a literature review nedir

• Ücret Politikası

Literatür Taraması Nedir ve Nasıl Yapılır? [7 Adımda Örneklerle]

İçindekiler

• 1 Literatür Taraması Nedir?
• 2.1 Literatür taraması ne işe yarar?
• 3.1 Gelişme (Body) Paragrafları
• 3.2 Sonuç (Conclusion) Bölümü
• 4.1 Literatür Taraması APA Formatı
• 4.2 Literatür Taraması MLA Formatı
• 4.3 Literatür Taraması Chicago Formatı
• 5.1 Literature Review Outline Nasıl yazılır?
• 6.1 Konunun Belirlenmesi
• 6.2 Araştırma Yapmak
• 6.3 Kaynakları Değerlendirin ve Önceliklendirin
• 6.4 İlişkileri, Ana Fikirleri ve Boşlukları Belirleyin
• 6.5 Bir Taslak Belirleyin
• 6.6 Yazmaya Devam Edin 
• 6.7 Son Dokunuşları Ekleme
• 7.1 Literatür Taraması Örneği
• 7.2 Literatür Taraması Örneği
• 7.3 Literatür Taraması Örneği PDF

Literatür Taraması Nedir?

Literatür taraması, bazen belirli bir konuda, bazen ise belirli bir zaman çerçevesinde çeşitli yayınları (makale, gazete, kitap, rapor, önemli web siteleri, vb.) araştıran ve derleyen bir akademik çalışma türüdür. Literatür taraması, oluşturduğunuz tezin konusuyla ilgili önceki araştırmalarda yer alan ve doğruluğu kanıtlanmış kaynakların araştırılıp analiz edilmesine, bu analiz sonucunda da araştırma konunuzun bir taslağının çıkarılmasına yardımcı olur.

Literature review (İngilizce literatür taraması) mevcut araştırmalardaki ve literatürdeki teorileri, yöntemleri ve boşlukları belirlemenize yardım ederek mevcut bilgilere genel bir bakış açısı sağlar. Literatür taraması, genellikle bir yüksek lisans tezi veya bir doktora tezinin ayrı bir bölümü olarak okuyucuya sunulur.

Ancak bunun haricinde başlı başına bir ödev şeklinde de verilebilmektedir. Literatür taramasında kullanılan kaynaklar arasında bilimsel dergi makaleleri, kitaplar, hükümet raporları, web siteleri vb. yer alabilir.

Literatür taraması (literature review) yaygın olmayan bir akademik yazı türü olduğundan, öğrenciler tarafından genellikle “literatür taraması nedir ve nasıl yazılır?” şeklinde sorular sorulmaktadır. Bu makalemizde literatür taraması nedir ve literatür taraması nasıl yazılır sorularına cevap vereceğiz; ve aynı zamanda sizlerle literatür taraması örnekleri de paylaşacağız.

Bu konuda danışmanlık almak isterseniz bize sağ aşağıda bulunan mesaj butonundan, iletişim bölümünden ya da [email protected] adresinden ulaşabilirsiniz. Research paper nasıl yazılır öğrenmek istiyorsanız, proofreading veya editing ihtiyacınız varsa veya İngilizce makale örnekleri incelemek istiyorsanız tıklayabilirsiniz.

Literatür Taraması Amacı

Literatür taramasının asıl amacı, önceki literatürün araştırılan konu ile ilgili vardığı noktayı tespit edip, literatürdeki boşlukları ortaya koyarak kendi çalışmamızın önceki literatür içerisinde hangi noktada olacağını göstermektir.

Ancak, amaç sadece kaynakların özetlerini listelemek değildir; daha ziyade, tüm yayınlarda görülen ve araştırma konunuzu destekleyen noktaları vurgulamaktır. Nasıl bir araştırma makalesinde ona rehberlik eden bir tez varsa, İngilizce literatür taramasının da bir ana düzenleme ilkesi (ADİ) vardır.

Ana düzenleme ilkesi, bilginin önce genelden başlayıp sonra daralarak araştırma konunuza gelmesiyle yazının bir düzene girmesini sembolize eder.

Literatür taraması ne işe yarar?

• Yazarın araştırdığı konunun önemini vurgular.
• Yazarın araştırdığı konunun arka planını gösterir ve açıklar.
• Bir konu içinde var olan temel temaları, ilkeleri, kavramları ve araştırmacıları bulmaya yardımcı olur.
• Bir konudaki mevcut fikirler/çalışmalar arasındaki ilişkileri ortaya çıkarmaya yardımcı olur.
• Bir konudaki ana tartışma noktalarını ve boşlukları ortaya çıkarır.
• Önceki çalışmalara dayalı daha fazla araştırmayı yönlendirmek için sonraki araştırmalara araştırmaları için araştırma soruları (research questions) önerir.

Literatür taraması danışmanlığı – Essay Sepeti

Literatür Taraması (Literature Review) Yapısı ve Formatı

Diğer birçok akademik yazı türünde olduğu gibi, literatür taraması yöntemi de araştırmanın hacmine ve konunun uzunluğuna bağlı olarak birkaç paragraftan oluşur; ve böylece de giriş, gelişme ve sonuç (introduction bölünü, body paragrafları ve conclusion bölümü) şeklinde bir yapıya sahiptir. Konuyu daha iyi kavramak için, temel literatür taraması yapısının her bir bileşenine giriş, gelişme ve sonuç ayrıntılı olarak bakalım:

Giriş (Introduction) Bölümü

Literature review yazınızda, okuyucularınızı yazdığınız makalede ADİ’ye (Ana Düzenleme İlkesi) göre yönlendirmelisiniz. Bu yönlendirme, sunduğunuz bilgilerin geniş bir perspektiften başlayıp ve odak noktanız olan anlatmak istediğiniz konuya ulaşana kadar kademeli olarak daralması anlamına gelir. Daha genel başlayıp daha özele doğru bir bilgi akışı sağlayarak önce genel çerçeveyi vermeli daha sonra da asıl anlatacağınız konuya gelerek genelin özel ile nasıl bağlantılı olduğunu gözler önüne sermelisiniz.

Literature review yazmaya önce genel konseptinizi sunarak başlamalısınız (örneğin; Yolsuzluk). Devamında ise seçtiğiniz literatür kaynaklarını (Macbeth, All the King’s Men ve Animal Farm) seçmek için kullandığınız kriterlerden bahsederek girişinizin odağını genelden özele doğru daraltmalısınız.

Gelişme (Body) Paragrafları

  Genel olarak, her bir gövde paragrafı, literatür araştırmanızın girişinde ortaya konan belirli bir literatür kaynağına odaklanacaktır. Her kaynağın ana düzenleme ilkeleri (ADİ) için kendi referans çerçevesi olduğundan, incelemeyi mümkün olan en mantıklı ve tutarlı şekilde yapılandırmak çok önemlidir. Bu, yazının kronolojik, tematik veya metodolojik olarak yapılandırılması gerektiği anlamına gelir.

Bu noktada İngilizce literatür taramasındaki gelişme paragrafları kronolojik, tematik veya metodolojik olarak yapılandırılmalıdır. Bu şekliyle yapılan literatür incelemeleri daha tutarlı ve açık olacaktır.

• Kronolojik olarak: Kaynaklarınızı yayın tarihlerine göre ayırmak, doğru bir tarihsel zaman çizelgesi tutmanın iyi bir yoludur. Doğru uygulandığı takdirde belirli bir kavramın zaman içindeki gelişimini sunabilir ve literatür formunda açık ve tutarlı örnekler sağlayabilirsiniz. Ancak bazen literatür taramasının yapısını şekillendirmek için kullanabileceğimiz daha iyi alternatifler olduğu da açıktır.
• Tematik olarak: “Zaman Çizelgesi Yaklaşımını” benimsemek yerine, başka bir seçenek de ADİ’niz ve kaynaklarınız arasındaki bağlantıya bakmak olabilir. Bazen, ana fikir sadece bir edebi eserden dahi açık bir şekilde gözükmektedir. Bazen de, yazarın amacını kanıtlamak için örnekler aramanız gerekebilir. Deneyimli bir araştırmacı genellikle kaynaklarını güç sırasına göre sunar. Örneğin, “To Kill a Mockingbird” eserinde, romanın tamamı ırkçılık etrafında toplanırken; “The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn” eserinde ırkçılık diğer birçok temadan sadece biri olarak görülmektedir.
• Metodolojik olarak: Terminolojiden de anlaşılacağı gibi, bu tür bir yapılanma, merkezi bir kavramı sunmak için kullanılan yöntemlere odaklanır. Örneğin, “1984” romanında, George Orwell kanun ve düzen yaklaşımını kullanır ve toplum için distopyanın tehlikelerini gösterir. “Frankenstein” eserinde ise yazar Mary Shelley, karakterin fiziksel özelliklerini tiksindirici ve ürkütücü olarak ortaya koyarak onu izole bir ortamda acı çekmeye zorlamaktadır. Yazar, ADİ’yi tasvir etmek için kullanılan çeşitli yöntemler ile bunları şiddet, etik ve genel etki gibi bileşenlere göre karşılaştırabilir.

Sonuç (Conclusion) Bölümü

Bulgularınızı gelişme paragraflarında sunduktan sonra, literatür araştırması özelinde tamamlamanız gereken 3 nihai hedef vardır. Yazar öncelikle yaptığı veya bulduğu bulguları özetlemeli ve kısaca “bu kaynakların incelenmesi ile ne öğrendik?” sorusuna cevap vermelidir.

Bu bilgiyi sunduktan bir sonraki adım, bugünkü dünyamızla ilgili olarak bu verilen bilgilerin önemini anlatmaktır. Başka bir deyişle, okuyucu bu literature review yazısında verilen bilgileri nasıl günümüz toplumuna uygulayabilir? Bu sorunun cevaplanması önemlidir.

Bir yazar olarak, makalenizi okuyan okuyucularda merak duygusunu uyandırmalı ve bu şekilde onlara araştırma arzusu vermelisiniz. Okuyucu, tartışmanın bir sonraki aşamasının nereye gideceğini tahmin ederek literatürün de günden günde gelişmesine katkı sağlayabilir.

Literatür Taraması APA, MLA ve Chicago Formatı

Uymanız gereken literatür taraması formatı, okulunuz veya profesörünüz tarafından belirtilecektir. Eğer bu format size verilmemişse bunu okulunuza veya danışmanınıza sormalısınız, çünkü bu hayati bir konudur. Aşağıda sırasıyla literatür taramasının içerik formatı hakkında bazı sorular verdik. Bir literatür araştırması yazmadan önce bu soruların cevabını bulduğunuzdan emin olun:

• Kaç kaynak gözden geçirilmeli ve bu kaynaklar ne tür kaynaklar olmalıdır (yayınlanmış materyaller, dergi makaleleri veya web siteleri)?
• Kaynakları alıntılamak için hangi format (APA, MLA, Chicago) kullanılmalıdır?
• İnceleme ne kadar sürmelidir?
• İncelemeniz bir özet, sentez veya kişisel bir eleştiriden mi oluşmalıdır?
• İncelemeniz, kaynaklarınız için başlıklar veya arka plan bilgileri içermeli midir?

Literatür Taraması APA Formatı

APA formatında literatür taraması yazacaksanız izleyeceğiniz format şu şekildedir:

• 1 inçlik sayfa kenar boşlukları bırakın.
• Başka bir talimat verilmedikçe, tüm metin boyunca çift satır aralığı bırakın.
• Okunabilir bir yazı tipi seçtiğinizden emin olun. APA formatında yazılan akademik makaleler (research paper, dissertation, term paper) için tercih edilen yazı tipi Times New Roman’dır ve 12 punto boyutundadır.
• Her sayfanın üstüne bir başlık ekleyin (büyük harflerle). Sayfa başlığı, makale (essay, research paper, dissertation, term paper) başlığınızın kısaltılmış bir versiyonu olmalı ve boşluk ve noktalama dahil 50 karakterle sınırlı olmalıdır.
• Sayfa numaralarını her sayfanın sağ üst köşesine koyun.
• APA formatında literatür taraması taslağınızı şekillendirirken, başlık sayfası eklemeyi de unutmayın. Bu sayfada makalenin adı, yazarın adı ve kurumsal bağlantısı da yer almalıdır. Başlığınız büyük ve küçük harflerle yazılmalı ve sayfanın üst kısmına ortalanmalıdır; 12’den fazla kelime, kısaltmalar ve gereksiz kelimeler kullanmamaya özen gösterin.

Literatür Taraması MLA Formatı

MLA formatında literature review yazacaksanız izleyeceğiniz format şu şekildedir:  

• Tüm metin boyunca çift satır aralığı kullanın.
• Her yeni paragraf için ½ inç girintiler kullanın.
• MLA stili için tercih edilen yazı tipi Times New Roman’dır ve 12 punto boyutundadır.
• Makalenizin (essay, research paper, dissertation, term paper) ilk sayfasının en üst kısmına veya başlık sayfasına bir başlık ekleyin (MLA stilinin bir başlık sayfasına sahip olmanızı gerektirmediğini, ancak bir tane eklemeye karar vermenize izin verildiğini unutmayın). Bu biçimdeki bir başlık tam adınızı; eğitmeninizin adı; sınıfın adı, kurs veya bölüm numarası; ve ödevizin bitiş tarihini içermelidir.
• Kağıdınızdaki her sayfanın sağ üst köşesine “running head” Sayfanın sağ kenar boşluğundan bir inç ve üst kenar boşluğundan yarım inç uzağa yerleştirin. Running head kısmında yalnızca soyadınızı ve sayfa numarasını bir boşlukla bırakarak ekleyin. Sayfa numaralarından önce sayfa (s.) şeklinde kısaltma koymayın.

Literatür Taraması Chicago Formatı

Chicago formatında literature review yazacaksanız izleyeceğiniz format şu şekildedir:  

• Sayfa kenar boşluklarını 1 inçten az olmayacak şekilde ayarlayın.
• Tablo başlıkları, şekil başlıkları, notlar, kısa alıntılar ve kaynakça veya referanslar içindeki girişlerin haricinde tüm metin boyunca çift satır aralığı kullanın.
• Paragraflar arasında boşluk bırakmayın.
• Net ve kolay okunabilir bir yazı tipi seçtiğinizden emin olun. Chicago stili için tercih edilen yazı tipleri Times New Roman ve Courier’dir. En az 10 punto, tercihen ise 12 punto yazı boyutu ayarlanmalıdır.
• Bir kapak (başlık) sayfası tam adınızı, sınıf bilgilerinizi ve tarihi içermelidir. Bu bilgileri, kapak sayfasını ortalayarak ve sayfanın üst kısmının üçte bir altına yerleştirin.
• Kapak sayfası da dahil olmak üzere her sayfanın sağ üst köşesine sayfa numaralarını yerleştirin.

Literature Review Outline

Akademik makalelerin anahatlarının belirlenerek outline oluşturulmasının önemi ne yazıkki öğrenciler tarafından tam anlamıyla bilinmemektedir. Örneğin; APA stilinde bir literatür taraması taslağı oluşturmak sadece doğru formatı ve yapıyı takip etmenize yardımcı olmakla kalmayıp, aynı zamanda yazma sürecinizi daha basit hale getirecektir.

Literature review outline ile adım adım yapılacaklar listeniz elinizin altında olacak ve kolaylıkla bu taslak üzerinden ilerleyebileceksiniz. Böylelikle tüm önemli bilgileri literatür araştırmanıza dahil ettiğinizden emin olmanız kolaylaşacaktır. Literature review outline size yazım sürecinizde bir yol haritası oluşturacaktır.

Literature Review Outline Nasıl yazılır?

İngilizce L-literatür taramasının yapısının nasıl olması gerektiği ile ilgili bölümde anlattığımız gibi, literatür incelemesinin her bölümünün kendine ait bir rolü vardır. Sırasıyla, Giriş-Gelişme-Sonuç yapısını göz önünde bulundurarak ve her bölümün kendi hedeflerine ulaşmasını sağlayacak ana hatları oluşturmalısınız.

Bununla birlikte, bir literatür taraması taslağının, yeni bilgi sağlamadığı için diğer türdeki makalelerin taslaklarından biraz farklı olduğunu hatırlamak önemlidir. Asıl şekliyle literatür taraması ana konuyla ilgili mevcut önceki çalışmalara odaklanır ve analiz yapar.

Literatür Taraması Nasıl Yapılır?

Her öğrencinin bildiği gibi akademik makaleler ve araştırma makaleleri yazmak eğitim programlarının ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. Literatür taraması yapmak için, önce tez oluşturup, belirlenen araştırma konusu doğrultusunda daha önceki güvenilir akademik kaynakların değerlendirilerek araştırma konusunun haritası çıkartılır. Bulunan bu kaynaklar araştırmanızın savunmasına sağlam bir dayanak oluşturmanızı sağlar.

Bu nedenle İngilizce literatür taramasının doğru ve etkili yazımı akademik araştırmalarınızın başarısında büyük bir rol oynamaktadır. Ancak bu süreçte, literatür taramasının yaygın olmayan bir akademik yazı türü olması sebebiyle, birçok üniversite öğrencisi tarafından hala daha nasıl yazılacağı konusunda büyük soru işaretleri vardır. Bu sebeple bu yazımızda bu soru işaretlerini ortadan kaldırarak adım adım literatür taraması nasıl yapılır sizlere anlatacağız.

İster büyük bir araştırma projesi (örneğin; research paper, term paper, dissertation, yüksek lisans tezi veya doktora tezi) için bir literatür taraması yapıyor olun, ister tek başına bir ödev olarak yapıyor olun, belirli kurallar doğrultusunda yazmanız gereklidir.

Şimdi, iyi bir literatür taraması yazmak için atılacak başlıca 7 adımı birlikte inceleyelim:

Konunun Belirlenmesi

Konunun belirlenmesi iyi bir literatür taraması yazmanın ilk adımıdır. Akademik bir çalışma için bir literatür taraması yapıyorsanız, araştırmanın sorusu ve problemiyle ilgili literatür taraması yapmanız gerekir. Eğer bunu bağımsız bir ödev olarak yazıyorsanız da ilgili konu hakkında literatürde yer alan önceki çalışmalar ve bu konu ile alakalı bir soru seçmeniz gerekecektir. Bu kılavuzun başlarında, aramanıza rehberlik edecek bazı ilgi çekici konular önermiştik. Yapı ve Taslak bölümlerini detaylı inceleyebilirsiniz.

Araştırma Yapmak

Açıkça tanımlanmış bir konu belirlediğinizde, incelemeniz için literatür toplamaya başlamak kolaylaşır. Tüm araştırma sürecini çok daha basit hale getirmek ve ilgili yayınları daha hızlı bulmanıza yardımcı olmak için, temel sorunuzla ilgili anahtar kelimelerin bir listesini derleyerek başlamanızı öneririz. Konunun belirlenmesi sonrası bu konuyla alakalı araştırma yürütmek iyi bir literatür taraması yazmanın ikinci adımıdır.

Bir anahtar kelime listeniz olduğunda, bunları konu ile alakalı kaynakları aramak için kullanabilirsiniz. Bu noktada, üniversite kütüphaneleri, çevrimiçi bilimsel veri tabanları vb. güvenilir kaynakları kullandığınızdan emin olmalısınız.

Kaynakları bulduktan sonra, bunların konunuz ve araştırma sorunuzla gerçekten alakalı olup olmadıklarını kontrol ettiğinizden emin olun. Makalelerin ne hakkında olduğu hakkında genel fikirler almak için özetleri okuyarak zaman kazanabilirsiniz.

✓✓ Profesyonel İpucu : Araştırma sonucunda iyi kaynaklar bulduğunuzda, diğer ilgili kaynakları da görmek için bulduğunuz bu kaynakların bibliyografyalarına bakın. Bu şekilde kaynaklarınızı genişletebilir ve araştırmanızı daha da derinleştirebilirsiniz.

Kaynakları Değerlendirin ve Önceliklendirin

İyi bir literatür taraması yazmanın üçüncü adımını kaynakların değerlendirilmesi ve önceliklendirilmesi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanız boyunca, literatür incelemenize dahil etmek için bol miktarda ilgili kaynaklar bulacaksınız. Bu noktada birçok öğrenci, topladıkları tüm kaynakları incelemelerine sığdırmaya çalışmak gibi bir hataya düşmektedir.

Topladıklarınıza bir kez daha bakmanızı, mevcut kaynakları değerlendirmenizi ve en alakalı olanları seçmenizi öneririz. Büyük olasılıkla, belirli bir konuda bulduğunuz her şeyi okuyamayacaksınız ve ardından tüm kaynakları tek bir literatür taramasında sentezleyemeyeceksiniz. Bu yüzden en alakalı olanlara öncelik vermeniz çok önemlidir.

Hangi kaynakların önceliklendirilmeye değer olduğunu kavrayabilmek için aşağıdaki kriterleri aklınızda bulundurun:

• Güvenilirlik
• Anahtar Kavram

Ayrıca, kaynakları okurken, daha sonra incelemeye dahil edebileceğiniz her şeyi not almaya çalışın. İlk aşamada seçtiğiniz kaynakları önceliklendirerek seçerseniz, kaynakçanızı oluşturmanız daha kolay olacaktır.

İlişkileri, Ana Fikirleri ve Boşlukları Belirleyin

Literatür incelemenizi özetlemeye ve yazmaya geçmeden önce, son adım, hali hazırda var olan çalışmalar arasındaki ilişkileri belirlemektir. İlişkileri belirlemek, mevcut bilgileri düzenlemenize, sağlam bir literatür taslağı oluşturmanıza, konu hakkındaki boşlukları doldurarak literatüre katkı sağlamanıza yardımcı olur.

Bu hususta dikkat edilmesi gereken önemli noktalardan bazıları şunlardır:

• Ana temalar
• Çelişkiler ve tartışmalar
• Etkili çalışmalar veya teoriler
• Trendler ve kalıplar

Ortak eğilimler ve trendler nedeniyle farklı çalışmalarda belirli insan gruplarına odaklanılmış olabilir. Ayrıca, ana temalar açısından konunun belirli yönlerine çoğu araştırmacı arasında artan bir ilgi olabilir.

Başka bir açıdan ise bir çalışmanın teorileri ve sonuçlarıyla ilgili bazı anlaşmazlıklar ve çelişkiler olabilir. Ve son olarak, çoğunlukla bir konunun belirli yönleriyle ilgili araştırma eksikliğine atıfta bulunabilir. İyi bir literatür taraması yazmak için bu ilişkiler ve boşluklar belirlenmeli ve belirtilmelidir.

Bir Taslak Belirleyin

Öğrenciler bu aşamayı ihmal etme eğiliminde olsalar da, ana hatları belirlemek akademik makale yazarken en önemli adımlardan biridir. Bu, metninizin gövdesini düzenlemenin ve önemli hiçbir şeyi kaçırmadığınızdan emin olmanın en kolay yoludur. Ayrıca, kağıda ne hakkında yazacağınız hakkında bir fikre sahip olmak, onu daha hızlı ve daha kolay yapmanıza yardımcı olacaktır.

Yazmaya Devam Edin  

Tüm kaynaklarınızı, notlarınızı, alıntılarınızı belirleyip ayrıntılı bir taslak (outline) oluşturduktan sonra, sürecin yazma kısmına geçebilirsiniz. Bu aşamada yapmanız gereken tek şey, oluşturduğunuz planı takip etmek ve profesörünüzün veya üniversitenizin talimatlarında tanımlanan genel yapı ve formatı izlemektir.

Son Dokunuşları Ekleme

Çoğu öğrencinin yaptığı yaygın bir hata vardır. Yazıyı yeniden okuma, proofreading ve editing içeren son aşamayı atlar. Çalışmanızın en yüksek puanı almasını sağlamak için, bu son aşamaya yeterli zamanı ayırmalısınız. Proofreading ve editing önemini hafife almadan yeterli zamanınızı bu aşama için mutlaka ayırın. Proofreading ve editing konusunda danışmanlık almak isterseniz bize iletişim bölümünden veya sağ alttaki mesaj kısmından ulaşabilirsiniz.

✓✓ Profesyonel İpucu : Proofreading ve editing kısmına geçmeden önce, literatür incelemenizi bir veya iki gün önceden bitirip bir kenara koyun. Bu size aklınızı ondan uzaklaştırma şansı tanıyacak ve daha sonra yeni bir bakış açısıyla düzeltmeye geri dönebileceksiniz. Bu ipucu, metninizde bulunabilecek boşlukları veya hataları kaçırmamanızı sağlayacaktır.

Bu adımlar, kolaylıkla birinci sınıf bir literatür taraması oluşturmanıza yardımcı olacaktır! Bu işin nasıl ele alınacağı konusunda daha fazla tavsiye almak isterseniz literatür taraması yaparken aklınızda bulundurmanız gereken bu önemli 3 ipucuna bakmalısınız:

• İyi Kaynaklar

Bir literatür taraması üzerinde çalışırken, bir yazarın akılda tutması gereken en önemli şey,  mümkün olan en iyi kaynakları bulmaktır. Bu, ilk araştırmayı yaparken yaklaşık 5-10 farklı seçenek arasından kaynakları seçip filtrelemeniz gerektiği anlamına gelir. Bir literatür taraması araştırmanızın konusunu ne kadar güçlü gösterirse, yaptığınız tüm incelemenin kalitesi o kadar iyi olacaktır.

• Literatürü Sentezleyin

İncelemeyi kronolojik, tematik veya metodolojik olarak mümkün olan en etkili şekilde yapılandırdığınızdan emin olun. Tam olarak ne söylemek istediğinizi anlayın ve kaynak karşılaştırmasını buna göre yapılandırın.

• Genellemelerden Kaçının

Her bir literatür parçasının konuya farklı bir açıdan yaklaşacağını unutmayın. Yazar olarak, yaklaşımlardaki karşıtlıkları net bir şekilde sunduğunuzdan ve hiçbir değer sunmayan genel ifadelere yer vermediğinizden emin olun.

Literatür taraması nedir, literatür taraması nasıl yapılır?

Literatür Taraması Örneği

Literatür taraması örneği olabilecek bazı örnek konular aşağıda sırasıyla verilmiştir:

• “To Kill a Mockingbird”, “The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn” ve “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” deki Irkçılık
• “The Catcher in the Rye”, “Frankenstein” ve “1984” teki İzolasyonizm,
• “Crime and Punishment”, “The Scarlet Letter” ve “The Lifeboat” daki Ahlak İkilemleri
• “Macbeth”, “All the King’s Men” ve “Animal Farm” daki Güç Yozlaşması,
• “Lord of the Flies”, “Hatchet” ve “Congo” daki Duygusal ve Fiziksel Hayatta Kalma.

Ebola virüsü hakkında yazılabilecek literatür taraması örneği şu şekildedir:

• Genel konuyu tanıtın.  Ebola virüsü hakkında arka plan bilgisi sağlayın: genom, patogenez, bulaşma, epidemiyoloji, tedavi vb.
• Ana araştırma sorusunu şekillendirin . Ebola virüsünün dağılımında eklembacaklıların (mekanik veya biyolojik vektörler) potansiyel rolü nedir?
• Metodolojinizi ekleyin. Örneğin, Ebola virüsü ve eklembacaklıların yayılmasındaki rolü hakkında ilgili araştırma makalelerini bulmak için bilgiler X veritabanlarında arandı. Veriler standartlaştırılmış bir form kullanılarak çıkarıldı.
• Beklenen sonuçları listeleyin.
• Bu konuyla ilgili literatürdeki genel eğilimleri ekleyin.  Virüsün doğal rezervuarı hala kesin olarak bilinmemekle birlikte, birçok araştırmacı eklembacaklıların (ve özellikle meyve yarasalarının) virüsün dağılımında önemli bir rol oynadığına inanmaktadır.
• Konu 1: Genel terimler kullanarak belirli bir literatür parçasına kısa bir genel bakış; çalışmanın temel yönlerinin bir analizi; araştırma sorularının, yöntemlerinin, prosedürlerinin ve sonuçlarının gözden geçirilmesi; ve güçlü ve zayıf noktalara, boşluklara ve çelişkilere genel bir bakış içermelidir.
• Konu 2: Belirli bir literatür parçasının genel terimlerle kısa bir özeti; çalışmanın temel yönlerinin bir analizi; araştırma sorularının, yöntemlerinin, prosedürlerinin ve sonuçlarının gözden geçirilmesi; ve güçlü ve zayıf noktalara, boşluklara ve çelişkilere genel bir bakış içermelidir.
• Konu 3: Belirli bir literatür parçasının genel terimlerle kısa bir özeti; çalışmanın temel yönlerinin bir analizi; araştırma sorularının, yöntemlerinin, prosedürlerinin ve sonuçlarının gözden geçirilmesi; ve güçlü ve zayıf noktalara, boşluklara ve çelişkilere genel bir bakış içermelidir.
• Tartışılan literatür parçaları arasındaki ilişkileri belirtin. Ana temaları, ortak kalıpları ve eğilimleri vurgulayın. Yazarlar/araştırmacılar tarafından alınan farklı yaklaşımların artıları ve eksileri hakkında konuşun.
• Hangi çalışmaların en etkili çalışmalar olduğunu belirtin.
• Başlıca çelişkili gördüğünüz noktalarını vurgulayın. Eğer konu ile ilgili boşluklar varsa tamamlayın.
• Kendi çalışmanızın konunun daha fazla açıklanmasına nasıl katkıda bulunacağını tanımlayın.

Umarım belirttiğimiz bu literatür taraması örneği kendi makalenizi yapılandırmanıza yardımcı olur. Ancak, incelemenizi nasıl düzenleyeceğiniz konusunda daha fazla tavsiyeye ihtiyacınız olduğunu düşünüyorsanız, daha fazla literatür taraması örneği ve literatür taraması örnekleri tarayın veya bu konuda danışmanlık almak için bizimle iletişime geçin. Essay Sepeti helps 🙂

Aşağıda verdiğimiz literatür taraması örneği bir, literatür araştırmasındaki paragraflardan biridir. Böylece literatür araştırması paragrafı örneği vererek literatür taraması paragrafı nasıl yazılır öğretmiş oluyoruz.

Literatür taraması örnek

Örnekte gördüğümüz mor ile yazılmış ilk cümle topic sentence olarak adlandırılır ve paragrafı özetler. Yeşil olarak yazılmış ikinci cümle konu ile ilgili önemli bir araştırmadır ve konuya örnek olma özelliği taşır, topic sentence açıklar.

Üçüncü kırmızı ile yazılmış cümleler bir eleştiri cümleleridir. Dördüncü turuncu ile yazılmış cümle konuyu bir teori ile açıklar. Beşinci mavi ile yazılmış cümle birkaç tane araştırmayı sentezleyen ve konuya ışık tutan cümleler grubudur. Son cümle ise literatürdeki açığı işaret etmektedir.

Literatür Taraması Örneği PDF

Bu bölümde size “Fertility, Divorce and Labor Force Participation” hakkında bir literatür taraması örneği (PDF) vereceğiz. Siz de bu yazıda öğrendiğiniz yapıları ve formatları kullanarak bu literatür taraması örneği (PDF) inceleyebilirsiniz.

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 18, 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, what is your plagiarism score.

Literatür Taraması Nedir ve Nasıl Yapılır ?

Literatür taraması nedir.

Bir araştırmanın en önemli aşamalarından biri literatür taramasıdır. Literatür taraması araştırma konusunun haritasının çıkarılması sürecidir. Benim araştırdığım konu daha önce çalışılmış mı? Kimler çalışmış? Konu hangi açıdan ve nasıl bir yöntem ile incelenmiş? Araştırmacının zihninde tüm bu sorulara cevap veren literatür taraması gereği gibi yapılmış demektir. Bu nedenle literatür taraması kaynakların künyeleri ile birlikte listelenmesinden öte bir çaba gerektirmektedir. 

Araştırma yaptığınız disipline göre literatür taramasında başvurulacak kaynaklar çeşitlenmekte ve farklılaşmaktadır. Bu nedenle araştırmaya başlamadan önce ilgili olduğunuz alana ilişkin literatürün taranmasında kullanacağınız araçları tespit ediniz. Araçların tespitinin ardından bu taramanın ne kadar bir sürede tamamlanacağını planlayınız. Bu plan dahilinde taramayı alt başlıkları bölerek, araştırma sorunuzu çeşitli açılardan sınıflandırınız. Çünkü sınıflandırma, literatür taramasının sonucunda ulaşılan verilerin değerlendirilmesini kolaylaştıracaktır. Araştırma sorusu kapsamında çıkarılacak anahtar kelimeler ise taramanızın geliştirilmesini sağlayacaktır.

*Literatür taramasına başlamadan önce araştırma sorunuzun net olarak belirli olması gerekmektedir.*

Literatür taraması ile birlikte kendi çalışmanızın yolunu açma imkanınız olacak, daha önceki yolların hangi noktalarda yoğunlaştığını tespit etme yetkinliğine ulaşacaksınız. Literatür taramasının en önemli katkısı bu yollar arasında eksikliği tespit edip, sizin bu eksiliğini nasıl gidereceğiniz sorusuna cevap bulmanızdır.

*Literatür taraması sonucunda araştırma sorunuza ilişkin daha önce yapılan çalışmaların yöntemsel ve teorik olarak hangi eksikliklerinin bulunduğunu tespit etmelisiniz. *

Literatürde erişilen kaynaklar arasında ilişkiler kurulmalı, ekoller, isimler vb. araştırma sorusu ile ilgili tüm bilgiler toplanmalıdır. Literatür taraması sonucunda araştırma sorusuna ilişkin çalışmaların eksiklikleri tespit edilmeli, çalışmaya ilişkin sınırlılıklar belirlenmeli ve bu çalışma ile sizin bilimsel alana  hangi katkıyı yapacağınız açıklanmalıdır.

*Literatür taraması betimleyici bir içerikten ziyade analitik ve eleştirel bir özelliğe sahip olmalıdır. *

Literatür Taramasının Araştırma Sürecine Katkısı Nedir?

1- Literatür taraması yaparken araştırma sorunuza ilişkin yöntemsel ve teorik çerçeveye hakim olabilirsiniz. Böylece yapacağınız çalışma ile literatürdeki hangi yöntemsel veya teorik eksikliğin giderileceği sorusuna cevap vermeniz mümkün olacaktır. 

2- Tarama sonucunda araştırma sorunuza ilişkin araştırma kurgunuzda öngöremediğiniz yöntemsel ve teorik noktaları tespit ederek, çalışmanızın bu eksikliğini giderebilirsiniz. Literatürde karşılaştığınız yeni bilgiler ile çalışmanızın içeriğini zenginleştirebilirsiniz. 

3- Araştırmanızı sunarken literatüre hakim olduğunuz izlenimi vermek, çalışmanızın bilimsel değerini artıracaktır. Çalışmanın temelinin oluşturan literatür taraması, çalışmanıza dair eleştirilerin yoğunlaşacağı alanlardan biridir. Bu nedenle literatür taramasının gereği gibi yapılmamış olması çalışmanın tümünün bilimsel anlamda yetersiz görülmesi ile sonuçlanmasına yol açabilecektir. 

Literatür Taraması Hangi Aşamalardan Oluşmaktadır?

1-Araştırma sorusunun ve anahtar kelimelerin belirlenmesi:  Literatür taramasına başlarken araştırmacı bir başlık belirler ve bu başlık kapsamında konunun hangi kapsamda inceleneceğine  karar verir.

2- Taramanın araçlarının tespit edilmesi ve taramanın planlanması: Belirlenen konu kapsamında hangi kaynakların kullanılacağı tespit edilmeli, bu kaynaklara erişme durumu belirlenmelidir. Tüm bu süreç bir plan dahilinde yürütülmelidir. Taramanın ne kadar bir sürede tamamlanacağı zamansal olarak planlanmalıdır. 

3-Taramanın alt parçalara bölünmesi ve sınıflandırılması 

Araştırma sorusuna ilişkin çeşitli alt başlıklar oluşturularak sınıflandırma yapılmalıdır. Böylece ulaşılan kaynakların karşılaştırılması ve birbiri ile ilişkisinin kurulması mümkün olacaktır.  Bu noktada tarama yaparken karşınıza çıkan kaynakların güvenirliği oldukça önemlidir. Bu nedenle erişilen kaynakların yazarı, eserin yayım yeri kontrol edilmelidir. Genel kamuya yönelik popüler yayınlardan ziyade profesyonel alıcı kitlesi için yazılmış akademik yayınlar öncelikle ele alınmalıdır. Ulaşılan kaynağın niteliksel olarak iyi olduğunu ayırt etme süreci o alandaki kaynakları tüketme oranı ile doğru orantılıdır. 

4- Literatür taramasının s onuçlandırılması   Tamamlanan taramaya bir sonuç bölümü yazılmalıdır. Bu sonuçta araştırma sorusuna ilişkin kaynakların bilgileri yer almalı bu kaynaklar eleştirel ve analitik bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmelidir. Sonucun önemi, araştırma sorunuza ilişkin literatürün eksikliklerinin tespit edilmesi ve  sizin bu eksikliği hangi açıdan gidereceğinize yanıt vermesidir. 

Literatür Taraması Yapılırken Nelere Dikkat Edilmelidir?

*İyi bir literatür tarama süreci kapsamlı, eleştirel ve güncel olmalıdır. Literatür taraması yapılırken öncelikle yeni çalışmalardan başlayıp geriye doğru gidilir.

*Araştırma sorusu ile ilgili tüm çalışmalara ulaşmaktan ziyade araştırma sorusu ile  bağlantılı ve bilimsel bir içeriğe sahip kaynaklara ulaşılmalıdır. Bu seçim araştırmacının bilimsel araştırma yöntemini özümsemesi ile gelişen bir süreç sonucunda olgunlaşmaktadır. Taramada özellikle birincil kaynaklara ulaşılmaya çalışılmalıdır.

ÖRNEK: Ulaşılan kaynaklarda özet kısmı okunarak, incelenen kaynağın araştırma konusu ile ilgili olup olmadığı tespit edilebilir. Bir başka yöntem ise anahtar kavramlar aracılığıyla erişilen kaynağın konusu hakkında bilgi sahibi olmaktır.

*Literatür taramasının en önemli noktalarından biri de not almaktır. Bu aşamada erişilen kaynakların karışık bir şekilde not alınması ileride birçok sorunun oluşmasına neden olacaktır. İyi bir literatür taraması planlı, anlaşılır bir not tutmayı gerektirmektedir. Notları birleştirme süreci de bir diğer önemli konudur. Bu nedenle literatür taraması yapılırken sistemli ve düzenli bir çalışma tarzı benimsenmelidir.  Yapacağınız tarama sadece bulunan kaynakların listelenmesi ve özetlemesinden oluşmamalıdır. Erişilen kaynakların güçlü ve zayıf yönleri tespit edilmelidir. 

*Çalışmanın tamamlanmasına kadar literatür belirli zaman aralıkları ile yeniden gözden geçirilmeli, araştırma konusuna ilişkin güncel çalışmalar takip edilmelidir.

Literatür Taraması Yaparken Hangi Kaynaklar Kullanılır?

Literatür taraması gerçekleştirilirken birçok farklı veri tabanı kullanılmaktadır. Günümüz teknolojisinin sunduğu imkanlar ile birçok kaynak internet ortamına aktarılmaktadır. Literatür tarama sürecinde iyi belirlenmiş bir araştırma sorusu ve anahtar kavramlar bu aşamanın hem hızlı hem de nitelikli bir şekilde tamamlanmasını sağlayacaktır. Aşağıda birkaç tarama kaynağına ilişkin örnekler verilmiştir. Bu listeye birçok veri tabanı dahil edilebilir. Türkçe alanyazının dışında uluslararası yayınlar da literatür taramasının önemli bir parçasıdır. Literatür taraması araştırmanın bir eki değil, doğru bir şekilde ilerleyebilmesi için temelidir. Bu temelde ulaşılan tespitler araştırma boyunca sizlerin yolunu açacaktır. Taramanın ardından gerçekleşecek değerlendirme süreci ise çalışma alanıza hakim olmanızı sağlayacaktır.

1- Bilimsel Yayınlar

Kitap, makale, bildiri metni, ansiklopedi maddesi, sözlükler, tezler

Kitap taramaları için: 

http://www.toplukatalog.gov.tr/

Tez taramaları için:

https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp

Makale taramaları için:

https://makaleler.mkutup.gov.tr/

https://asosindex.com.tr/

Ansiklopedi taramaları için:

https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/

https://www.britannica.com/

2- Kurumsal Yayınlar ve Politika Belgeleri

Kamu kurumları ve özel sektör yayınları                                       

3- Konuya ilişkin görsel ve işitsel çalışmalar                            

Not: Bu yazı hazırlanırken W.Lawrence Neuman’ın Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri Nitel ve Nicel Yaklaşımlar Kitabından yararlanılmıştır. ( Çev. Sedef Özge, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.)

Literatür taraması araştırma konusunun haritasının çıkarılması sürecidir. Literatür taraması ile benim araştırdığım konu daha önce çalışılmış mı? Kimler çalışmış? Konu hangi açıdan ve nasıl bir yöntem ile incelenmiş? Konuyun incelenmesinde hangi eksiklikler bulunmaktadır? sorularına cevap bulacaksınız.

Literatür taraması, araştırma konusu ve sorusunu belirleme, taramanın planlanması, taramanın alt başlıklar altında sınıflandırılması ve taramanın sonuca bağlaması olmak üzere temelde dört aşamadan oluşmaktadır.

Doktor Adayı, Ankara Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı

Çalışma Alanları: Kamu Yönetimi Disiplini, Yönetim Tarihi ve Düşünü, Siyasal Partiler ve Seçimler, Göç Yönetim Politikaları

• YAYIN KURULU
• AKADEMİSYENLER
• ARAŞTIRMACILAR
• BİZE KATILIN

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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.

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 16 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.

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

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a critical analysis of the literature related to your research topic. It evaluates and critiques the literature to establish a theoretical framework for your research topic and/or identify a gap in the existing research that your research will address.

A literature review is not a summary of the literature. You need to engage deeply and critically with the literature. Your literature review should show your understanding of the literature related to your research topic and lead to presenting a rationale for your research.

A literature review focuses on:

• the context of the topic
• key concepts, ideas, theories and methodologies
• key researchers, texts and seminal works
• major issues and debates
• identifying conflicting evidence
• the main questions that have been asked around the topic
• the organisation of knowledge on the topic
• definitions, particularly those that are contested
• showing how your research will advance scholarly knowledge (generally referred to as identifying the ‘gap’).

This module will guide you through the functions of a literature review; the typical process of conducting a literature review (including searching for literature and taking notes); structuring your literature review within your thesis and organising its internal ideas; and styling the language of your literature review.

The purposes of a literature review

A literature review serves two main purposes:

1) To show awareness of the present state of knowledge in a particular field, including:

• seminal authors
• the main empirical research
• theoretical positions
• controversies
• breakthroughs as well as links to other related areas of knowledge.

2) To provide a foundation for the author’s research. To do that, the literature review needs to:

• help the researcher define a hypothesis or a research question, and how answering the question will contribute to the body of knowledge;
• provide a rationale for investigating the problem and the selected methodology;
• provide a particular theoretical lens, support the argument, or identify gaps.

Before you engage further with this module, try the quiz below to see how much you already know about literature reviews.

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

What's a literature review.

• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• 1. Identify the Question
• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• 6. Synthesize
• 7. Write a Literature Review

What's a Literature Review? 

A literature review (or "lit review," for short) is an in-depth critical analysis of published scholarly research related to a specific topic. Published scholarly research (aka, "the literature") may include journal articles, books, book chapters, dissertations and thesis, or conference proceedings. 

A solid lit review must:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you're developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

• << Previous: Start
• Next: Literature Reviews: A Recap >>
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 5:17 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

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 .

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. 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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?

Purpose of a Literature Review

The literature review is designed to analyze-- not just summarize-- scholarly writings that are related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents the literature that provides background information on your topic and shows a correspondence between those writings and your research question.

A Literature Review is NOT

Keep in mind that a literature review defines and sets the stage for your later research.  While you may take the same steps in researching your literature review, your literature review is not:

• Not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A lit review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.
• Not a research paper where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

Video: What is a Literature Review?

Common Errors Made When Conducting a Literature Review

This video is a little long, but has some really good tips about literature review pitfalls:

• Collecting as many citations as possible -- playing a numbers game
• Claiming your research is entirely unique -- there is nothing published on it
• Citing only second or third-hand accounts of the classics

• Next: Examples >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2022 3:23 PM
• URL: https://wittenberg.libguides.com/c.php?g=1065068

• 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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

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.

• Introduction
• Limitations of the Current Evidence
• Observations: Neuroimmunological Complications of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination
• Conclusions
• Article Information

The first phase of screening excluded 1343 articles. Articles that did not include millions of vaccine doses of millions of vaccinated patients were removed if there existed articles including this number of patients or vaccinations, for example, for Guillain-Barré syndrome. If, as was the case of myasthenia gravis, there was insufficient evidence including millions of patients or vaccine doses, the articles evaluating the largest cohort of patients were included in the analysis. Articles were screened for a focus on neurological disease occurrence or worsening following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Neurological disease included central and peripheral nervous system complications, including but not limited to autoimmune diseases, cerebrovascular disease, and psychiatric disease.

The forest plot was created using data hand-extracted from 9 articles that recorded cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome following an AV vaccine, the background incidence in their cohort—or where the background incidence could be taken from another cohort, which was possible for the British data—and the number of vaccinated individuals for that specific vaccine. Articles containing Guillain-Barré syndrome data not included in the plot did not include the parameters needed to calculate the excess cases per 100 000 vaccines, for example, only the total number of Guillain-Barré syndrome cases for a given vaccine with no expected or background rate available or without the total number of individuals vaccinated using a specific vaccine. The excess cases per 100 000 vaccines and the 95% CIs were calculated from the number of vaccinated individuals for a given vaccine as well as the number of excess Guillain-Barré syndrome cases in that population. All the articles identified an excess of GBS cases following AV vaccination.

eMethods 1. Detailed Search Strategy

eMethods 2. Detailed Analysis of Identified Data for Bell Palsy, Myasthenia Gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Central Demyelination, and Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders and MOG Antibody–Associated Disease

eReferences.

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn
• CME & MOC

Willison AG , Pawlitzki M , Lunn MP , Willison HJ , Hartung H , Meuth SG. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Neuroimmunological Disease : A Review . JAMA Neurol. 2024;81(2):179–186. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.5208

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Neuroimmunological Disease : A Review

• 1 Department of Neurology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
• 2 Centre for Neuromuscular Disease, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, United Kingdom
• 3 Department of Neuromuscular Disease, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
• 4 College of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
• 5 Department of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
• 6 Brain and Mind Center, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
• 7 Department of Neurology, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

Importance   The temporal association between the occurrence of neurological diseases, many autoimmune diseases, and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been topically interesting and remains hotly debated both in the medical literature and the clinic. Given the very low incidences of these events both naturally occurring and in relation to vaccination, it is challenging to determine with certainty whether there is any causative association and most certainly what the pathophysiology of that causation could be.

Observations   Data from international cohorts including millions of vaccinated individuals suggest that there is a probable association between the adenovirus-vectored vaccines and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Further associations between other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and GBS or Bell palsy have not been clearly demonstrated in large cohort studies, but the possible rare occurrence of Bell palsy following messenger RNA vaccination is a topic of interest. It is also yet to be clearly demonstrated that any other neurological diseases, such as central nervous system demyelinating disease or myasthenia gravis, have any causative association with vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 using any vaccine type, although it is possible that vaccination may rarely trigger a relapse or worsen symptoms or first presentation in already-diagnosed or susceptible individuals.

Conclusions and Relevance   The associated risk between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and GBS, and possibly Bell palsy, is slight, and this should not change the recommendation for individuals to be vaccinated. The same advice should be given to those with preexisting neurological autoimmune disease.

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in COVID-19 in many, which can be severe in some. After a year of variable worldwide government-mandated social restrictions, the arrival in 2021 of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 was very welcome. These used new medical technologies, and there was public and medical concern about any potential serious neurological adverse effects that might occur. As a result, passive and active academic and international clinical surveillance systems focused on public reassurance and ensuring pharmacological safety. The neurological diseases of concern, including specific adverse events of special interest, are all individually rare. Most occur with a background incidence of naturally occurring disease recorded with variable accuracy in nonpandemic historical cohorts. Furthermore, a heterogeneity of ascertainment, recording, and coding strategies have hampered efforts to identify or refute causality. The reporting systems in place are by necessity usually passive, with variable ability to corroborate reports and clean data. Rarely, reliable active ascertainment methods can generate more accurate data. 1 In general, evidence that vaccination is causally significant in the pathogenesis of autoimmune neurological syndromes is rarely validated even by large, well-conducted epidemiological studies. 2 An almost unique exception to this is the cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, now termed vaccine-associated immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT), identified as a rare and specific complication of the adenoviral vector (AV) ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) vaccines. 3 , 4 An increased risk of developing other neurological autoimmune disorders has been extensively sought, but only the very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following AV vaccine administration has been supported by significant evidence.

We performed an extensive literature search for this narrative review in the PubMed and Scopus databases, with no limitation on the time period searched, using the MeSH search terms “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” AND “vaccination” AND “autoimmune,” returning 1005 articles in PubMed and 1364 articles in Scopus ( Figure 1 ; eMethods 1 in the Supplement ). Relevant studies for inclusion were identified by A. G. W. and M. P., who independently screened all titles and abstracts. A hierarchical selection was used where only high-quality epidemiological studies exploring millions of participants or vaccine doses were included to review the highest certainty evidence. Case studies have only been included where no or very few large studies were identified.

The forest plot ( Figure 1 ) was created using data hand-extracted from 10 articles that recorded cases of GBS following an AV vaccine, the background incidence in their cohort—or, where the background incidence could be taken from another cohort, which was possible for the British data—and the number of vaccinated individuals for that specific vaccine. Articles containing GBS data not included in the plot did not include the parameters needed to calculate the excess cases per 100 000 vaccines—for example, only the total number of GBS cases for a given vaccine with no expected or background rate available or without the total number of individuals vaccinated using a specific vaccine. The excess cases per 100 000 vaccines and the 95% CI were calculated from the number of vaccinated individuals for a given vaccine as well as the number of excess GBS cases in that population. The parameters were calculated in Excel version 16.69 (Microsoft), and the plot was created in RStudio version 2022.12.0 (Posit) using the ggplot2 package.

These data are all particularly vulnerable to small study effects, publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and clinical heterogeneity, as neurological disease following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is rare, event numbers are small, and public interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic is huge. We therefore preferentially selected large cohort studies for this review. Even in these studies, acquisition bias is important, as the interest in GBS, facial palsy, and other neurological diseases likely led to significant overreporting or duplicate reporting. As illustrated in data from the UK, cohorts often interrogated the same data sets, and so cohorts reporting the same participant were reported in more than 1 article. Multiple reporting of patients also occurred in the passively reported Yellow Card system in the UK and possibly Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the US; these systems have limited cross-checking and data cleaning methods, unlike the National Health Service England (NHSE) Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) used by Keh et al. 1 The risk of overrepresenting the incidence of neurological disease following vaccination is further increased by the background rates of relatively mild diseases being underestimated in some epidemiological cohorts. People with mild GBS or mild Bell palsy may not present to hospital, and so the true background rate may well be higher than the background rate estimated by the literature. This imbalance is problematic for then understanding true incidences following vaccination. Additionally, the diagnostic certainty of GBS, Bell palsy, myasthenia gravis, and other diseases is often very limited in passive systems, and to our knowledge, only the NHSE IVIG database had some prospective diagnostic check. In the Yellow Card UK data set, fewer than 20% of patients were in a diagnostic certainty category or had a Brighton score of 1 to 3.

The most frequently investigated temporal association between an autoimmune neurological disease and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was GBS, an acute-onset immune-mediated postinfectious polyradiculoneuropathy. 5 The background incidence of GBS in North America and Europe is approximately between 0.8 and 1.9 (median, 1.11) cases per 100 000 person-years. 6 GBS usually occurs within 4 weeks of a triggering infection, but an interval of up to 6 weeks was established following swine flu vaccination in 1976/1977, and the consensus is to consider this period of vaccination-attributable risk the same as the infection’s at-risk period. 1 , 7 Numerous studies based on national or insurance-based surveillance systems have been published, many including millions of vaccines or vaccinated individuals ( Table 1 ). 1 , 8 - 17 We present these separated by country. The major differences in certainty of the conclusions are diagnostic categorization (from patient-reported passive reporting to dedicated clinician-identified and criterion-supported diagnoses) and study size; the latter is crucial in rare associations where huge populations are required to identify low event numbers reliably.

A UK self-controlled case series including unverified coding data of hospital admissions assessed GBS incidence 1 to 28 days postvaccination. A total of 20 417 752 individuals vaccinated with a first dose of ChAdOx1 were included. An increased incidence rate ratio (IRR) for hospital admission or death due to GBS was reported from 15 to 21 days (IRR, 2.90; 95% CI, 2.15-3.92) and 22 to 28 days (IRR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.59-3.09) after vaccination. An increased risk of GBS in the 1 to 28 days postvaccination (IRR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.60-2.60) equated to an excess of 38 GBS cases per 10 million exposed to ChAdOx1. 9 No association was demonstrable with BNT162b2. A Scottish validation cohort supported these findings. 9 A subsequent self-controlled English case series looking for GBS, transverse myelitis, and Bell palsy using a very similar (possibly the same) data set coded in primary care from emergency department and secondary institutions but using slightly different methodology included 7 783 441 individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1. 8 New coded but diagnostically unverified episodes of GBS logged from 4 to 42 days after vaccination were used in the analysis. A total of 517 cases of GBS resulted in an increased post–ChAdOx1 vaccination IRR of 2.85 (95% CI, 2.33-3.47), corresponding to 11 excess cases of GBS per 1 million vaccines. The excess was again after the first dose only, and the relative increase in GBS cases was highest among individuals aged 40 to 64 years. 8 There was no association with the BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) vaccine. 8

Significantly more reliable GBS diagnosis and case ascertainment using the UK National Immunoglobulin Database/NHSE IVIG database paired with known immunization type and date allowed for the evaluation of criteria-supported GBS diagnosis in relation to 20 300 000 ChAdOx1 doses, 11 500 000 of BNT162b2 doses, and 300 000 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) doses. 1 Only 90 to 140 excess UK GBS cases above the background rate could be identified, distributing in a peak about 24 days after a first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine. 1 The excess risk of GBS in the first 42 days following vaccination using ChAdOx1 was 0.576 cases (95% CI, 0.481-0.691) per 100 000 doses, and this risk is established with higher certainty from this study. Using a prospective case collection in a multicenter UK surveillance database, no specific vaccine-associated GBS phenotype was identified, illustrating how hard it is to identify cases with causal association from background occurrences. 1 Tamborska et al 18 also identified that ChAdOx1 may be associated with GBS using an independent online open-access passive reporting national surveillance system, but it should be noted that the the cases in their study are a subset of those in the study by Keh et al. 1

Cases of GBS occurring between 3 and 42 days postvaccination reported to the German national surveillance system were analyzed. 19 Following vaccination with ChAdOx1 and Ad.26.COV2.S, the expected number of GBS cases was exceeded by a factor of 3.1 and 4.2, respectively. This was not observed for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines or for the additionally included influenza vaccine. Lehmann et al 19 also suggested a higher frequency of bilateral facial paresis in GBS cases occurring after vaccination; however, acquisition may have been overestimated by the inclusion of Bell phenomenon (normal upward elevation of the ocular globe on voluntary eye closure) as well as Bell palsy and its synonyms as a search criterion for identifying cases.

Using data from the French national health data system (Système National des Données de Santé), with 139 million doses of 4 vaccinees (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, and Ad26.COV2.S), an excess of approximately 6 cases of GBS per million persons occurred within 42 days of the first dose of each of the AV vaccines. 13 There was no evidence of an increased risk after the second or third doses. An increased risk following Ad26.COV2.S was only observed in individuals 50 years or older. This cohort only included cases of GBS for patients requiring hospitalization, possibly underestimating the true incidence.

US reporting systems are smaller in size compared with the UK, as they frequently rely on insurance-based monitoring, as no true nationwide systems exist. Hanson et al 10 performed a cohort study of surveillance data (Vaccine Safety Datalink) from 7 894 989 individuals. An increased incidence of GBS following the Ad.26.COV2.S AV vaccine (only 483 053 doses) was observed in this cohort calculated from the 11 reported and confirmed GBS cases following this vaccine. The unadjusted incidence rate of GBS cases per 100 000 person-years (32.4; 95% CI, 14.8-61.5) in the 1 to 21 days following vaccination was highest in the first 14 days. This figure is 15-fold to 30-fold the background GBS rate 10 ; subsequent cases of GBS that have clearly not occurred at this frequency in larger vaccinated cohorts and overestimated risk illustrates the problems of small studies with low event numbers. As a further illustration of this, 91% of patients had facial weakness or paralysis in addition to limb weakness, and Hanson et al 10 suggested that AV vaccines may precipitate a form of GBS that has distinct facial involvement. This was not borne out in practice or other larger more reliable series. The slightly larger VAERS reported a small but statistically significant safety concern for GBS following Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. 15 The estimated crude reporting rate was 1 case of GBS per 100 000 doses of Ad26.COV2.S. Woo et al 15 calculated in the worst-case-scenario analysis that the estimated absolute rate increase of GBS was 6.36 per 100 000 person-years following Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. From these small studies, neither the high incidence of facial paralysis nor GBS has occurred. A more recent publication from Abara et al 11 also used VAERS to identify GBS cases among 487 651 785 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (17 944 515 Ad26.COV2.S doses, 266 859 784 BnT162b2 doses, and 202 847 486 mRNA-1273 doses) within 21 days and 42 days of vaccination. The data indicated an association between Ad26.COV2.S and an increased risk of GBS (observed-to-expected [OE] ratio at 21 days, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.88-4.88; OE ratio at 42 days, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.83-2.94), which was not observed for the mRNA vaccines (OE ratio less than 1 for both mRNA vaccines). 11

Mexico administered 81 842 426 doses of ChAdOx1, rAd26-rAd5 (Sputnik V, AV vaccine), Ad5-nCoV (Convidecia, AV vaccine), Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac (Sinovac, inactivated whole virus). Using CoronaVac as a comparator, higher incidences of GBS per 1 000 000 administered doses were observed among those vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S (3.86; 95% CI, 1.50-9.93) and BNT162b2 (1.92; 95% CI, 1.36-2.71). 12 GBS incidence per 1 000 000 administered doses was higher among mRNA-based vaccine recipients in this cohort (1.85; 95% CI, 1.33-2.57). This is the only study to suggest a risk from BNT162b2, but it is one of the largest population studies reported.

In Victoria, Australia, an enhanced passive (spontaneous) and active surveillance system was used to identify GBS cases following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Within 42 days of vaccination, the observed GBS incidence rate was 1.85 per 100 000 doses of ChAdOx1 following the first dose, with the expected rate given as 0.39 presentations per 100 000 adult population. 14 The rate was not increased for BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273.

Maramattom et al 16 reported a case series in which they observed a 1.4-fold to 10-fold increase in the incidence of GBS during a 4-week period between mid-March to mid-April 2021 in 3 districts of Kerela, India. The number of individuals in this cohort was estimated at only 1.2 million. In the UK, Singapore, and other countries with comprehensive pre–COVID-19 pandemic reporting of GBS cases, the case numbers remained largely the same as pre–COVID-19 pandemic, and reported significant increases in cases in small series is probably artifactual.

Lee et al 20 performed a nationwide time series correlation study using data collected from the National Health Insurance Service and Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency databases to assess incidence of GBS prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The cumulative incidence rate of GBS was significantly lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (2.1 per 100 000 population in 2020 to 2021 vs 2.4 per 100 000 population in 2017 to 2019), but time series correlation analysis demonstrated a strongly positive temporal association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and GBS in 2021. Lee et al 20 did not specifically assess whether this could be attributed to a single vaccine. In a prospective surveillance study including 38 828 691 total vaccine doses, of which 6 465 097 were AV vaccines (ChAdOx1 and Ad26.CoV2.S), Ha et al 21 concluded AV vaccines were associated with a 3-fold to 4-fold increased risk of developing GBS than mRNA vaccines in the same cohort, with GBS following the AV vaccine associated with the first dose. 21

Li et al 17 evaluated 4 376 535 ChAdOx1, 3 588 318 BNT162b2, 244 913 mRNA-1273, and 120 731 Ad26.CoV2 vaccinated individuals compared with a historical cohort of 14 330 080 individuals in the general populations of the UK and Spain. The authors did not identify an increased risk of GBS following any vaccine 0 to 21 days after the first dose. Using the World Health Organization global pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase), Kim et al 22 also found no association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with the influenza vaccines but warned regarding the heterogeneity of sources of information in the database. However, a further case report from VigiBase suggested that there is a risk of GBS following AV vaccines. 23

The 4 UK studies highlight the major difficulties of the rush to study and, subsequently, of any systematic synthesis. Estimates of risk were generated with differing reliability, and for any future synthesis, significant numbers of the cases in these 4 studies are likely the same case reported multiple times but with variable diagnostic certainty. We calculated and demonstrated the excess number of cases of GBS per 100 000 vaccines for 10 studies that evaluated AV vaccines ( Figure 2 ). 1 , 8 - 11 , 13 - 17 The data demonstrate a relatively equivalent number of cases of excess GBS per 100 000 vaccinations using AV vaccines. One limitation of this graph is that the observed postvaccination time period varies as follows: Keh et al, 1 42 days; Hanson et al, 10 21 days; Osowicki et al, 14 28 days; Maramattom et al, 16 28 days; Li et al, 17 21 days; Patone et al, 9 28 days; Abara et al, 11 42 days; Walker et al, 8 4 to 42 days; Woo et al, 15 42 days; and Le Vu et al, 13 42 days.

Studies including millions of vaccines or vaccinated individuals have been included ( Table 2 ). 8 , 9 , 17 , 24 The unilateral lower motor neuron facial nerve palsy, often referred to as Bell palsy , describes paralysis of the facial nerve that occurs in the absence of an identifiable cause, with an annual incidence of 15 to 30 per 100 000 persons. 25 The phase 3 clinical trials of the mRNA vaccines identified a numerical imbalance between Bell palsy occurrence in the vaccinated group compared with placebo, which instigated investigation into whether there was an association of Bell palsy with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 26 , 27 This safety signal concern raised from the mRNA vaccine clinical trials was investigated in a disproportionality analysis using the World Health Organization VigiBase, and the reporting rate of facial paralysis was not found to be higher than that observed with other vaccines. 28 This finding of no association was supported by an interim analysis of surveillance data from 6.2 million individuals in the US vaccinated with 11.8 million doses of mRNA vaccine. 29 However, following separate, independent analyses of the clinical trial data, Cirillo and Doan 30 and Ozonoff et al 31 both suggested a higher risk of developing facial palsy associated with the mRNA vaccines compared with the background population. A safety assessment by Sato et al 32 using the VAERS database then demonstrated that the incidence of Bell palsy following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was lower than or equivalent to the rates associated with influenza vaccines; however, there was a statistically significant relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination above the background prevalence. 32 An important major flaw in the data is the inclusion of Bell phenomenon in the search criteria. 33 A full analysis of the articles evaluating the association between Bell palsy and vaccination is available in eMethods 2 in the Supplement . In summary, an association of vaccination with Bell palsy is unclear.

An association between vaccination and myasthenia gravis, multiple sclerosis and central demyelination, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders, and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody–associated disease occurrence is not clearly supported by the literature. A detailed analysis is included in eMethods 2 in the Supplement .

GBS remains the neurological condition with the clearest evidence of a causal link with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, neither SARS-CoV-2 nor adenoviruses have been convincingly associated with GBS pathogenesis. Whether the vaccine data indicate that adenovirus may be of undetermined pathogenic importance in GBS is unclear, 34 but it would not be impossible. Discussion of the underlying pathogenesis of AV vaccine–driven GBS remains purely hypothetical owing to rarity, unstructured case ascertainment, and absence of widespread clinical biomarker sampling.

Identifying the molecular agent driving autoimmunity aids in any discussion of pathogenesis. This concerns some or all of the spike protein, the AV components, and the immune response to vaccination or infection. The autoimmune diseases that are reported to occur following COVID-19 only very rarely involve the peripheral nervous system. 35 The studies and data suggesting an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and self-reactivity are dependent on temporal associations and have little else to support a proven causality. 35 Unlike vaccination, it is difficult to pinpoint an infection date or time of immune response in infection adding additional uncertainty to coassociation. Given the unprecedented conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the inherent complexity of autoimmunity, finding an autoimmunity and SARS-CoV-2 link will be challenging. It does not appear that the spike protein is a causal trigger of autoimmunity; if it were, then autoimmune diseases and GBS would occur with equal frequency in all vaccines. Repeated stimulation of C57B1/6 mice with recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not induce any measurable autoimmunity. 36 It follows that the vaccine component common to the AV vaccines is the stimulus associated with the development of GBS. Despite the likelihood that AV components are the causative stimulus, it is then unclear if it is the inflammatory response to the vaccination, host genetic factors such as HLA haplotypes, autoreactivity of the adenovirus particles, or any or all of these could therefore be involved in the pathogenesis of GBS.

Identified adenoviral infection does not classically precede GBS onset in a frequency higher than background rates of infection and has not often been linked to GBS pathogenesis. 37 One study stands out as finding very high seroconversion rates, 38 but this finding has never been replicated. The adenoviral serotypes used in vaccinations are deliberately selected for their low virulence in humans. AV vaccines, in part due to the broad tissue tropism of adenovirus, are nonetheless potently immunogenic. The ChAdOx1 vaccine is based on the chimpanzee adenovirus (ChAd) Y25, and Ad26.COV2.S is based on species D human adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26). Ad26 has a low seroprevalence in humans, 39 and a notable benefit to using ChAds is also the circumventing of any more generic preexisting human adenoviral immunity in the general population; the presence of antibodies against a given adenovirus serotype would greatly impede the immunogenicity of the vaccine antigen. 40 Whether this potent and distinctive immunogenicity of AV vaccination could be linked to driving autoimmunity through, for example, activating anergic B cells or activation of bystander T cells in susceptible individuals is pure speculation. 41 , 42 To our knowledge, both processes have yet to be associated with GBS. In addition, while there have been no known genetic associations when studying GBS as a group, there is little known about individual precipitating infections for HLA linkage, for example. Further investigation of this topic could aim to identify distinctive antibody or T-cell receptor signatures to AV fragments in individuals with post–AV vaccine GBS compared with unaffected AV vaccine–immunized controls, a unique HLA haplotype in those with post–AV vaccine GBS compared with controls, or specific neural/myelin-centric molecular targets for AV antibodies in those with post–AV vaccine GBS.

The occurrence of VITT following vaccination with ChAdOx and Ad26.COV2.S has a clearer pathomechanism. 43 VITT is estimated to occur in 3 to 15 persons per million first doses of AV vaccine, with some rare cases occurring after a second vaccination. Biomarkers such as thrombocytopenia, D-dimer elevation, and reduced plasma fibrinogen were identified in many cases. VITT was also associated with immunoglobulin G antibodies directed against platelet factor 4, which leads to greatly enhanced platelet activation. 44 Whether cross-reactivity of AV components and peripheral nerve (glyco-)proteins could similarly lead to GBS has been suggested in the literature. However, the electrostatic interaction of platelet factor 4 that initiates VITT is not easily replicated by peripheral nerve components. Further research is needed to investigate the cross-reactivity of antibodies against different vectors after immunization as well as the possible interaction between components of adenoviruses and surface molecules of peripheral nerve structures.

In this review, we found there was a small increased risk of GBS following AV-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. High-quality UK studies of large cohorts convincingly reproduced consistent similar numerical associations for the AV-based ChAdOx1 vaccine, and these have been replicated in other international studies. The risk of Bell palsy following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was unclear. No quantifiable excess risk was identified for myasthenia gravis, multiple sclerosis, or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders.

There are substantial confounding factors in all of the studies, limiting the certainty of their conclusions. Vaccination of a substantial proportion of the world’s population happened after a year of severe pandemic illness and restricted interperson mixing, with background health and environmental risk substantially modifying health and immune exposures. The global search for a vaccine solution was met in many quarters by suspicion and criticism of new technology. There were many motivations for physicians, the public, and politicians to report any perceived complication. The lack of many organized, effective, and highly accurate national surveillance systems was quickly realized, and the data generated by multiple, heterogeneous acquisition and diagnosis-based systems are of questionable certainty for these rare and difficult-to-diagnose events. It is very unlikely that the risks of vaccination for any associated condition have been underestimated. But it is very clear that the reductions in illness episodes, hospitalizations, and deaths were the result of the huge, conferred benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination at the individual and societal levels. 45

Accepted for Publication: November 10, 2023.

Published Online: January 16, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.5208

Corresponding Author: Hans-Peter Hartung, MD ( [email protected] ), and Sven Günther Meuth, MD, PhD ( [email protected] ), Department of Neurology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstraße 1, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.

Author Contributions: Drs Willison and Pawlitzki were co–first authors. Drs Hartung and Meuth were co–senior authors.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr A. Willison reported personal fees from Merck, Sanofi Aventis, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr Pawlitzki reported personal fees from Argenx, Alexion, Hexal, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Bayer, and Biogen outside the submitted work. Dr H. Willison reported grants from Argenx and Annexon Biosciences as well as personal fees from Argenx, AOA Dx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coronex, CSL, Gene Tx Therapeutics, GSK, Hoffman La Roche, Immunic Therapeutics, Longboard Pharma, Novartis, UCB Biopharma SRL, and Annexon Biosciences outside the submitted work. Dr Hartung reported personal fees from Horizon Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, and Roche outside the submitted work. Dr Meuth reported personal fees from Academy 2, Argenx, Alexion, Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Bayer Health Care, Biogen, BioNTech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Datamed, Demecan, Desitin, Diamed, Diaplan, DIU Dresden, DPmed, Genzyme, Hexal AG, Impulze GmbH, Janssen Cilag, KW Medipoint, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, MICE, Mylan, Neuraxpharm, Neuropoint, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, ONO Pharma, Oxford PharmaGenesis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Springer Medizin Verlag, STADA, Chugai Pharma, QuintilesIMS, Teva, Wings for Life International, and Xcenda as well as grants from the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation, Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), German Academic Exchange Service, Hertie Foundation, Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Studies (IZKF) Munster, German Foundation Neurology, Alexion, Almirall, Amicus Therapeutics Germany, Biogen, Diamed, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Materialkunde (DGM), Fresenius Medical Care, Genzyme, Gesellschaft von Freunden und Förderern der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, HERZ Burgdorf, Merck Serono, Novartis, ONO Pharma, Roche, and Teva outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

Impact of the Mexico City Policy: Literature Review

Jennifer Kates and Kellie Moss Published: Jul 17, 2024

• Issue Brief
• Appendix Table

There is an increasing literature assessing the impact of the Mexico City Policy over time and during different presidential administrations. We conducted a literature review to identify studies examining this impact, from 2001 to the present, with particular focus on capturing recent studies assessing the policy under the Trump administration. Overall, we identified 71 studies or documents for inclusion in our review. They employed a variety of methodological approaches (including more than one approach in a single study) with the majority using qualitative methods (48), followed by those using quantitative methods (27); seven were scoping or literature reviews. Most of the literature assessed the impact of the policy under the Trump administration (45), followed by the George W. Bush administration (31). Fewer studies looked at the policy under other presidential administrations. Taken together, the literature documents a range of impacts associated with the policy, including: increases in abortion rates and reductions in contraceptive prevalence (among other health outcomes); disruption and gaps in services; reduction in service integration; over-implementation and chilling effects; confusion about the policy; loss of civil society/NGO coordination and partnerships; and increased administrative burden. In addition, several studies sought to calculate or estimate the reach of the policy, as measured by amount of funding, countries, and/or NGOs affected.

Snapshot of the Literature

We identified 71 studies , published since 2001, for inclusion in this review. Key characteristics are as follows:

Presidential Administration : The studies reviewed included those that assessed the impact of the policy over time and during different presidential administrations; these included times when the policy was not in place, generally to serve as a control or comparison period. Most of the studies reviewed assessed the impact of the policy under the Trump administration (45), followed by studies assessing the impact under the George W. Bush administration (31). Fewer studies looked at the impact under other presidential administrations, with 10 assessing the policy during the George H.W. Bush administration and 9 during the Reagan administration. A small number used the Obama (15), Clinton (13), and Biden (4) administration periods as comparisons.

Methodological Approach : The studies employed a variety of methodological approaches, often using more than one. The majority used qualitative methods, primarily key informant interviews and site visits (48), followed by those that used quantitative methods (27). Seven were scoping or literature reviews, included primarily to help identify additional studies and confirm overall findings.

Geographic Scope : Studies were largely split between those that were multi-country in their geographic scope (29) or single-country focused (29). The remainder did not include a specific geographical analysis (13).

Type of Literature : Twenty-nine studies were peer reviewed analyses, 38 were independent or organizational studies, and four were U.S. government-issued reports.

Below, we summarize the literature reviewed and provide findings in key areas (see Appendix Table for a complete list of studies, including their findings and other information).

Reach and Impacts of the Policy

The U.S. government has not routinely provided data (such as data on the amount of funding or number of recipients subject to the policy) when the Mexico City Policy has been in effect. As such, several studies have attempted to calculate or estimate its reach. Our analyses have found that the expanded policy during the Trump administration applied to a much greater amount of U.S. global health assistance, and a greater number of foreign NGOs, across many program areas than during prior periods when the policy was in effect. Specifically, we found that the Trump policy potentially encompassed $7.3 billion in global health assistance, a significantly greater amount than the $600 million in family planning funding that would have been subject to the policy under prior iterations (Moss & Kates 2021). Using prior periods as proxies, we also found that had the expanded Mexico City Policy been in effect during the FY 2013 – FY 2015 period, approximately 1,275 foreign NGOs would have been subject to the policy, and more than 460 U.S. NGOs recipients of U.S. global health assistance would have been required to ensure that their foreign NGO sub-recipients were in compliance (Moss & Kates 2017). Finally, we found that more than half (37) of the 64 countries that received U.S. bilateral global health assistance in FY 2016 allowed for legal abortion in at least one case not permitted by the policy, suggesting that the policy would be at odds with country law in many cases (Kates & Moss 2017).

A Congressionally-requested GAO (GAO 2020) study of the Trump administration’s policy analyzed U.S. government project data from May 2017 through FY 2018 (Sept. 2018) and found that the policy had been applied to more than 1,300 global health assistance awards (that is, grants or cooperative agreements), primarily at USAID and CDC. NGOs had declined to accept the policy in 54 instances, totaling $153 million in declined funding. These included seven prime awards totaling $102 million and 47 sub-awards totaling $51 million (more than two-thirds of sub-awards were intended for Africa).

Effects on Abortion Rates, Contraceptive Prevalence, and Pregnancy

Several studies have sought to estimate the association between the Mexico City Policy and a range of health outcomes among women, including abortion rates, contraceptive prevalence, and pregnancy:

• Brooks et al. (2023), using data from eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa between 2014-2019, found that women were significantly less likely to be using any method of contraception when the Trump administration’s policy was in effect, equivalent to a 13% reduction in contraceptive prevalence. They also found that women appeared to be substituting traditional methods of family planning for modern methods. Finally, they found that women were 5.7% more likely to have given birth when the policy was in place.
• Kavakli and Rotondi (2022), using data from 134 countries between 1990-2015, found that, when in place, the policy was associated with higher maternal and child mortality and HIV incidence rates. In addition, their analysis of individual data in 30 countries found that women had less access to modern contraception and were more likely to report that their pregnancy was not desired. Finally, they used their findings to estimate that reinstatement of the policy by the Trump administration could result in 108,000 maternal and child deaths and 360,000 new HIV infections over a four year period.
• Brooks et al. (2019), using data from 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa between 1995-2014, found that when the policy was in place, abortion rates rose by 40%, use of modern contraceptives declined by 14%, and pregnancies increased by 12%.
• Rodgers (2018), using data from 51 countries between 1994-2008, assessed the impact of the policy on abortion rates before and after its reinstatement in 2001 by President George W. Bush, finding that the policy was associated with a threefold increase in the odds of women getting an abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean and a twofold increase in sub-Saharan Africa; there was no net change in the Middle East and Central Asia. They also found that there was no consistent relationship between strict abortion laws and abortion rates.
• Bendavid et al. (2011), using data from 20 African countries between 1994-2008, found that women had 2.55 times the odds of having an induced abortion after the policy’s reinstatement and that the prevalence of contraceptive use was almost 2% lower.

Disruption and Gaps in Family Planning Services

Numerous studies have documented disruption and gaps in family planning services when the policy has been in place. For example, a recent quantitative analysis of the policy during the Trump administration, based on data from eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa, found that health facilities provided fewer family planning services, including fewer short-acting methods, long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), and emergency contraception (Brooks et al., 2023). Studies in Ethiopia also found statistically significant declines in the use of LARCs and short-acting methods under the Trump administration’s policy (Sully et al., 2023) and decreases in the proportions of facilities reporting family planning provision through community health volunteers, mobile outreach visits, and family planning and postabortion care service integration, as well as increases in contraceptive stock-outs (Sully et al., 2022).

A recent GAO analysis (2022) documented delays, gaps, and disruptions in the provision of family planning services in Senegal, Uganda, and the West Africa region due to the Trump administration’s policy. Similarly, the Department of State (2020), in its second review of the expanded policy during the Trump administration, found that although agencies and departments made efforts to transition projects to another implementer to minimize disruption, gaps and disruptions were sometimes reported when recipients of U.S. funding declined to accept the policy. An analysis by Sherwood et al. (2020) found significant decreases in services offered by PEPFAR implementing organizations, including reductions in the delivery of information about sexual and reproductive health, pregnancy counseling, contraception provision, and HIV testing and counseling, due to the policy.

Qualitative analyses have also found disruptions and gaps in family planning and other services – including clinic closures, loss of staff, reduction in services, and increased commodity insecurity – during the Trump administration’s policy, including in: Ethiopia (Vernaelde 2022; PAI 2018), Kenya (Ushie, et al., 2020; Human Rights Watch 2017), Madagascar (Ravaoarisoa et al., 2020; MSI 2018), Nepal (Puri et al., 2020; Adhikari 2019; PAI 2018), Nigeria (PAI 2018), South Africa (du Plessis et al., 2019), and Uganda (MSI 2018; PAI 2018; Human Rights Watch 2017).

Analyses of the impacts of the policy during prior administrations also found disruptions and gaps (see, for example, Jones 2015; GGR Impact Project 2003-2006).

Reduction in Service Integration

Studies have also examined how the policy might affect service integration and/or documented impacts on integration. For example, a study in PEPFAR countries found a high risk of disruption in integration of family planning and HIV services (Sherwood et al., 2018) under the Trump administration’s policy. Disruption of service integration was documented in Cambodia (Frontline AIDS & Watipa 2019), Ethiopia (Sully et al., 2022), and the West Africa region (GAO 2022).

Over-Implementation and Chilling Effect

Several studies have documented an “over-implementation” of the policy (that is, implementers, providers or others taking steps to curtail services beyond what was required by the Mexico City Policy), resulting in further limitations. This was found in a survey of PEPFAR implementers (Sherwood et al., 2020) as well as in qualitative research in Malawi (Iyer et al., 2022), Nigeria (Rios 2019), and interviews with broader groups of stakeholders (Planned Parenthood Global 2019), among other studies. Similarly, several studies cited a “chilling effect” among implementers and others, resulting in reluctance to provide services or partner with certain organizations even where abortion was legal. This was found in Kenya (Maistrellis et al., 2022), Nepal (Maistrellis et al., 2022; Tamang et al., 2020), Nigeria (PAI 2018), and Uganda (PAI 2018).

Confusion about the policy, including what is required, has been documented throughout its history. For example, the Department of State (2018), in its initial six-month review of implementation of the Trump administration’s policy, found a number of areas needing clarification to reduce confusion. Specifically, the review directed agencies to provide greater support for improving understanding of implementation among affected organizations and provide additional guidance to clarify terms and conditions. A range of qualitative analyses have similarly documented confusion about the expanded Trump policy including among respondents in Cambodia (Frontline AIDS & Watipa 2019), Ethiopia (PAI 2018), Kenya (Rios 2019), Malawi (Frontline AIDS & Watipa 2019), Nepal (Puri 2020; Rios 2019), Nigeria (Rios 2019), and South Africa (Rios 2019), and among key informants in multiple other settings (PPFA, CHANGE).

Confusion about the policy has even been found during times when it was not in place. For example, one study found that even after the policy was rescinded by the Obama administration, interviewees in Nepal reported a range of misunderstandings from believing that all U.S. abortion restrictions were lifted to believing that the policy was still in place, and interviewees also often conflated the policy with the Helms Amendment, which prohibits U.S. funding for the performance of abortion (Ipas & Ibis Reproductive Health  2015). Similar confusion was found in Ethiopia after the policy was rescinded (Leitner Center for International Law and Justice 2010).

Loss of Civil Society/NGO Coordination and Partnerships

Several studies have documented negative impacts of the policy on civil society, including on partnerships and networks. This was found in Ethiopia (Vernaelde 2022; PAI 2018), Kenya (Maistrellis et al., 2022; Ushie et al., 2020; Rios 2019), Nepal (Dhakal et al., 2023; Maistrellis et al., 2022; Puri et al., 2020; PAI 2018), Senegal (PAI 2018) and South Africa (du Plessis et al., 2019). For example, organizations in Cambodia (Frontline AIDS & Watipa 2019) felt that the policy led to reputational risk and affected their partnerships, and coalitions in Malawi reported that the policy resulted in fragmentation, tension and mistrust.

Increased Administrative Burden

Finally, studies have documented the administrative and cost burden associated with implementing and monitoring compliance with the policy, including that it increased workload and required implementers who refuse to agree to the policy to spend time and resources searching for new partners and training them. This was found, for example, in Kenya (Rios 2019), Nepal (Puri et al., 2020), Nigeria (Rios 2019; PAI 2018), South Africa (Rios 2019), and Uganda (PAI 2019; PAI 2018).

• Global Health Policy
• USG Programs
• Family Planning

Also of Interest

• What the Election Could Mean for the Mexico City Policy and U.S. Foreign Aid
• The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer
• How Many Foreign NGOs Are Subject to the Expanded Mexico City Policy?
• What Is the Scope of the Mexico City Policy: Assessing Abortion Laws in Countries That Receive U.S. Global Health Assistance

Advertisement

Supported by

Our Critic’s Take on the 100 List: Books That ‘Cast a Sustained Spell’

Dwight Garner writes that voters, who “seemed to want a break from contemporary social reportage,” looked for immersive reads.

• Share full article

By Dwight Garner

A long friendship between two girls in a poor neighborhood in Naples, Italy. The exodus of nearly six million Black Americans from South to North. The rise of Thomas Cromwell in cutthroat Tudor England. A series of unsolved murders in a Mexican border town. The Underground Railroad reimagined as a literal one, rails and all.

These are stories from some of the 100 books that — in the opinion of more than 500 novelists, nonfiction writers, librarians, poets, booksellers, editors, critics, journalists and other readers polled by the Book Review — are the best of this still-young century.

What do we mean by “best?” We left that to the respondents. Most appeared to agree with E.M. Forster, who wrote that “the final test for a novel will be our affection for it, as it is the test of our friends, and of anything else which we cannot define.” The only criterion for eligibility was publication in English on or after Jan. 1, 2000. (Somebody — one of you pedants who celebrated the new millennium a year after everyone else — is going to point out that the year 2000 is technically part of the 20th century. Don’t let it be you.)

The best of the best, Nos. 1 through 10, are linked for sure by sensitive intelligence and achieved ambition. But other connections can be made. Most are historical novels or narrative histories, as if readers, weary of the vacuity and smash-and-grab belligerence that dominate much of American political and social discourse, desired either to escape or to gaze backward, to better understand how we arrived here.

Memory and identity are especially strong concerns in the top 10. Readers seemed to want a break from contemporary social reportage; they wanted immersive and unfractured narratives that cast a sustained spell.

The highest tier also underlines a generational cohort. Each of the 10 writers, save the comparatively young Colson Whitehead, was born close to the middle of the last century. Besides Isabel Wilkerson, all of them are represented by novels. Three — Elena Ferrante, W.G. Sebald and Roberto Bolaño — made the list with books in translation.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Creating Stability Is Just as Important as Managing Change

• Ashley Goodall

To do their best work, employees need to feel a sense of consistency — not constant upheaval.

When we think about change at work today, we tend to assume its inevitability and focus our attention on how to manage it — what methods and processes and technology and communication we need to put in place to have it move ahead more smoothly. Of course, some change is necessary, and some is inevitable. But not all of it. What the scientific literature on predictability, agency, belonging, place, and meaning suggests is that before we think about managing change, we should consider the conditions that people need at work in order to be productive. In this article, the author explains why we should cultivate a renewed appreciation for the virtues of stability, together with an understanding of how to practice “stability management.”

Imagine, for a moment, being on the receiving end of the sort of communication that typically heralds a change at work. An email, say, announces a reorganization to be carried out over the course of the next few months. The language is cheery and optimistic, and talks in upbeat terms about the many opportunities that will flow from the latest transformation or realignment.

• Ashley Goodall is a leadership expert who has spent his career exploring large organizations from the inside, most recently as an executive at Cisco. He is the coauthor of Nine Lies About Work , which was selected as the best management book of 2019 by Strategy + Business and as one of Amazon’s best business and leadership books of 2019. Prior to Cisco, he spent fourteen years at Deloitte as a consultant and as the Chief Learning Officer for Leadership and Professional Development. His latest book, The Problem with Change , is available now.

Partner Center

Ultrasonography Findings in Ovarian Hemangiomas: Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature

• Gynecologic Oncology: Case Study
• Published: 17 July 2024

Cite this article

• Lianting Zhuang 1 &
• Tiantong Zhu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7561-7684 1  

Ovarian hemangioma is a rare ovarian tumor. The imaging manifestations were rarely mentioned in previous literatures. One of the patients came to hospital with the complaints of an elevation of CA125. Another two patients found a mass in adnexa area accidentally. The oophorectomy procedures were performed and the pathological results of ovarian hemangioma were concluded. We summarized the ultrasound features of three cases retrospectively, of which could provide more information before operation to guide a management direction. A well-defined, regular-shape solid mass in ovary could be considered the possibility of hemangioma, especially when a richly vascularized tumor with prominent blood flow is detected on color Doppler sonography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Serum cancer antigen 125

• Ultrasonography

Color Doppler flow imaging

Positron emission tomography

Computed tomography

Magnetic resonance imaging

Kryvenko ON, Gupta NS, Meier FA, Lee MW, Epstein JI. Anastomosing hemangioma of the genitourinary system: eight cases in the kidney and ovary with immunohistochemical and ultrastructural analysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136(3):450–7. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPJPW34QCQYTMT .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dundr P, Němejcová K, Laco J, et al. Anastomosing hemangioma of the ovary: a clinicopathological study of six cases with stromal luteinization. Pathol Oncol Res : POR. 2017;23(4):717–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-016-0186-y .

Gunduz M, Hurdogan O, Onder S, Yavuz E. Cystic anastomosing hemangioma of the ovary: a case report with immunohistochemical and ultrastructural analysis. Int J Surg Pathol. 2019;27(4):437–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896918817148 .

Rodriguez MA. Hemangioma of the ovary in an 81-year-old woman. South Med J. 1979;72(4):503–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Huang RSP, Covinsky M, Zhang S. Bilateral ovarian capillary hemangioma with stromal luteinization and hyperandrogenism. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2013;43(4):457–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McHenry A, Buza N. Anastomosing hemangioma of the ovary with leydig cell hyperplasia: a clinicopathologic study of 12 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol : Off J Int Soc Gynecol Pathol. 2023;42(2):167–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000887 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wu Q, Luo H. Anastomosing hemangioma of the ovary: a rare benign tumor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07301-4 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Akbulut M, Bir F, Colakoğlu N, Soysal ME, Düzcan SE. Ovarian hemangioma occurring synchronously with serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary and benign endometrial polyp. Ann Saudi Med. 2008;28(2):128–31.

Wu Q, Luo H, Zhang B, Chen S. A rare case of ovarian hemangioma. J Clin Ultrasound : JCU. 2023;51(9):1507–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.23588 .

Gehrig PA, Fowler WC, Lininger RA. Ovarian capillary hemangioma presenting as an adnexal mass with massive ascites and elevated CA-125. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;76(1):130–2.

Gücer F, Ozyilmaz F, Balkanli-Kaplan P, Mülayim N, Aydin O. Ovarian hemangioma presenting with hyperandrogenism and endometrial cancer: a case report. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94(3):821–4.

Yamawaki T, Hirai Y, Takeshima N, Hasumi K. Ovarian hemangioma associated with concomitant stromal luteinization and ascites. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;61(3):438–41.

Correia S, Oliveira MJ, Wen X. Ovarian hemangioma with stromal luteinization. Cureus. 2022;14(9):e29438. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29438 .

Feng Y, Tamadon A, Hsueh AJW. Imaging the ovary. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36(5):584–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.02.006 .

Saba L, Guerriero S, Sulcis R, Virgilio B, Melis G, Mallarini G. Mature and immature ovarian teratomas: CT, US and MR imaging characteristics. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(3):454–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.044 .

Migda M, Bartosz M, Migda MS, Kierszk M, Katarzyna G, Maleńczyk M. Diagnostic value of the gynecology imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) with the ovarian malignancy marker CA-125 in preoperative adnexal tumor assessment. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-018-0465-1 .

Wang Z, Hu J. A case report of anastomosing hemangioma of the ovary. Medicine. 2023;102(19):e33801. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000033801 .

Khiewvan B, Torigian DA, Emamzadehfard S, et al. An update on the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI in ovarian cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(6):1079–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3638-z .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China

Yue Qi, Lianting Zhuang & Tiantong Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and the first draft of the manuscript were performed by Tiantong Zhu. Data collection was performed by Lianting Zhuang. Literature search and manuscript revision were conducted by Yue Qi. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiantong Zhu .

Ethics declarations

Consent to publish.

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Figs.  1 , 2 and 3 .

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Qi, Y., Zhuang, L. & Zhu, T. Ultrasonography Findings in Ovarian Hemangiomas: Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature. Reprod. Sci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01656-y

Download citation

Received : 01 May 2024

Accepted : 11 July 2024

Published : 17 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-024-01656-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ovarian hemangioma
• Ovarian tumor
• Case report
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research