literature review compare and contrast

• Generating Ideas
• Drafting and Revision
• Sources and Evidence
• Style and Grammar
• Specific to Creative Arts
• Specific to Humanities
• Specific to Sciences
• Specific to Social Sciences
• CVs, Résumés and Cover Letters
• Graduate School Applications
• Other Resources
• Hiatt Career Center
• University Writing Center
• Classroom Materials
• Course and Assignment Design
• UWP Instructor Resources
• Writing Intensive Requirement
• Criteria and Learning Goals
• Course Application for Instructors
• What to Know about UWS
• Teaching Resources for WI
• FAQ for Instructors
• FAQ for Students
• Journals on Writing Research and Pedagogy
• University Writing Program
• Degree Programs
• Majors and Minors
• Graduate Programs
• The Brandeis Core
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Brandeis Online
• Brandeis International Business School
• Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• Heller School for Social Policy and Management
• Rabb School of Continuing Studies
• Precollege Programs
• Faculty and Researcher Directory
• Brandeis Library
• Academic Calendar
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Summer School
• Financial Aid
• Research that Matters
• Resources for Researchers
• Brandeis Researchers in the News
• Provost Research Grants
• Recent Awards
• Faculty Research
• Student Research
• Centers and Institutes
• Office of the Vice Provost for Research
• Office of the Provost
• Housing/Community Living
• Campus Calendar
• Student Engagement
• Clubs and Organizations
• Community Service
• Dean of Students Office
• Orientation
• Spiritual Life
• Graduate Student Affairs
• Directory of Campus Contacts
• Division of Creative Arts
• Brandeis Arts Engagement
• Rose Art Museum
• Bernstein Festival of the Creative Arts
• Theater Arts Productions
• Brandeis Concert Series
• Public Sculpture at Brandeis
• Women's Studies Research Center
• Creative Arts Award
• Our Jewish Roots
• The Framework for the Future
• Mission and Diversity Statements
• Distinguished Faculty
• Nobel Prize 2017
• Notable Alumni
• Administration
• Working at Brandeis
• Commencement
• Offices Directory
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families
• 75th Anniversary
• New Students
• Shuttle Schedules
• Support at Brandeis

Writing Resources

The matrix method for literature reviews.

This handout is available for download in DOCX format and PDF format .

What is the Matrix Method, and why should I use it?

Using a review matrix enables you to quickly compare and contrast articles in order to determine the scope of research across time. A review matrix can help you more easily spot differences and similarities between journal articles about a research topic. While they may be helpful in any discipline, review matrices are especially helpful for health sciences literature reviews covering the complete scope of a research topic over time. This guide focuses on the review matrix step in the literature review process and offers tips on how to use it effectively.

Organize your sources

Once you complete your research, organize your source by date in order to make it easier to see changes in research over time.

Begin by creating the blank matrix. The matrices can be easily constructed using table-making software such as Microsoft Excel, Word or OneNote, Google Sheets, or Numbers. Every review matrix should have the same first three column headings: (1) authors, title, and journal, (2) publication year, and (3) purpose.

Be aware that it may be difficult to determine purpose from just a cursory review of the article. In some cases, it may be necessary to first read the paper fully to identify its purpose.

Choose your remaining column topics

Next, carefully read all your articles. Note any important issues you identify. The following broad categories provide some suggestions for determining your own subject headings:

Methodological

Methodology is often an important question. For example, if you are looking at tests of an Ebola vaccine beyond human subjects, it will be important to note what type of animal the test was carried out on, i.e. macaques or mice.

Content-specific

Consider noting what was actually studied. For example, when looking at the effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of illnesses, it would be important to note what illness was being studied.

Geographical

It may be important to note where the research was completed. For example, if you want to compare the effects of the AIDS epidemic in different countries, you would use country as a column heading.

There are many ways to choose your column headings, and these are just a few suggestions. As you create your own matrix, choose column headings that support your research question and goals.

• Do not include column headings that are explicit in your research question. For example, if you are looking at drug use in adolescents, do not include a column heading for age of study participants. If the answer will be the same for every study, it's generally a bad choice for a column heading.
• Do not try to fully complete a review matrix before reading the articles. Reading the articles is an important way to discern the nuances between studies.

Credit: Adapted from David Nolfi, “Matrix Method for Literature Review: The Review Matrix,” Duquesne University, https://guides.library.duq.edu/matrix , 2020.

• Resources for Students
• Writing Intensive Instructor Resources
• Research and Pedagogy

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.

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 problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

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

Comparing and Contrasting

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you first to determine whether a particular assignment is asking for comparison/contrast and then to generate a list of similarities and differences, decide which similarities and differences to focus on, and organize your paper so that it will be clear and effective. It will also explain how you can (and why you should) develop a thesis that goes beyond “Thing A and Thing B are similar in many ways but different in others.”

Introduction

In your career as a student, you’ll encounter many different kinds of writing assignments, each with its own requirements. One of the most common is the comparison/contrast essay, in which you focus on the ways in which certain things or ideas—usually two of them—are similar to (this is the comparison) and/or different from (this is the contrast) one another. By assigning such essays, your instructors are encouraging you to make connections between texts or ideas, engage in critical thinking, and go beyond mere description or summary to generate interesting analysis: when you reflect on similarities and differences, you gain a deeper understanding of the items you are comparing, their relationship to each other, and what is most important about them.

Recognizing comparison/contrast in assignments

Some assignments use words—like compare, contrast, similarities, and differences—that make it easy for you to see that they are asking you to compare and/or contrast. Here are a few hypothetical examples:

• Compare and contrast Frye’s and Bartky’s accounts of oppression.
• Compare WWI to WWII, identifying similarities in the causes, development, and outcomes of the wars.
• Contrast Wordsworth and Coleridge; what are the major differences in their poetry?

Notice that some topics ask only for comparison, others only for contrast, and others for both.

But it’s not always so easy to tell whether an assignment is asking you to include comparison/contrast. And in some cases, comparison/contrast is only part of the essay—you begin by comparing and/or contrasting two or more things and then use what you’ve learned to construct an argument or evaluation. Consider these examples, noticing the language that is used to ask for the comparison/contrast and whether the comparison/contrast is only one part of a larger assignment:

• Choose a particular idea or theme, such as romantic love, death, or nature, and consider how it is treated in two Romantic poems.
• How do the different authors we have studied so far define and describe oppression?
• Compare Frye’s and Bartky’s accounts of oppression. What does each imply about women’s collusion in their own oppression? Which is more accurate?
• In the texts we’ve studied, soldiers who served in different wars offer differing accounts of their experiences and feelings both during and after the fighting. What commonalities are there in these accounts? What factors do you think are responsible for their differences?

You may want to check out our handout on understanding assignments for additional tips.

Using comparison/contrast for all kinds of writing projects

Sometimes you may want to use comparison/contrast techniques in your own pre-writing work to get ideas that you can later use for an argument, even if comparison/contrast isn’t an official requirement for the paper you’re writing. For example, if you wanted to argue that Frye’s account of oppression is better than both de Beauvoir’s and Bartky’s, comparing and contrasting the main arguments of those three authors might help you construct your evaluation—even though the topic may not have asked for comparison/contrast and the lists of similarities and differences you generate may not appear anywhere in the final draft of your paper.

Discovering similarities and differences

Making a Venn diagram or a chart can help you quickly and efficiently compare and contrast two or more things or ideas. To make a Venn diagram, simply draw some overlapping circles, one circle for each item you’re considering. In the central area where they overlap, list the traits the two items have in common. Assign each one of the areas that doesn’t overlap; in those areas, you can list the traits that make the things different. Here’s a very simple example, using two pizza places:

To make a chart, figure out what criteria you want to focus on in comparing the items. Along the left side of the page, list each of the criteria. Across the top, list the names of the items. You should then have a box per item for each criterion; you can fill the boxes in and then survey what you’ve discovered.

Here’s an example, this time using three pizza places:

As you generate points of comparison, consider the purpose and content of the assignment and the focus of the class. What do you think the professor wants you to learn by doing this comparison/contrast? How does it fit with what you have been studying so far and with the other assignments in the course? Are there any clues about what to focus on in the assignment itself?

Here are some general questions about different types of things you might have to compare. These are by no means complete or definitive lists; they’re just here to give you some ideas—you can generate your own questions for these and other types of comparison. You may want to begin by using the questions reporters traditionally ask: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? If you’re talking about objects, you might also consider general properties like size, shape, color, sound, weight, taste, texture, smell, number, duration, and location.

Two historical periods or events

• When did they occur—do you know the date(s) and duration? What happened or changed during each? Why are they significant?
• What kinds of work did people do? What kinds of relationships did they have? What did they value?
• What kinds of governments were there? Who were important people involved?
• What caused events in these periods, and what consequences did they have later on?

Two ideas or theories

• What are they about?
• Did they originate at some particular time?
• Who created them? Who uses or defends them?
• What is the central focus, claim, or goal of each? What conclusions do they offer?
• How are they applied to situations/people/things/etc.?
• Which seems more plausible to you, and why? How broad is their scope?
• What kind of evidence is usually offered for them?

Two pieces of writing or art

• What are their titles? What do they describe or depict?
• What is their tone or mood? What is their form?
• Who created them? When were they created? Why do you think they were created as they were? What themes do they address?
• Do you think one is of higher quality or greater merit than the other(s)—and if so, why?
• For writing: what plot, characterization, setting, theme, tone, and type of narration are used?
• Where are they from? How old are they? What is the gender, race, class, etc. of each?
• What, if anything, are they known for? Do they have any relationship to each other?
• What are they like? What did/do they do? What do they believe? Why are they interesting?
• What stands out most about each of them?

Deciding what to focus on

By now you have probably generated a huge list of similarities and differences—congratulations! Next you must decide which of them are interesting, important, and relevant enough to be included in your paper. Ask yourself these questions:

• What’s relevant to the assignment?
• What’s relevant to the course?
• What’s interesting and informative?
• What matters to the argument you are going to make?
• What’s basic or central (and needs to be mentioned even if obvious)?
• Overall, what’s more important—the similarities or the differences?

Suppose that you are writing a paper comparing two novels. For most literature classes, the fact that they both use Caslon type (a kind of typeface, like the fonts you may use in your writing) is not going to be relevant, nor is the fact that one of them has a few illustrations and the other has none; literature classes are more likely to focus on subjects like characterization, plot, setting, the writer’s style and intentions, language, central themes, and so forth. However, if you were writing a paper for a class on typesetting or on how illustrations are used to enhance novels, the typeface and presence or absence of illustrations might be absolutely critical to include in your final paper.

Sometimes a particular point of comparison or contrast might be relevant but not terribly revealing or interesting. For example, if you are writing a paper about Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” and Coleridge’s “Frost at Midnight,” pointing out that they both have nature as a central theme is relevant (comparisons of poetry often talk about themes) but not terribly interesting; your class has probably already had many discussions about the Romantic poets’ fondness for nature. Talking about the different ways nature is depicted or the different aspects of nature that are emphasized might be more interesting and show a more sophisticated understanding of the poems.

Your thesis

The thesis of your comparison/contrast paper is very important: it can help you create a focused argument and give your reader a road map so they don’t get lost in the sea of points you are about to make. As in any paper, you will want to replace vague reports of your general topic (for example, “This paper will compare and contrast two pizza places,” or “Pepper’s and Amante are similar in some ways and different in others,” or “Pepper’s and Amante are similar in many ways, but they have one major difference”) with something more detailed and specific. For example, you might say, “Pepper’s and Amante have similar prices and ingredients, but their atmospheres and willingness to deliver set them apart.”

Be careful, though—although this thesis is fairly specific and does propose a simple argument (that atmosphere and delivery make the two pizza places different), your instructor will often be looking for a bit more analysis. In this case, the obvious question is “So what? Why should anyone care that Pepper’s and Amante are different in this way?” One might also wonder why the writer chose those two particular pizza places to compare—why not Papa John’s, Dominos, or Pizza Hut? Again, thinking about the context the class provides may help you answer such questions and make a stronger argument. Here’s a revision of the thesis mentioned earlier:

Pepper’s and Amante both offer a greater variety of ingredients than other Chapel Hill/Carrboro pizza places (and than any of the national chains), but the funky, lively atmosphere at Pepper’s makes it a better place to give visiting friends and family a taste of local culture.

You may find our handout on constructing thesis statements useful at this stage.

Organizing your paper

There are many different ways to organize a comparison/contrast essay. Here are two:

Subject-by-subject

Begin by saying everything you have to say about the first subject you are discussing, then move on and make all the points you want to make about the second subject (and after that, the third, and so on, if you’re comparing/contrasting more than two things). If the paper is short, you might be able to fit all of your points about each item into a single paragraph, but it’s more likely that you’d have several paragraphs per item. Using our pizza place comparison/contrast as an example, after the introduction, you might have a paragraph about the ingredients available at Pepper’s, a paragraph about its location, and a paragraph about its ambience. Then you’d have three similar paragraphs about Amante, followed by your conclusion.

The danger of this subject-by-subject organization is that your paper will simply be a list of points: a certain number of points (in my example, three) about one subject, then a certain number of points about another. This is usually not what college instructors are looking for in a paper—generally they want you to compare or contrast two or more things very directly, rather than just listing the traits the things have and leaving it up to the reader to reflect on how those traits are similar or different and why those similarities or differences matter. Thus, if you use the subject-by-subject form, you will probably want to have a very strong, analytical thesis and at least one body paragraph that ties all of your different points together.

A subject-by-subject structure can be a logical choice if you are writing what is sometimes called a “lens” comparison, in which you use one subject or item (which isn’t really your main topic) to better understand another item (which is). For example, you might be asked to compare a poem you’ve already covered thoroughly in class with one you are reading on your own. It might make sense to give a brief summary of your main ideas about the first poem (this would be your first subject, the “lens”), and then spend most of your paper discussing how those points are similar to or different from your ideas about the second.

Point-by-point

Rather than addressing things one subject at a time, you may wish to talk about one point of comparison at a time. There are two main ways this might play out, depending on how much you have to say about each of the things you are comparing. If you have just a little, you might, in a single paragraph, discuss how a certain point of comparison/contrast relates to all the items you are discussing. For example, I might describe, in one paragraph, what the prices are like at both Pepper’s and Amante; in the next paragraph, I might compare the ingredients available; in a third, I might contrast the atmospheres of the two restaurants.

If I had a bit more to say about the items I was comparing/contrasting, I might devote a whole paragraph to how each point relates to each item. For example, I might have a whole paragraph about the clientele at Pepper’s, followed by a whole paragraph about the clientele at Amante; then I would move on and do two more paragraphs discussing my next point of comparison/contrast—like the ingredients available at each restaurant.

There are no hard and fast rules about organizing a comparison/contrast paper, of course. Just be sure that your reader can easily tell what’s going on! Be aware, too, of the placement of your different points. If you are writing a comparison/contrast in service of an argument, keep in mind that the last point you make is the one you are leaving your reader with. For example, if I am trying to argue that Amante is better than Pepper’s, I should end with a contrast that leaves Amante sounding good, rather than with a point of comparison that I have to admit makes Pepper’s look better. If you’ve decided that the differences between the items you’re comparing/contrasting are most important, you’ll want to end with the differences—and vice versa, if the similarities seem most important to you.

Our handout on organization can help you write good topic sentences and transitions and make sure that you have a good overall structure in place for your paper.

Cue words and other tips

To help your reader keep track of where you are in the comparison/contrast, you’ll want to be sure that your transitions and topic sentences are especially strong. Your thesis should already have given the reader an idea of the points you’ll be making and the organization you’ll be using, but you can help them out with some extra cues. The following words may be helpful to you in signaling your intentions:

• like, similar to, also, unlike, similarly, in the same way, likewise, again, compared to, in contrast, in like manner, contrasted with, on the contrary, however, although, yet, even though, still, but, nevertheless, conversely, at the same time, regardless, despite, while, on the one hand … on the other hand.

For example, you might have a topic sentence like one of these:

• Compared to Pepper’s, Amante is quiet.
• Like Amante, Pepper’s offers fresh garlic as a topping.
• Despite their different locations (downtown Chapel Hill and downtown Carrboro), Pepper’s and Amante are both fairly easy to get to.

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

Make a Gift

A comparative review may, e.g., require you to examine two schools of thought, two issues, or the positions taken by two persons. You may create a hierarchy of issues and sub-issues to compare and contrast, as suggested by the following general plan.

This model lists 3 options for structuring the body of the review. In all cases, you are expected to deal with the similarities ( compare ) and then with the differences ( contrast ): Introduction, Body, & Conclusion

Literature Review Example 3 offers an excellent example of  a comparative review [ Language and gender ]. This was written by Alastair Pennycook for his undergraduate students as a model of (among other things) of how to structure a  review of the literature - for an example of the above structure.

Matrix Method for Literature Review

• Introduction
• Organize Your Sources
• Choose Your Remaining Column Topics
• More Information
• Sample Matrix and Templates
• Related Library Guides
• Getting Help

The Review Matrix   

Using a review matrix enables you to quickly compare and contrast articles in order to determine the scope of research across time. A review matrix can help you more easily spot differences and similarities between journal articles about a given research topic. Review matrices are especially helpful for health sciences literature reviews covering the complete scope of a research topic over time.

This guide focuses on the review matrix step in the literature review process. For more information on searching databases, see the Health Sciences Literature Searching Guide.

• Next: Organize Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 20, 2024 10:26 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/matrix

How to Write a Literature Review

• Where to Search
• Search Strategies This link opens in a new window
• Further Reading

Donna Miller

Thank You...

The content of this site has been borrowed from a LibGuide created by the University of Melbourne Library and the University of Newcastle. We are grateful for their permission to reuse their content.

What is a Literature Review?

The purpose of a literature review is to show "that the writer has studied existing work in the field with insight" (Haywood and Wragg, 1982).  An effective literature review analyzes and synthesizes material.  Literature reviews synthesize the work of others with insight and criticism, and should meet the following requirements (Caulley, 1992):

• Compare and contrast different authors' views,
• Group authors who draw similar conclusions,
• Criticize aspects of methodology,
• Note areas of disagreement,
• Highlight exemplary studies,
• Identify patterns or trends in the literature,
• Note gaps or omissions in previous research,
• Point out unanswered questions,
• Show how your hypothesis/research relates to previous studies,
• Show how your hypothesis/research relates to the literature in general,
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature says.

A literature review has a number of purposes. It enables you to :

• Clarify your research topic,
• Identify experts and important published works.
• Place your research into a historical perspective,
• Avoid unnecessary duplication,
• Evaluate promising research methods,
• Relate your findings to previous knowledge and suggest further research.

Most students are not experts in their chosen field. Literature reviews enable one to develop a good working knowledge of the research in a particular area. Literature reviews raise questions, identify areas to be explored, summarize and criticize research, and prepare the reader for the study--your research--that is to follow .

• Establish your research question; organize your literature into topics around the question.
• Begin the literature review with an introduction to the topic. What is its significance and importance?
• Critically analyze the relevant literature; state the content of the literature, implications of this knowledge, and any gaps,deficiencies, inconsistencies or conflicting viewpoints.
• Write a critical and evaluative review of the literature; make your own interpretations.
• Draw together important points in the conclusion; show how the information answers the question.
• Establish if more research is needed, especially if there are inconsistencies or conflicting points of view.
• Avoid plagiarism - acknowledge sources of ideas and quotations to add authority and credibility to the work.
• Next: Search the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Feb 7, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lvc.edu/literaturereview

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.6: Essay Type- Comparing and Contrasting Literature

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 101138

• Heather Ringo & Athena Kashyap
• City College of San Francisco via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

Compare and Contrast Essay Basics

The Compare and Contrast Essay is a literary analysis essay, but, instead of examining one work, it examines two or more works. These works must be united by a common theme or thesis statement. For example, while a literary analysis essay might explore the significance of ghosts in William Shakespeare's Hamlet, a compare/contrast essay might explore the significance of the supernatural in Hamlet and Macbeth .

Literary Analysis Thesis Statement:

While Horatio seems to think the ghost of Old Hamlet is a demon trying to lead Hamlet to death, and Gertrude and Claudius think it is a figment of Hamlet's insanity, Hamlet's status as an unreliable narrator and the ghost actually symbolizes the oppression of Catholics during Shakespeare's time period.

Compare and Contrast Thesis Statement:

The unreliable narrators paired with the ghosts in both Hamlet and Macbeth symbolize the oppression of Catholics in Shakespeare's time period.

Essay Genre Expectations

• Use first-person pronouns sparingly (you, me, we, our)
• Avoid colloquialisms
• Spell out contractions
• Use subject-specific terminology, such as naming literary devices
• Texts: two or more
• Avoid summary. Aim for analysis and interpretation
• MLA formatting and citations

Organization

While the literary analysis essay follows a fairly simple argumentative essay structure, the compare and contrast essay is slightly more complicated. It might be arranged by:

• Literary work (the block method)
• Topics/subtopics (the point-by-point method)

In general, ensure each paragraph supports the thesis statement and that both literary works receive equal attention. Include as many body paragraphs as needed to build your argument.

First Option for Organization: The Block Method

In this first option for organization, you will need to discuss both literary works in the introduction and thesis statement, but then the body of the paper will be divided in half. The first half of the body paragraphs should focus on one literary work, while the second half of the body paragraphs should focus on the other literary work.

• Background of topic
• Background of works related to topic
• Thesis Statement
• Topic sentence
• Introduction of evidence
• Evidence from the first literary work
• Explanation of evidence
• Analysis of evidence
• Evidence from the second literary work
• Restatement of thesis in new words
• Summary of essay arguments

Second Option for Organization: The Point-by-Point Method

With this second option for organization, you may decide to write about both literary works within the same body paragraph every time, or you may choose to consistently alternate back and forth between the literary works in separate body paragraphs.

• Evidence from both literary works

Module 4: Strategic Reading

Organize your Readings with a Literature Review Matrix

The next step after reading and evaluating your sources is to organize them in a way that will help you start the writing process.

Review Matrix

One way to organize your literature is with a review matrix. The review matrix is a chart that sorts and categorizes the different arguments presented per topic or issue. Using a matrix enables you to quickly compare and contrast your sources in order to determine the scope of research across time. This will allow you  to spot similarities and differences between sources. It is particularly useful in the synthesis and analysis stages of a review (See Module 1 Conducting a Literature Review with the SALSA Framework ).

Example of a Review Matrix

My research question:

How can we use machine learning to analyze social media data related to HIV?

Writing a Literature Review Modified from The WI+RE Team,  UCLA. Creative Commons CC-BY-NA-SA

Create a Review Matrix

Start with a charting tool you are most familiar with (for example MS Word, MS Excel, Google Sheets, Numbers etc).

• Organize your sources from oldest to most recent. This way you can see how the research on your topic has changed over time.
• First Column: citation (i.e., author, title, source, publication year)
• Second Column: purpose or summary (1-2 sentences)
• methodology
• intervention

Key Takeaways

Here are some examples of different review matrices and templates:

• Evidence Synthesis Matrix Template, Jane Schmidt, Toronto Metropolitan University (Google Sheets)
• The Matrix Method for Literature Reviews, Brandeis University, Writing Resources.
• Literature Review Synthesis Matrix , Concordia University (MS Word)
• Write a Literature Review: Synthesize . Johns Hopkins University, Sheridan Libraries

Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews (2nd Edition) Copyright © 2021 by Kelly Dermody; Cecile Farnum; Daniel Jakubek; Jo-Anne Petropoulos; Jane Schmidt; and Reece Steinberg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing pp 645–656 Cite as

Literature Reviews: An Overview of Systematic, Integrated, and Scoping Reviews

• John R. Turner 4  
• First Online: 01 October 2023

672 Accesses

Literature reviews are a main part of the research process. Literature Reviews can be stand-alone research projects, or they can be part of a larger research study. In both cases, literature reviews must follow specific guidelines so they can meet the rigorous requirements for being classified as a scientific contribution. More importantly, these reviews must be transparent so that they can be replicated or reproduced if desired. The rigorous requirements set out by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) aim to support researchers in conducting literature reviews as well as address the replication crisis that has challenged scientific disciplines over the past decade. The current chapter identifies some of the requirements along with highlighting different types of reviews and recommendations for conducting a rigorous review.

• Literature review
• Integrated review
• Systematic review
• Scoping review
• Cooper’s taxonomy

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Begley GC, Ioannidis JPA (2015) Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 116:116–126. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Romero F (2019) Philosophy of science and the replicability crisis. Philos Compass 14:e12633. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12633

Article   Google Scholar  

Van Bavel JJ, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady WJ, Reinero DA (2016) Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ioannidis JPA (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:645–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bollen K, Cacioppo JT, Kaplan RM, Krosnick JA, Olds JL (2015) Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science. https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust_and_Reliable_Research_Report.pdf . Accessed 15 Sept 2022

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Imel S (2011) Writing a literature review. In: Tonette RS, Hatcher T (eds) The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 145–160

Google Scholar  

Boote DN, Beile P (2005) Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educ Res 34:3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003

Bryman A (2008) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

Taylor D (n.d.) The literature review: a few tips on conducting it. https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/ . Accessed 1 Oct 2022

Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Cooper HM (1988) Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl Soc 1:104–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis. 4th ed. Applied social research methods series, vol 2. Sage, Los Angelas, CA

Cooper H (2003) Psychological bulletin: editorial. Psychol Bull 129:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.3

Hart C (2018) Doing a literature review: releasing the research imagination, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angelas, CA

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M et al (2016) A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Torraco RJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews: using the past and present to explore the future. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15:404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

Doty DH, Glick WH (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modeling. Acad Manag Rev 19:230–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1994.9410210748

Leedy PD, Ormrod JE (2005) Practical research: planning and design, 8th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Ragins BR (2012) Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Acad Manag Rev 37:493–501. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165

King S (2000) On writing: a memoir of the craft. Scribner, New York, NY

Torraco RJ (2016) Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: a comparative analysis. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4:355–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043008

Pendleton-Jullian AM, Brown JS (2018) Design unbound: designing for emergence in a white water world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Book   Google Scholar  

Simon HA (2019) The sciences of the artificial [reissue of 3rd ed.]. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Klir GJ (2009) W. Ross Ashby: a pioneer of systems science. Int J Gen Syst 38:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070802601434

Reen J (2020) The evolution of knowledge: rethinking science for the anthropocene. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

Download references

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

John R. Turner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Turner .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Retired Senior Expert Pharmacologist at the Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology, and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Gowraganahalli Jagadeesh

Professor & Director, Research Training and Publications, The Office of Research and Development, Periyar Maniammai Institute of Science & Technology (Deemed to be University), Vallam, Tamil Nadu, India

Pitchai Balakumar

Division Cardiology & Nephrology, Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Fortunato Senatore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Turner, J.R. (2023). Literature Reviews: An Overview of Systematic, Integrated, and Scoping Reviews. In: Jagadeesh, G., Balakumar, P., Senatore, F. (eds) The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_38

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_38

Published : 01 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-1283-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-1284-1

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Master Your Homework
• Do My Homework

Compare and Contrast: Research Paper vs. Literature Review

When discussing research papers and literature reviews, there are key differences to consider. While both genres of academic writing may share some similarities in the way they are structured or the types of evidence used, it is important to understand their distinct characteristics for effective communication within an academic setting. This article aims to explore these two forms of writing by highlighting common features and illustrating essential distinctions between them. Additionally, guidelines will be provided on how best to incorporate either type into a scholarly project. With this understanding in hand, readers can make informed decisions when selecting which form fits most appropriately with any particular goal or purpose at hand.

I. Introduction

Ii. overview of research paper and literature review, iii. similarities between research papers and literature reviews, iv. differences between research papers and literature reviews, v. assessing sources for a research paper vs a literature review vi . structuring an academic essay: argumentative structure in the context of compare & contrast writing vii. conclusion.

The importance of properly introducing your research paper cannot be overstated. The introduction serves as the reader’s first impression of your work, setting up the context and providing necessary background information. It is also where you establish yourself as an authoritative source on your topic by discussing prior literature.

Research Paper vs Literature Review : When researching a particular issue or topic, it can often become overwhelming trying to decide whether you should conduct a research paper or literature review. Research papers involve conducting in-depth studies into one specific subject, while literature reviews examine existing published works related to that same subject matter. A research paper might propose new theories or ideas that could be tested further through empirical evidence; conversely, a literature review provides synthesis between previously established concepts.

Exploring the Literature

As researchers, it is our responsibility to explore all pertinent literature in order to contextualize our research. To this end, we will be taking a closer look at both the research paper and its accompanying literature review.

• A research paper , simply put, presents original findings from an empirical investigation or scholarly exploration.
• On the other hand, a literature review , while also incorporating some of one’s own ideas and interpretations on existing material (to a certain degree), ultimately provides an overview of already established work by synthesizing past published material into summaries that can inform future studies.

When it comes to academic research, there are a number of similarities between research papers and literature reviews. Both documents require an in-depth analysis of their respective topics, incorporating evidence from multiple sources into the text.

• Research Paper vs Literature Review
• Both types of document contain information about a particular topic or issue.
• In both cases, this information is sourced from reliable materials such as journals, books and articles.

However, while they share these common characteristics when writing either type of document there exist some key differences. Research papers focus on providing new insights based on existing theories whereas literature reviews analyse what has already been established. Therefore it is vital that one understands which sort of assignment needs to be completed before embarking upon any given task!

Research papers and literature reviews are two of the most important elements in academic writing. Both require extensive research, critical thinking, and well-crafted arguments. However, there are some key differences between these two types of scholarly documents.

• Focus on original research or analysis – Research papers typically present an argument based upon a student’s own findings from primary sources such as interviews, surveys, experiments etc. Students must demonstrate their understanding of existing knowledge by researching the topic thoroughly and analyzing relevant evidence to make new discoveries.
• Provide a narrow focus – Research papers typically cover one specific aspect or angle related to a larger subject area. This allows students to explore that particular angle in depth while providing comprehensive information within limited word counts.

When it comes to assessing sources for a research paper and a literature review, there are some similarities but also many differences. It is important that students be aware of these distinctions when preparing either type of assignment.

• Research Paper: Research papers require the student to evaluate source materials in terms of their relevance and accuracy. Sources must be evaluated carefully for bias or misinterpretation as well as for any gaps in information which may need to be addressed with additional resources.

VI . Structuring an Academic Essay: Argumentative Structure in the Context of Compare & Contrast Writing VII. Conclusion

• Literature Review: Literature reviews involve looking at published works from several different angles; focusing not only on content, but also author perspective, impact within its field, possible implications and connections between ideas presented within one work or multiple works over time. Students should read through each source critically noting both positive aspects (such as clarity of presentation) and any concerns they have about reliability.

English: This article has provided an overview of the differences between research papers and literature reviews. In conclusion, it is clear that although both are valuable forms of academic writing, they serve different purposes and require distinct levels of research and evidence gathering. Furthermore, there are some fundamental elements shared by both types; however these can be altered depending on the specific requirements for each assignment. Therefore, when presented with a task to write either a research paper or a literature review in academia, it is important to understand which form will best suit one’s particular aims as well as the purpose for which this piece of writing must fulfill before embarking upon their project.

• Joyner Library
• Laupus Health Sciences Library
• Music Library
• Digital Collections
• Special Collections
• North Carolina Collection
• Teaching Resources
• The ScholarShip Institutional Repository
• Country Doctor Museum

East Carolina University: RN to BSN Library Research Guide: Literature Review Matrix

• Research Questions & PICO
• Search-Strategy Lab Notebook
• Identifying Research Articles
• Literature Review Matrix
• Research Databases to Use
• Laupus Library Hours & ILL
• Citing & Writing Resources at ECU

Nursing Literature Reviews

What is a Literature (Lit) Review? 

A Literature Review is Not: 

• a quick summary of sources
• a grouping of broad, unrelated sources
• a compilation of everything that has ever been written on a topic
• a literature criticism or book review

So, what is it then?

A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of 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 may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

Adapted from:  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215270&p=4439026  by Hillary Fox, University of West Florida,  hfox @uwf.edu.

Creating a Literature Review using the Matrix Method: 

A matrix review allows you to quickly compare and contrast articles in an easy to read format. It can help you to easily spot differences and similarities between journal articles and your nursing research topic. Review matrices are especially helpful for health sciences literature reviews that cover the scope of research over a given amount of time. 

Most literature reviews are set up in this format: 

Chart adapted from the book below: 

• Check out the e-book above for more help in creating a literature review matrix. 

Steps for Conducting a Literature Review

1. Choose Your Topic

• Review your PICO question and think about your central research question. To review the PICO process, please see Kerry Sewell's LibGuide on this subject. 

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

3. Select the databases you want to use to conduct your searches (See the Databases Tab Above!)

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. (Keep track of your searches, try using the Search Strategy Lab Notebook!)

• Review the abstracts and conclusions carefully. This will help you decide which articles actually fit the criteria you are looking for. 
• Write down the keywords you used and where you found them. 
• You can also use RefWorks to keep track of your citations. 

5. Review the Literature (This will probably be the most time consuming part)

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing?  What were the authors trying to discover? 
• Was the research funded by a company or source that could influence the findings? (Such as Colgate® sponsoring a toothpaste study?)
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze the paper's literature review, the samples and variables used, the results and conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What questions does it raise? 
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is? 
• How are the authors of the paper viewed in the field? Has this study been cited by other publications? 

Literature Review Examples

Remember, a lit review provides an intelligent overview of the topic. There may or may not be a method for how studies are collected or interpreted. Lit reviews aren't always labeled specifically as "literature reviews," they may often be embedded with other sections such as an introduction or background. 

• Mentes, J.C., Salem, N., & Phillips, L.R. (2017). Ethnocultural gerontological nursing. An integrative literature review. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 28(1), 79-97.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1043659615601483
• Rosa, D.F., Carvalho, M.V., & Pereira, N.R, et al. (2019). Nursing care for the transgender population: genders from the perspective of professional practice. Revista Brasilerira de Enfermagem, 72 (Suppl 1), 299-306.  http://www.scielo.br/pdf/reben/v72s1/0034-7167-reben-72-s1-0299.pdf
• Dahlke, S.A., Hunter, K.F., Negrin, K. (2019). Nursing practice with hospitalized older people: Safety and harm. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 14 (1), Article e1220.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/opn.12220

Adapted from:  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215270&p=4439026  by Hillary Fox, University of West Florida, [email protected].

Carrie Forbes, MLS

• << Previous: Identifying Research Articles
• Next: Research Databases to Use >>
• Last Updated: Jul 26, 2022 6:15 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ecu.edu/RN2BSNResearch

Successful University Writing

• Before You Start Writing...
• Structuring an essay
• Report writing
• Annotated bibliography
• Literature review
• Reflective writing
• Using Ideas from sources in your writing
• Writing concisely and editing your work
• Student Success study support

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a type of writing that explores, analyses and synthesises current literature around a particular topic or area of study. It can be included as part of a broader submission such as a research thesis or a report, or it may be a standalone essay assignment. It considers related texts together, comparing and contrasting them with each other.

Note that a literature review is not simply a summary of articles and sources, but rather a well-woven review of related literature. It looks for aspects of consensus and explores areas of academic disagreement within the scope of the theme or area being addressed by the review.

This guide provides general advice about the nature of literature reviews, but requirements can differ between disciplines and even lecturers, so be sure to follow individual assignment guidelines and criteria closely.

Preparing and structuring a literature review

• Reviewing and synthesising literature
• Literature review structure

A real challenge for students when writing a literature review is to avoid the trap of being swamped by the volume of available readings and articles. To combat this, keep in mind the following points:

• Relevance . The review should be organised around defined concepts, issues or themes. Narrow your initial search to literature that addresses these areas. Keeping these issues in mind helps to limit the scope of the wide reading phase. Remember that in order to compare and contrast literature, it has to address related concepts and themes. 
• Authority . Use reputable sources (e.g. library database rather than Google) to search for material that has been critically evaluated by peers, reviewed and professionally edited.
• Currency . Check that the texts address information that is still influential in the field and reflect current thinking and  research.

Recording and planning

A useful planning and organisational tool is a literature matrix, which cross-references the main themes of the review with the literature being included. Themes should be listed on one axis and referenced against the articles on the other. As articles are read in detail one at a time, notes about them are made in the central area of the matrix. Once complete, this helps to make comparisons and synthesise the positions of the various authors along the lines of the issues and concepts. The following table is a simplified sample of this process:

Note how this matrix can be used as a scaffold to help write about each theme. It identifies areas of agreement as well as variations in how each author or article addresses each aspect. This will assist to facilitate synthesis of the areas of focus and positions presented by the various authors. In this example the matrix helps to scaffold a literature review based around the following themes:

• a definition for formative assessment.
• theoretical basis for formative assessment.
• pedagogical implications of formative assessment.

Synthesis: a key academic skill

Introduction It is important to introduce the the topics and themes that will be explored in the literature review. Ensure that the introduction contextualises the themes that will be examined in terms of your research or study and present a thesis statement that argues the importance or relevance of the topics that will be reviewed.

Body Usually, headings and subheadings can be used to organise the literature review thematically. These will help the reader navigate the review and understand the thematic structure.

Provides a summary of:

• themes of agreement or disagreement in the literature
• areas where further research might be required
• an overall perspective on the themes addressed in the literature review.

Success Now! workshops and consultations

Success Now! workshops are available live online or on campus. Register here for workshops on research and writing . You can also organise an individual consultation here to talk to a learning advisor about planning your assignments.

• << Previous: Annotated bibliography
• Next: Reflective writing >>
• Last Updated: Feb 1, 2024 10:25 AM
• URL: https://library.nd.edu.au/writing

• Search Website
• Office Directory
• Employee Directory
• Learning Commons
• Topic Sentences

Annotated Bibliography vs. Literature Review

What's the big deal.

There are fundamental differences between an annotated bibliography and a literature review that are crucial to completing the assignment correctly. The chart below is provides an overview of the biggest differences between the two types of assignments in a side-by-side comparison. However, if you need more specific information about either assignment, visit our Annotated Bibliography and/or Literature Review pages for more detailed information on how to complete them. 

Differences between an annotated bibliography and literature review

Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview

Affiliations.

• 1 Division of Vascular Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
• 2 Division of Vascular Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 36414363
• DOI: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.09.001

In this article, we compare and contrast methods of reviewing, summarizing, and synthesizing the literature, including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews. Review articles are essential to help investigators wade through the plethora of exponentially growing medical literature. In the era of evidence-based medicine, a systematic approach is required. A systematic review is a formalized method to address a specific clinical question by analyzing the breadth of published literature while minimizing bias. Systematic reviews are designed to answer narrow clinical questions in the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format. Alternatively, scoping reviews use a similar systematic approach to a literature search in order to determine the breadth and depth of knowledge on a topic; to clarify definitions, concepts, and themes; or sometimes as a precursor to a systematic review or hypothesis generator to guide future research. However, scoping reviews are less constrained by a priori decisions about which interventions, controls, and outcomes may be of interest. Traditional narrative reviews still have a role in informing practice and guiding research, particularly when there is a paucity of high-quality evidence on a topic.

Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Evidence-Based Medicine*
• Research Design*

• 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

A Guide to Using AI Tools to Summarize Literature Reviews

Table of Contents

Needless to say, millions of scientific articles are getting published every year making it difficult for a researcher to read and comprehend all the relevant publications.

Back then, researchers used to manually conduct literature reviews by sifting through hundreds of research papers to get the significant information required for the research.

Fast forward to 2023 — things have turned out quite distinct and favorable. With the inception of AI tools, the literature review process is streamlined and researchers can summarize hundreds of research articles in mere moments. They can save time and effort by using AI tools to summarize literature reviews.

This article articulates the role of the top AI tools used to summarize literature reviews. You can also learn how AI is used as a powerful tool for summarizing scientific articles and understanding the impact of AI on academic research.

Understanding the Role of AI Tools in Literature Reviews

Before we talk about the benefits of AI tools to summarize literature reviews, let’s understand the concept of AI and how it streamlines the literature review process.

Artificial intelligence tools are trained on large language models and they are programmed to mimic human tasks like problem-solving, making decisions, understanding patterns, and more. When Artificial Intelligence and machine learning algorithms are implemented in literature reviews, they help in processing vast amounts of information, identifying highly relevant studies, and generating quick and concise summaries — TL;DR summaries.

AI has revolutionized the process of literature review by assisting researchers with powerful AI-based tools to read, analyze, compare, contrast, and extract relevant information from research articles.

By using natural language processing algorithms, AI tools can effectively identify key concepts, main arguments, and relevant findings from multiple research articles at once. This assists researchers in quickly understanding the overview of the existing literature on a respective topic, saving their valuable time and effort.

Key Benefits of Using AI Tools to Summarize Literature Review

1. best alternative to traditional literature review.

Traditional literature reviews or manual literature reviews can be incredibly time-consuming and often require weeks or even months to complete. Researchers have to sift through myriad articles manually, read them in detail, and highlight or extract relevant information. This process can be overwhelming, especially when dealing with a large number of studies.

However, with the help of AI tools, researchers can greatly save time and effort required to discover, analyze, and summarize relevant studies. AI tools with their NLP and machine learning algorithms can quickly analyze multiple research articles and generate succinct summaries. This not only improves efficiency but also allows researchers to focus on the core analysis and interpretation of the compiled insights.

2. AI tools aid in swift research discovery!

AI tools also help researchers save time in the discovery phase of literature reviews. These AI-powered tools use semantic search analysis to identify relevant studies that might go unnoticed in traditional literature review methods. Also, AI tools can analyze keywords, citations , and other metadata to prompt or suggest pertinent articles that align and correlate well with the researcher’s search query.

3. AI Tools ensure to stay up to date with the most research ideas!

Another advantage of using AI-powered tools in literature reviews is their ability to handle the ever-increasing volume of published scientific research. With the exponential growth of scientific literature, it has become increasingly challenging for researchers to keep up with the latest scientific research and biomedical innovations.

However, AI tools can automatically scan and discover new publications, ensuring that researchers stay up-to-date with the most recent developments in their field of study.

4. Improves efficiency and accuracy of Literature Reviews

The use of AI tools in literature review reduces the occurrences of human errors that may occur during traditional literature review or manual document summarization. So, literature review AI tools improve the overall efficiency and accuracy of literature reviews, ensuring that researchers can access relevant information promptly by minimizing human errors.

List of AI Tools to Streamline Literature Reviews

We have several AI-powered tools to summarize literature reviews. They utilize advanced algorithms and natural language processing techniques to analyze and summarize lengthy scientific articles.

Let's take a look at some of the most popular AI tools to summarize literature reviews.

SciSpace Literature Review

Semantic scholar, paper digest.

SciSpace Literature Review is the best AI tool for summarizing literature review. It is the go-to tool that summarizes articles in seconds. It uses natural language processing models GPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0 to generate concise summaries. It is an effective and efficient AI-powered tool to streamline the literature review process and summarize multiple research articles at once. Once you enter a keyword, research topic, or question, it initiates your literature review process by providing instant insights from the top 5 highly relevant papers at the top.

These insights are backed by citations that allow you to refer to the source. All the resultant relevant papers appear in an easy-to-digest tabular format explaining each of the sections used in the paper in different columns. You can also customize the table by adding or removing the columns according to your research needs. This is the unique feature of this literature review AI tool.

SciSpace Literature review stands out as the best AI tool to summarize literature review by providing concise TL;DR text and summaries for all the sections used in the research paper. This way, it makes the review process easier for any researcher, and could comprehend more research papers in less time.

Try SciSpace Literature Review now!

Semantic Scholar is an AI-powered search engine that helps researchers find relevant research papers based on the keyword or research topic. It works similar to Google Scholar.It helps you discover and understand scientific research by providing suitable research papers. The database has over 200 million research articles, you can filter out the results based on the field of study, author, date of publication, and journals or conferences.

They have recently released the Semantic Reader — an AI-powered tool for scientific readers that enhances the reading process. This is available in the beta version.

Try Semantic Scholar here

Paper Digest — another valuable text summarizer tool (AI-powered tool) that summarizes the literature review and helps you get to the core insights of the research paper in a few minutes! This powerful tool works pretty straightforwardly and generates summaries of research papers. You just need to input the article URL or DOI and click on “Digest” to get the summaries. It comes for free and is currently in the beta version.

You can access Paper Digest here !

SciSummary is another AI tool that summarizes scientific articles and literature review. It uses natural language processing algorithm to generate concise summaries. You need to upload the document on the dashboard or send the article link via email and your summaries will be generated and delivered to your inbox. This is the best AI-powered tool that helps you read and understand lengthy and complicated research papers. It has different pricing plans (both free and premium) which start at $4.99/month, you can choose the plans according to your needs.

You can access SciSummary here

Step-by-Step Guide to Using AI Tools to Summarize Literature Reviews

Here’s a short step-by-step guide that clearly articulates how to use AI tools for summary generation!

• Select the AI-powered tool that best suits your research needs.
• Once you've chosen a tool, you must provide input, such as an article link, DOI, or PDF, to the tool.
• The AI tool will then process the input using its algorithms and techniques, generating a summary of the literature.
• The generated summary will contain the most important information, including key points, methodologies, and conclusions in a succinct format.
• Review and assess the generated summaries to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Challenges of using AI tools for summarization

AI tools are designed to generate precise summaries, however, they may sometimes miss out on important facts or misinterpret specific information.

Here are the potential challenges and risks researchers should be wary of when using AI tools to summarize literature reviews!

1. Lack of contextual intelligence

AI-powered tools cannot ensure that they completely understand the context of the research papers. This leads to inappropriate or misleading summaries of similar academic papers.

To combat this, researchers should feed additional context to the AI prompt or use AI tools with more advanced training models that can better understand the complexities of the research papers.

2. AI tools cannot ensure foolproof summaries

While AI tools can immensely speed up the summarization process, but, they may not be able to capture the complete essence of a research paper or accurately decrypt complex concepts.

Therefore, AI tools are just to be considered as technology aids rather than replacements for human analysis or understanding of key information.

3. Potential bias in the generated summaries

AI-powered tools are largely trained on the existing data, and if the training data is biased, it can eventually lead to biased summaries.

Researchers should be cautious and ensure that the training data is diverse and representative of various sources, different perspectives, and research domains.

4. Quality of the input article affects the summary output

The quality of the research article that we upload or input data also has a direct effect on the accuracy of the generated summaries.

If the input article is poorly written or contains errors, the AI tool might not be able to generate coherent and accurate summaries. Researchers should select high-quality academic papers and articles to obtain reliable and informative summaries.

Concluding!

AI summarization tools have a substantial impact on academic research. By leveraging AI tools, researchers can streamline the literature review process, enabling them to stay up-to-date with the latest advancements in their field of study and make informed decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of current knowledge.

By understanding the role of AI tool to summarize literature review, exploring different AI tools for summarization, following a systematic review process, and assessing the impact of these tools on their academic research, researchers can harness AI tools in enhancing their literature review processes.

If you are also keen to explore the best AI-powered tool for summarizing the literature review process, head over to SciSpace Literature Review and start analyzing the research papers right away — SciSpace Literature Review

Frequently Asked Questions

Give an overview of the main points from each paper and integrate them into a coherent whole, by outlining the importance, limitations, and unique insights from the reviewed literature.

SciSpace Literature Review is the best AI tool for summarizing research articles. It can summarize articles in seconds and provide detailed and focused insights.

Some of the best AI tools for summarizing literature reviews includes: SciSpace, Semantic Scholar, Paper Digest, and SciSummary.

For a Ph.D.dissertation, a literature review summary typically comprises a chapter (around 8000 words), while for a Master’s thesis, it is usually around 2000 - 3000 words.

Few More Insightful Articles — Just for you!

10 best ai for essay writing, role of ai in systematic literature review, how to use ai tools for conducting a literature review, research paper summarizer | an overview of the best ai summarizers, you might also like.

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers