of the effect. ABA: abatacept; ADA: adalimumab; APR: apremilast; b/tsDMARD-naïve: biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD-naïve; BKZ: bimekizumab; CrI: credible interval; CZP: certolizumab pegol; DIC: deviance information criterion; ETA: etanercept; FE: fixed effects; GOL: golimumab; GUS: guselkumab; IFX: infliximab; IV: intravenous; IXE: ixekizumab; NMA: network meta-analysis; PBO: placebo; Q4W: every 4 weeks; Q8W: every 8 weeks; RE: random effects; RIS: risankizumab; SEC: secukinumab; SUCRA: surface under the cumulative ranking curve; TNFi-experienced: TNF inhibitor–experienced; TOF: tofacitinib; UPA: upadacitinib; UST: ustekinumab; w/o LD: without loading dose

PASI100. The results for the NMA on PASI100 at week 16: ( A ) b/tsDMARD-naïve patients including forest plot and SUCRA values. FE baseline–adjusted model DIC = 150.27. ( B ) TNFi-experienced patients including forest plot and SUCRA values. RE-unadjusted model DIC = 81.76. a Week 24 data were used as week 16 data was not available. * The 95% CrI does not include 1; bimekizumab 160 mg 4W is considered better. ADA: adalimumab; b/tsDMARD-naïve: biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD-naïve; BKZ, bimekizumab; CrI, credible interval; CZP, certolizumab pegol; DIC, deviance information criterion; FE, fixed effects; GOL, golimumab; GUS, guselkumab; IXE, ixekizumab; NMA, network meta-analysis; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PBO, placebo; Q4W, every 4 weeks; Q8W, every 8 weeks; RE, random effects; SEC, secukinumab; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve; TNFi-experienced, TNF inhibitor–experienced; UPA, upadacitinib

Joint outcomes

For ACR50 outcomes, the best-fit models for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced were the FE baseline–adjusted model and RE-unadjusted model, respectively.

b/tsDMARD-naïve patients

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked 6th for ACR20 (SUCRA = 0.75), 5th for ACR50 (SUCRA = 0.74) ( Fig. 3A ) and 3rd for ACR70 (SUCRA = 0.80) among 21 treatments. For ACR50, bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was better than placebo, abatacept 125 mg, guselkumab 100 mg Q4W, ustekinumab 45 mg, risankizumab 150 mg, guselkumab 100 mg Q8W and ustekinumab 90 mg; worse than golimumab 2 mg i.v.; and comparable to the remaining treatments in the network ( Fig. 3A ).

TNFi-experienced patients

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked 1st among 16 treatments for ACR20 (SUCRA = 0.96), 2nd among 15 treatments for ACR50 (SUCRA = 0.84) ( Fig. 3B ) and 1st among 16 treatments for ACR70 (SUCRA = 0.83). Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was better than placebo, abatacept 125 mg, secukinumab 150 mg without loading dose, tofacitinib 5 mg and secukinumab 150 mg; and comparable to the remaining treatments in the network on ACR50 ( Fig. 3B ).

Skin outcomes

For PASI100 outcomes, the best-fit models for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced were the FE baseline–adjusted model and RE-unadjusted model, respectively.

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked 2nd among 15 treatments (SUCRA = 0.89) for PASI90 and 1st among 11 treatments (SUCRA = 0.95) for PASI100 ( Fig. 4A ). Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was better than placebo, certolizumab pegol pooled, golimumab 2 mg i.v., secukinumab 150 mg, adalimumab 40 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, secukinumab 300 mg and ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W; and comparable to the remaining treatments in the network on PASI100 ( Fig. 4A ).

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked 1st among 10 treatments (SUCRA = 0.85) for PASI90 and 2nd among 7 treatments (SUCRA = 0.79) for PASI100 ( Fig. 4B ). Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was better than placebo, ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W and upadacitinib 15 mg; and comparable to the remaining treatments in the network on PASI100 ( Fig. 4B ).

For MDA, the best-fit models for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced were the FE baseline–adjusted model and RE-unadjusted model, respectively.

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked 1st among 13 treatments (SUCRA = 0.91) and was better than placebo [OR (95% CrI) 6.31 (4.61–8.20)], guselkumab 100 mg Q4W [2.06 (1.29–3.10)], guselkumab 100 mg Q8W [1.76 (1.09–2.69)], risankizumab 150 mg [1.99 (1.40–2.76)] and adalimumab 40 mg [1.41 (1.01–1.93)]; and comparable to the remaining treatments in the network ( Supplementary Fig. S2G , available at Rheumatology online).

Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked 1st among 11 treatments (SUCRA = 0.83) and was better than placebo [12.10 (5.31–28.19)] and tofacitinib 5 mg [6.81 (2.14–21.35)]; and comparable to the remaining treatments in the network ( Supplementary Fig. S2H , available at Rheumatology online).

The network for SAEs for a mixed population included 23 treatments and the best-fit model was an RE-unadjusted model (due to study populations and time point reporting heterogeneity). Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W showed comparable safety to all treatments in the network ( Supplementary Fig. S2I , available at Rheumatology online).

The treatment landscape for PsA is complex, with numerous treatment options and limited direct comparative evidence. Bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W has recently been approved for the treatment of active PsA by the European Medicines Agency and recommended by NICE in the UK, and the published phase 3 results warrant comparison with existing therapies by NMA.

This NMA included 41 studies evaluating 22 b/tsDMARDs including the novel IL-17F and IL-17A inhibitor, bimekizumab. Overall, bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDS for efficacy in joint, skin and disease activity outcomes in PsA across both b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced populations. The safety of bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W was similar to the other b/tsDMARDs.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and EULAR provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PsA [ 1 , 2 ]. To treat peripheral arthritis symptoms in PsA, efficacy across the classes of current b/tsDMARDs are considered similar by both GRAPPA and EULAR, in part due to a lack of data comparing licensed therapies in a head-to-head trial setting [ 1 , 2 ]. EULAR recommends the use of JAK inhibitors in the case of inadequate response, intolerance or when a bDMARD is not appropriate [ 1 ]. This recommendation was made when tofacitinib was the only available JAK inhibitor, but reflects current marketing authorizations for tofacitinib and upadacitinib which indicate use in patients with an inadequate response or prior intolerance to TNFis (USA) or bDMARDs (Europe) [ 37–40 ]. This NMA suggests that bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W may have an advantage over current treatments, including IL-23 inhibitors in b/tsDMARD naïve patients, and secukinumab 150 mg and tofacitinib in TNFi-experienced patients, as evidenced by our analysis of ACR50 for which the pairwise comparisons were significantly in favour of bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W.

For the treatment of skin symptoms in PsA, IL-23, IL-12/23 and IL-17A inhibitors are currently recommended due to their greater efficacy compared with TNFis [ 1 , 4 ]. GRAPPA also suggests considering efficacy demonstrated in direct comparative studies in PSO when selecting a treatment for PsA skin symptoms [ 2 ]. In our analysis of complete skin clearance as measured by PASI100, bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W demonstrated the likelihood of significantly greater efficacy than IL-17A, JAK inhibitors and TNFis in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and IL-17A and JAK inhibitors in TNFi-experienced patients. Furthermore, the NMA results for skin clearance in PsA are in alignment with previous studies in PSO that demonstrated superiority of bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W or Q8W vs secukinumab, ustekinumab and adalimumab ( P  < 0.001) (note that the dosing of bimekizumab in PSO differs from that in PsA) [ 12 , 18 , 41 , 42 ].

There are similarities between our results and other recently published NMAs of b/tsDMARDs in PsA, although methodological heterogeneity across all NMAs makes comparisons challenging [ 34–36 , 43–45 ]. Among recent NMAs, the largest evaluated 21 treatments [ 34 ] and only four considered subgroups of b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients or those with inadequate response [ 35 , 36 , 43 , 45 ]. Furthermore, different or pooled levels of response were evaluated for ACR and PASI outcomes.

Previous NMAs also support IL-17, IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors having greater efficacy for skin symptoms than TNFis [ 35 , 36 ]. In an overall PsA population, McInnes et al. demonstrated that secukinumab 300 mg, ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W, and ustekinumab 45 mg and 90 mg were likely more efficacious than TNFis for PASI90 [ 35 ]. In another NMA by Ruyssen-Witrand et al. , results suggested that ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W had significantly greater efficacy than adalimumab, certolizumab pegol pooled, and etanercept 25 mg twice weekly/50 mg once weekly for any PASI score (50%, 75%, 90% and 100% reduction) in bDMARD-naïve patients [ 36 ].

For joint outcomes, Mease et al. compared guselkumab Q4W and Q8W with other b/tsDMARDs in a network of 21 treatments in an overall PsA population for ACR50 [ 34 ]. Both guselkumab dosing schedules were better than abatacept and apremilast, but golimumab 2 mg i.v. had a higher likelihood of ACR50 response than guselkumab Q8W [ 34 ]. Despite MDA being assessed in clinical trials for bDMARD therapies and a treatment target in PsA [ 46 ], evidence for comparative efficacy for this outcome is limited. None of the most recent NMAs before this one included an analysis of MDA [ 34–36 ]. With regard to safety outcomes, previous NMAs evaluating SAEs also resulted in either no difference between b/tsDMARDs vs placebo or other b/tsDMARDs [ 34 , 36 , 44 , 45 ].

This study has a number of strengths. To our knowledge this NMA represents the most comprehensive and in-depth comparative efficacy analysis of approved treatments in PsA to date. The evidence was derived from a recent SLR, ensuring that new RCTs and updated results from previously published RCTs were included. It is also the first NMA to include the phase 3 BE COMPLETE and BE OPTIMAL trials of bimekizumab [ 19 , 20 ]. Our NMA used robust methods and accounted for variation in placebo response through network meta-regression in accordance with NICE DSU Technical Support Documents [ 31–33 ]. As an acknowledgement of the evolution of treatment advances, separate analyses of b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced subgroups were conducted with the intent to assist healthcare decision-making in different clinical settings. In addition, a panel of clinical experts were consulted from project inception and are authors of this paper, ensuring inclusion of a comprehensive set of clinically meaningful outcomes, including the composite, treat-to-target outcome of MDA.

Despite the robust evidence base and methodology, this NMA has limitations. Indirect treatment comparisons such as this NMA are not a substitute for head-to-head trials. There was heterogeneity in the endpoints and reporting in the included studies. Fewer studies reporting PASI outcomes resulted in smaller networks compared with the network of studies evaluating ACR response criteria. Not all trials reported outcomes at the same timepoint, thereby reducing the comparability of trial results, which has been transparently addressed by noting where week 24 data were used vs week 12, 14 or 16 data. The analyses for the TNFi-experienced population were limited by potential heterogeneity, especially in the analyses where fewer studies were included in the networks, as this group could include patients who had an inadequate response to TNFi or discontinued TNFi treatment due to other reasons (e.g. lost access). Also, in the analyses for the TNFi-experienced population, very low patient numbers for some treatments resulted in less statistical power. Additionally, the data included in the analysis were derived exclusively from RCTs, for which the study populations may not reflect a typical patient population seen in real-world practice. For example, trial results may be different in patients with oligoarthritis who are not well-represented in clinical trials.

Over the years covering our SLR, we acknowledge that patient populations and the PsA treatment landscape have evolved. After a thorough review of baseline patient characteristics, no significant differences were observed across the studies included in the NMA. To further mitigate uncertainty, baseline regression was used to actively correct for changes in the placebo rate over time ensuring a consistent and fair comparison across all included treatments. In addition, our analyses were conducted in separate b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced populations that reflect the evolving PsA patient population over time. Radiographic progression was not within the purview of this NMA because the NMA focused on a shorter timeframe than the 52-week duration typically recommended by the literature for investigating radiographic progression. Furthermore, there is existing literature on this topic, as exemplified by the work of Wang et al. in 2022 [ 47 ]. Nevertheless, the comprehensive and current evidence base, examination of multiple endpoints, and consistency with previous reported NMAs lend credence to our results.

Overall, the results of this NMA demonstrated the favourable relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W vs all approved treatments for PsA. Bimekizumab ranked high in terms of efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes in both b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patient populations, and showed comparable safety to other treatments. In the evolving PsA treatment landscape, bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W is a potentially beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.

Supplementary material is available at Rheumatology online.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

This study was funded in full by UCB Pharma.

Disclosure statement : P.J.M.: has received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acelyrin, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Moonlake Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma; and speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. L.C.C.: received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; and has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. D.D.G.: consultant and/or received grant support from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. J.F.M.: consultant and/or investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma. P.N.: research grants, clinical trials and honoraria for advice and lectures on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos/Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB Pharma. S.G. and V.L.-K.: employees of Cytel, Inc. which served as a consultant on the project. A.R.P., D.W. and V.T.: employees and stockholders of UCB Pharma.

The authors acknowledge Leah Wiltshire of Cytel for medical writing and editorial assistance based on the authors’ input and direction, Heather Edens (UCB Pharma, Smyrna, GA, USA) for publication coordination and Costello Medical for review management, which were funded by UCB Pharma. This analysis was funded by UCB Pharma in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP 2022) guidelines ( http://www.ismpp.org/gpp-2022 ). Data were previously presented at ISPOR-US 2023 (Boston, MA, USA, 7–10 May 2023).

Gossec L , Baraliakos X , Kerschbaumer A et al.  EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update . Ann Rheum Dis 2020 ; 79 : 700 – 12 .

Google Scholar

Coates LC , Soriano ER , Corp N et al. ; GRAPPA Treatment Recommendations domain subcommittees . Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA): updated treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis 2021 . Nat Rev Rheumatol 2022 ; 18 : 465 – 79 .

Fitzgerald O , Ogdie A , Chandran V et al.  Psoriatic arthritis . Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021 ; 7 : 59 .

Coates LC , Soriano ER , Corp N et al.  Treatment recommendations domain subcommittees. Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA): updated treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis 2021 . Nat Rev Rheumatol 2022 ; 27 : 1 – 15 .

Najm A , Goodyear CS , McInnes IB , Siebert S. Phenotypic heterogeneity in psoriatic arthritis: towards tissue pathology-based therapy . Nat Rev Rheumatol 2023 ; 19 : 153 – 65 .

Ogdie A , Weiss P. The epidemiology of psoriatic arthritis . Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2015 ; 41 : 545 – 68 .

Alinaghi F , Calov M , Kristensen LE et al.  Prevalence of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational and clinical studies . J Am Acad Dermatol 2019 ; 80 : 251 – 65.e19 .

Singh JA , Guyatt G , Ogdie A et al.  Special Article: 2018 American college of rheumatology/national psoriasis foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis . Arthritis Rheumatol 2019 ; 71 : 5 – 32 .

Coates LC , Robinson DE , Orbai AM et al.  What influences patients' opinion of remission and low disease activity in psoriatic arthritis? Principal component analysis of an international study . Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021 ; 60 : 5292 – 9 .

Gondo G , Mosca M , Hong J et al.  Demographic and clinical factors associated with patient-reported remission in psoriatic arthritis . Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2022 ; 12 : 1885 – 95 .

Glatt S , Baeten D , Baker T et al.  Dual IL-17A and IL-17F neutralisation by bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: evidence from preclinical experiments and a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial that IL-17F contributes to human chronic tissue inflammation . Ann Rheum Dis 2018 ; 77 : 523 – 32 .

UCB Pharma S.A . Bimzelx ® (bimekizumab): Summary of Product Characteristics. 2023 . https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/bimzelx (26 June 2023, date last accessed).

Adams R , Maroof A , Baker T et al.  Bimekizumab, a novel humanized IgG1 antibody that neutralizes both IL-17A and IL-17F . Front Immunol 2020 ; 11 : 1894 .

Burns LA , Maroof A , Marshall D et al.  Presence, function, and regulation of IL-17F-expressing human CD4(+) T cells . Eur J Immunol 2020 ; 50 : 568 – 80 .

Kuestner R , Taft D , Haran A et al.  Identification of the IL-17 receptor related molecule IL-17RC as the receptor for IL-17F . J Immunol 2007 ; 179 : 5462 – 73 .

Johansen C , Usher PA , Kjellerup RB et al.  Characterization of the interleukin-17 isoforms and receptors in lesional psoriatic skin . Br J Dermatol 2009 ; 160 : 319 – 24 .

Shah M , Maroof A , Gikas P et al.  Dual neutralisation of IL-17F and IL-17A with bimekizumab blocks inflammation-driven osteogenic differentiation of human periosteal cells . RMD Open 2020 ; 6 : e001306 .

Reich K , Warren RB , Lebwohl M et al.  Bimekizumab versus Secukinumab in Plaque Psoriasis . New Engl J Med 2021 ; 385 : 142 – 52 .

McInnes IB , Asahina A , Coates LC et al.  Bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis, naive to biologic treatment: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE OPTIMAL) . Lancet 2023 ; 401 : 25 – 37 .

Merola JF , Landewe R , McInnes IB et al.  Bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (BE COMPLETE) . Lancet 2023 ; 401 : 38 – 48 .

Page MJ , McKenzie JE , Bossuyt PM et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . BMJ 2021 ; 372 : n71 .

Higgins JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol. 2. 2nd edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2019 .

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . The guidelines manual: Process and methods [PMG6]. 2012 . https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/introduction (3 March 2023, date last accessed).

Booth AM , Wright KE , Outhwaite H. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: value, content, and developments . Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010 ; 26 : 470 – 2 .

Sterne JAC , Savovic J , Page MJ et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials . BMJ 2019 ; 366 : l4898 .

Daly C , Dias S , Welton N , Anwer S , Ades A. NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit. Meta-Analysis: Guideline Methodology Document 1 (Version 1). 2021 . http://www.bristol.ac.uk/population-health-sciences/centres/cresyda/mpes/nice/guideline-methodology-documents-gmds/ (1 March 2023, date last accessed).

Dias S , Caldwell DM. Network meta-analysis explained . Archi Dis Childhood Fetal Neonatal Ed 2019 ; 104 : F8 – F12 .

Merola JF , Lockshin B , Mody EA. Switching biologics in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis . Semin Arthritis Rheum 2017 ; 47 : 29 – 37 .

Openbugs (website) 2014 . http://www.openbugs.net/w/FrontPage (6 April 2023, date last accessed).

Lunn D , Spiegelhalter D , Thomas A , Best N. The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions . Stat Med 2009 ; 28 : 3049 – 67 .

Dias S , Welton NJ , Sutton AJ , Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. London. 2016 . https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/full-list (25 January 2023, date last accessed).

Dias S , Welton N , Sutton AJ , Caldwell DM , Lu G , Ades AE. NICE DSU technical support document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials. 2011 . https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/full-list (25 January 2023, date last accessed).

Dias S , Sutton AJ , Welton N , Ades AE. NICE DSU Technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment. 2011 . https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/nice-dsu/tsds/full-list (25 January 2023, date last accessed).

Mease PJ , McInnes IB , Tam LS et al.  Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis . Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021 ; 60 : 2109 – 21 .

McInnes IB , Sawyer LM , Markus K et al.  Targeted systemic therapies for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and comparative synthesis of short-term articular, dermatological, enthesitis and dactylitis outcomes . RMD Open 2022 ; 8 : e002074 .

Ruyssen-Witrand A , Perry R , Watkins C et al.  Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis . RMD Open 2020 ; 6 : e001117 .

Pfizer Inc . XELJANZ ® (tofacitinib): Summary of Product Characteristics. 2022 . https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/xeljanz (4 May 2023, date last accessed).

Pfizer Inc . XELJANZ ® (tofacitinib): US Prescribing Information. 2022 . https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=959 (4 May 2023, date last accessed).

Abbvie Inc . RINVOQ ® (upadacitinib) extended-release tablets, for oral use: US Prescribing Information. 2023 . https://www.rxabbvie.com/pdf/rinvoq_pi.pdf (4 May 2023, date last accessed).

AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co . KG. RINVOQ ® (upadacitinib): Summary of Product Characteristics. 2023 . https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/rinvoq (4 May 2023, date last accessed).

Warren RB , Blauvelt A , Bagel J et al.  Bimekizumab versus Adalimumab in Plaque Psoriasis . N Engl J Med 2021 ; 385 : 130 – 41 .

Reich K , Papp KA , Blauvelt A et al.  Bimekizumab versus ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (BE VIVID): efficacy and safety from a 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, active comparator and placebo controlled phase 3 trial . Lancet 2021 ; 397 : 487 – 98 .

Gladman DD , Orbai AM , Gomez-Reino J et al.  Network meta-analysis of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and apremilast for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis . Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2020 ; 93 : 100601 .

Qiu M , Xu Z , Gao W et al.  Fourteen small molecule and biological agents for psoriatic arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials . Medicine (Baltimore) 2020 ; 99 : e21447 .

Kawalec P , Holko P , Mocko P , Pilc A. Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis . Rheumatol Int 2018 ; 38 : 189 – 201 .

Gossec L , McGonagle D , Korotaeva T et al.  Minimal disease activity as a treatment target in psoriatic arthritis: a review of the literature . J Rheumatol 2018 ; 45 : 6 – 13 .

Wang SH , Yu CL , Wang TY , Yang CH , Chi CC. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for preventing radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis . Pharmaceutics 2022 ; 14 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Rheumatology X/Twitter
• BSR Instagram
• BSR Facebook
• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1462-0332
• Print ISSN 1462-0324
• Copyright © 2024 British Society for Rheumatology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Use of knowledge graphs for construction safety management: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. selection of papers for review, 3. scientometric analysis, 4. categories of kgs for construction safety management, 4.1. the categories of knowledge graphs in safety management, 4.2. application scenarios of kg, 4.3. trends in kg research in the construction safety management domain, 5. analysis of kg development process, 5.1. overview of kg development process, 5.2. methods used in developing kgs, 5.2.1. scope identification, 5.2.2. ontological template development, 5.2.3. data extraction, 5.2.4. knowledge graph completion, 6. discussion—issues and potential solutions, 6.1. main issues with applying kgs in the construction safety management domain, 6.2. proposed solutions based on current technologies, 7. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A Look at Workplace Deaths, Injuries, and Illnesses on Workers’ Memorial Day. 2022. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/a-look-at-workplace-deaths-injuries-and-illnesses-on-workers-memorial-day.htm (accessed on 25 July 2023).
• Health and Safety Executive. 2020–21 Names and Details of Fatalities. 2022. Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/fatalities/2020-21.htm (accessed on 25 July 2023).
• Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Notice from the General Office of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development on the Production Safety Accidents in Housing and Municipal Engineering in 2020. 2022. Available online: https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/zhengce/zhengcefilelib/202210/20221026_768565.html (accessed on 25 July 2023). (In Chinese)
• Office for National Statistics (ONS), Released 28 November 2023, ONS Website, Article, Construction Statistics, Great Britain. 2022. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/articles/constructionstatistics/2022#:~:text=excluding%20self%2Demployment-,The%20number%20of%20construction%2Drelated%20employees%20(excluding%20self%2Demployment,Scotland%20both%20increased%20by%202.0%25 (accessed on 30 November 2023).
• Holt, A.S.J. Principles of Construction Safety ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-470-68024-7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang, W.; Ding, L.; Love, P.E.D.; Luo, H.; Li, H.; Peña-Mora, F.; Zhong, B.; Zhou, C. Computer vision applications in construction safety assurance. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 110 , 103013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, Z.; Ye, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, L. A digital twin approach for tunnel construction safety early warning and management. Comput. Ind. 2023 , 144 , 103783. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kong, F.; Ahn, S.; Seo, J.; Kim, T.W.; Huang, Y. Beacon-Based Individualized Hazard Alarm System for Construction Sites: An Experimental Study on Sensor Deployment. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 11654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ale, B.J.M.; Bellamy, L.J.; Baksteen, H.; Damen, M.; Goossens, L.H.J.; Hale, A.R.; Mud, M.; Oh, J.; Papazoglou, I.A.; Whiston, J.Y. Accidents in the construction industry in the Netherlands: An analysis of accident reports using Storybuilder. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2008 , 93 , 1523–1533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tran, S.V.-T.; Nguyen, T.L.; Chi, H.-L.; Lee, D.; Park, C. Generative planning for construction safety surveillance camera installation in 4D BIM environment. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 134 , 104103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, R.; Zou, P.X.W.; Piroozfar, P.; Wood, H.; Yang, Y.; Yan, L.; Han, Y. A science mapping approach based review of construction safety research. Saf. Sci. 2019 , 113 , 285–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Z.; Goh, Y.M.; Shen, L. Overview and Analysis of Ontology Studies Supporting Development of the Construction Industry. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2016 , 30 , 04016026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ehrlinger, L.; Wolfram, W. Towards a Definition of Knowledge Graphs. Semant. Posters Demos SuCCESS 2016 , 48 , 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ji, S.; Pan, S.; Cambria, E.; Marttinen, P.; Yu, P.S. A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition, and Applications. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2022 , 33 , 494–514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, X.; Jia, S.; Xiang, Y. A review: Knowledge reasoning over knowledge graph. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020 , 141 , 112948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Lyu, M.; Wang, Z.; Chen, C.-H.; Zheng, P. Exploiting knowledge graphs in industrial products and services: A survey of key aspects, challenges, and future perspectives. Comput. Ind. 2021 , 129 , 103449. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gutierrez, C.; Sequeda, J.F. Knowledge graphs. Commun. ACM 2021 , 64 , 96–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Y.; Jiang, B.; Lu, N.; Zhou, Y. Bayesian network based fault prognosis via bond graph modeling of high-speed railway traction device. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015 , 2015 , 321872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Wei, W.; Wu, Z. Research on construction method of knowledge graph in the civil aviation security field. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 1st International Conference on Civil Aviation Safety and Information Technology (ICCASIT), Kunming, China, 17–19 October 2019; pp. 556–559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Q.; Li, Q.; Wen, J. Construction and application research of knowledge graph in aviation risk field. MATEC Web Conf. 2018 , 151 , 05003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Han, J. Knowledge graph construction for railway electrical accident analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Machine Learning, Big Data and Business Intelligence (MLBDBI), Taiyuan, China, 8–10 November 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 214–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Yang, S. A text mining-based approach for understanding Chinese railway incidents caused by electromagnetic interference. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023 , 117 , 105598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, N.; Peng, B.; Li, X.; Wu, J.; Lou, J.; Si, Y. Research on the construction and implementation of power grid fault handling knowledge graphs. Energy Rep. 2023 , 9 , 182–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, Z.; Long, H. Knowledge Graph Construction for Electric Substation Based on Multiple-source Data. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 5th International Electrical and Energy Conference (CIEEC), Nangjing, China, 27–29 May 2022; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 4826–4830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chatterjee, A.; Nardi, C.; Oberije, C.; Lambin, P. Knowledge Graphs for COVID-19: An Exploratory Review of the Current Landscape. J. Pers. Med. 2021 , 11 , 300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, Y.; Gao, X.; Su, W.; Li, J. Systematic knowledge management of construction safety standards based on knowledge graphs: A case study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021 , 18 , 692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, S.; Demachi, K.; Dong, F. Graph-based linguistic and visual information integration for on-site occupational hazards identification. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 137 , 104191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farghaly, K.; Soman, R.K.; Collinge, W.; Mosleh, M.H.; Manu, P.; Cheung, C.M. Construction safety ontology development and alignment with industry foundation classes (IFC). J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2022 , 27 , 94–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, S.; Ma, Z.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Bao, S. Construction automation and robotics for high-rise buildings over the past decades: A comprehensive review. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2019 , 42 , 100989. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, J.; Wang, C.; Cheng, W.; Gao, M.; Zhou, A. A retrospective of knowledge graphs. Front. Comput. Sci. 2018 , 12 , 55–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J.; Noyons, E.C.M. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J. Inform. 2010 , 4 , 629–635. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jayasree, V.; Baby, M.D. Scientometrics: Tools, Techniques and Software for Analysis. Indian J. Inf. Sources Serv. 2019 , 9 , 116–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Song, M. Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PLoS ONE 2019 , 14 , e0223994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Newman, M.E.J. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006 , 103 , 8577–8582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rousseeuw, P.J. Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 1987 , 20 , 53–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leblay, J.; Chekol, M.W. Deriving Validity Time in Knowledge Graph. In Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2018, Lyon, France, 23–27 April 2018; International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1771–1776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, B.; Liao, Y.-M. Research on enterprise risk knowledge graph based on multi-source data fusion. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022 , 34 , 2569–2582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duan, J.; Liu, H.; Gong, W.; Lyu, L. Crowd Evacuation Under Real Data: A Crowd Congestion Control Method Based on Sensors and Knowledge Graph. IEEE Sens. J. 2023 , 23 , 8923–8931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Hu, J.; Han, Z.; Chen, Y.; Xiao, S. Knowledge graph based early warning method for accident evolution in natural gas pipeline station abroad for harsh environmental conditions. Qinghua Daxue Xuebao/J. Tsinghua Univ. 2022 , 62 , 1081–1087. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, W.; Zhang, X.; Feng, D.; Wang, Y.; Ye, P.; Qu, H. Knowledge graph of alpine skiing events: A focus on meteorological conditions. PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , e0274164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, Y.; Liu, M.; Luo, X. Safety compliance checking of construction behaviors using visual question answering. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 144 , 104580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Y.; Yin, P.; Zhou, G.; Liu, P.; Tang, Y.; Li, W. Construction of public safety knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS), Hangzhou, China, 5–7 October 2020; Obaidat, M.S., Hsiao, K.-F., Nicopolitidis, P., Cascado-Caballero, D., Eds.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hughes, P.; Robinson, R.; Figueres-Esteban, M.; van Gulijk, C. Extracting safety information from multi-lingual accident reports using an ontology-based approach. Saf. Sci. 2019 , 118 , 288–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mao, S.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, J.; Wang, B.; Tang, Y. Development of process safety knowledge graph: A Case study on delayed coking process. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020 , 143 , 107094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Zhu, H.; Bai, Y. Construction of causality event evolutionary graph of aviation accident. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), Liverpool, UK, 14–17 July 2019; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 692–697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, W.; Lee, J.; Ahn, S. Proposal of a Workflow Model for Generating a Construction Safety Guideline Knowledge Graph. J. Constr. Autom. Robot. 2022 , 1 , 46–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Yang, S. Using Text Mining to Establish Knowledge Graph from Accident/Incident Reports in Risk Assessment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022 , 207 , 117991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tiddi, I.; Schlobach, S. Knowledge graphs as tools for explainable machine learning: A survey. Artif. Intell. 2022 , 302 , 103627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-Training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805v2 (accessed on 19 July 2023).
• Liu, J.; Luo, H.; Liu, H. Deep learning-based data analytics for safety in construction. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 140 , 104302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vermuyten, H.; Belien, J.; De Boeck, L.; Reniers, G.; Wauters, T. A review of optimisation models for pedestrian evacuation and design problems. Saf. Sci. 2016 , 87 , 167–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ye, Y. A Novel Method for Constructing Knowledge Graph of Railway Safety Risk. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering, Online, 21–23 October 2022; Emrouznejad, A., Ed.; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Y.; Luo, X. A Knowledge Graph for Automated Construction Workers’ Safety Violation Identification. In Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2022), Bogota, Colombia, 12–15 July 2022; pp. 312–319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang, W.; Ma, L.; Love, P.E.D.; Luo, H.; Ding, L.; Zhou, A. Knowledge graph for identifying hazards on construction sites: Integrating computer vision with ontology. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 119 , 103310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simone, F.; Ansaldi, S.M.; Agnello, P.; Patriarca, R. Industrial safety management in the digital era: Constructing a knowledge graph from near misses. Comput. Ind. 2023 , 146 , 103849. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, W.T.; Bria, T.A. A Review of Ontology-Based Safety Management in Construction. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, Z.; Shi, L.; Yuan, Y.; Tan, X.; Xu, S. A Study on a Knowledge Graph Construction Method of Safety Reports for Process Industries. Processes 2023 , 11 , 146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; El-Gohary, N. Deep learning-based relation extraction and knowledge graph-based representation of construction safety requirements. Autom. Constr. 2023 , 147 , 104696. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Wei, H.; Han, Z.; Jiang, N.; Wang, W.; Huang, J. Computer Vision-Based Hazard Identification of Construction Site Using Visual Relationship Detection and Ontology. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 857. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, X.; Jing, X.; Zhu, Q.; Du, W.; Wang, X. Automatic Construction Hazard Identification Integrating On-Site Scene Graphs with Information Extraction in Outfield Test. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Xiao, B.; Bouferguene, A.; Al-Hussein, M.; Li, H. Vision-based method for semantic information extraction in construction by integrating deep learning object detection and image captioning. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022 , 53 , 101699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, H.; Zhong, B.; Li, H.; Love, P.; Pan, X.; Zhao, N. Combining computer vision with semantic reasoning for on-site safety management in construction. J. Build. Eng. 2021 , 42 , 103036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, X.; Zhong, B.; Wang, Y.; Shen, L. Identification of accident-injury type and bodypart factors from construction accident reports: A graph-based deep learning framework. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022 , 54 , 101752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Zhao, X. Automatic construction site hazard identification integrating construction scene graphs with BERT based domain knowledge. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 142 , 104535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Staudemeyer, R.C.; Morris, E.R. Understanding LSTM—A Tutorial into Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Networks. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.09586v1 (accessed on 19 July 2023).
• Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A.N.; Kaiser, Ł.; Polosukhin, I. Attention is All you Need. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA, 4–9 December 2019; Curran Associates, Inc.: Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng, F.-L.; Qiao, Y.-K.; Yang, C. Building a knowledge graph for operational hazard management of utility tunnels. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023 , 223 , 119901. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OSHA 1910.132 ; General Requirements. U.S. Department of Labor: Washington, DC, USA, 18 November 2016.
• Ren, H.; Chen, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Yang, C.; Gui, W. An Industrial Multilevel Knowledge Graph-Based Local-Global Monitoring for Plant-Wide Processes. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021 , 70 , 3526715. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Kong, F.; Ahn, S. Use of Knowledge Graphs for Construction Safety Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Information 2024 , 15 , 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15070390

Kong F, Ahn S. Use of Knowledge Graphs for Construction Safety Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Information . 2024; 15(7):390. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15070390

Kong, Fansheng, and Seungjun Ahn. 2024. "Use of Knowledge Graphs for Construction Safety Management: A Systematic Literature Review" Information 15, no. 7: 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15070390

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Book Review: Kate Quinn returns with 'The Briar Club,’ a murder mystery during the 1950’s Red Scare

The reigning queen of historical fiction is back with a novel set in 1950s Washington, D

If you’ve never read a Kate Quinn novel, there’s no time like the present. Or like the 1950s in Washington, D.C. That’s the setting for Quinn’s “The Briar Club,” which is a murder mystery wrapped up in the stories of multiple women who rent rooms at a boarding house during the height of Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s Red Scare.

The characters are all interesting, but too numerous to sketch in this short review. Each gives Quinn an opportunity to comment on some aspect of the decade — from the development of the birth control pill, to organized crime corrupting the D.C. police force, to the demise of a professional women’s softball league after World War II. All the women’s stories serve the novel’s greater plot, which opens with a murder in the house on Thanksgiving Day in 1954. It then flips backward and forward in time, crashing the characters together and creating plenty of suspects before ending with a delightful twist.

At the center of the plot is Grace March, who moves into the third-floor attic of the Briarwood boarding house and, over the objections of the stern landlady, Mrs. Nilsson, begins to make the place a real home. She paints flowers and vines on her ceiling that eventually creep down the staircase and are a metaphor for the role Grace plays in the boarder’s lives. She starts a Thursday night Supper Club, inviting everyone to bring a dish to warm up on her hot plate and share.

Quinn tosses in a couple cute wrinkles that make the book even more fun. One is the inclusion of actual recipes for the dishes and drinks the women bring to supper club. In promotional interviews in advance of the novel’s release, Quinn admitted that her husband actually prepared all the food and drink for her to taste prior to publication. Also unique to the novel — short chapters written from the point of view of the house itself. As a detective moves to split up the the women for interrogation following the Thanksgiving day murder, Quinn writes: “He moves into the kitchen, at once the object of all eyes, and just to be spiteful the house rucks the edge of the carpet so he trips.”

It all makes for a delightful read. Quinn creates characters readers will care about and root for, while also managing to keep them guessing until the very end about who murdered whom in Briarwood House.

AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews

Trending Reader Picks

Music Review: In a new expanded collection, how much of John Lennon's 'Mind Games' is too much?

• Jul 8, 10:40 AM

3 university officials out over antisemitic texts

• Jul 8, 1:00 PM

WH doctor explains Parkinson's doctor's visits

• Jul 8, 10:51 PM

Tony-winning musical 'Suffs' disrupted by chanting protesters with a banner

• Jul 3, 1:33 PM

Celebrity birthdays for the week of July 14-20

• Jul 8, 10:22 AM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events