relevance of literature review

Why is it important to do a literature review in research?

The importance of scientific communication in the healthcare industry

The Importance and Role of Biostatistics in Clinical Research

 “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough, sophisticated research”. Boote and Baile 2005

Authors of manuscripts treat writing a literature review as a routine work or a mere formality. But a seasoned one knows the purpose and importance of a well-written literature review.  Since it is one of the basic needs for researches at any level, they have to be done vigilantly. Only then the reader will know that the basics of research have not been neglected.

The aim of any literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of existing knowledge in a particular field without adding any new contributions.   Being built on existing knowledge they help the researcher to even turn the wheels of the topic of research.  It is possible only with profound knowledge of what is wrong in the existing findings in detail to overpower them.  For other researches, the literature review gives the direction to be headed for its success. 

The common perception of literature review and reality:

As per the common belief, literature reviews are only a summary of the sources related to the research. And many authors of scientific manuscripts believe that they are only surveys of what are the researches are done on the chosen topic.  But on the contrary, it uses published information from pertinent and relevant sources like

• Scholarly books
• Scientific papers
• Latest studies in the field
• Established school of thoughts
• Relevant articles from renowned scientific journals

and many more for a field of study or theory or a particular problem to do the following:

• Summarize into a brief account of all information
• Synthesize the information by restructuring and reorganizing
• Critical evaluation of a concept or a school of thought or ideas
• Familiarize the authors to the extent of knowledge in the particular field
• Encapsulate
• Compare & contrast

By doing the above on the relevant information, it provides the reader of the scientific manuscript with the following for a better understanding of it:

• It establishes the authors’  in-depth understanding and knowledge of their field subject
• It gives the background of the research
• Portrays the scientific manuscript plan of examining the research result
• Illuminates on how the knowledge has changed within the field
• Highlights what has already been done in a particular field
• Information of the generally accepted facts, emerging and current state of the topic of research
• Identifies the research gap that is still unexplored or under-researched fields
• Demonstrates how the research fits within a larger field of study
• Provides an overview of the sources explored during the research of a particular topic

Importance of literature review in research:

The importance of literature review in scientific manuscripts can be condensed into an analytical feature to enable the multifold reach of its significance.  It adds value to the legitimacy of the research in many ways:

• Provides the interpretation of existing literature in light of updated developments in the field to help in establishing the consistency in knowledge and relevancy of existing materials
• It helps in calculating the impact of the latest information in the field by mapping their progress of knowledge.
• It brings out the dialects of contradictions between various thoughts within the field to establish facts
• The research gaps scrutinized initially are further explored to establish the latest facts of theories to add value to the field
• Indicates the current research place in the schema of a particular field
• Provides information for relevancy and coherency to check the research
• Apart from elucidating the continuance of knowledge, it also points out areas that require further investigation and thus aid as a starting point of any future research
• Justifies the research and sets up the research question
• Sets up a theoretical framework comprising the concepts and theories of the research upon which its success can be judged
• Helps to adopt a more appropriate methodology for the research by examining the strengths and weaknesses of existing research in the same field
• Increases the significance of the results by comparing it with the existing literature
• Provides a point of reference by writing the findings in the scientific manuscript
• Helps to get the due credit from the audience for having done the fact-finding and fact-checking mission in the scientific manuscripts
• The more the reference of relevant sources of it could increase more of its trustworthiness with the readers
• Helps to prevent plagiarism by tailoring and uniquely tweaking the scientific manuscript not to repeat other’s original idea
• By preventing plagiarism , it saves the scientific manuscript from rejection and thus also saves a lot of time and money
• Helps to evaluate, condense and synthesize gist in the author’s own words to sharpen the research focus
• Helps to compare and contrast to  show the originality and uniqueness of the research than that of the existing other researches
• Rationalizes the need for conducting the particular research in a specified field
• Helps to collect data accurately for allowing any new methodology of research than the existing ones
• Enables the readers of the manuscript to answer the following questions of its readers for its better chances for publication
• What do the researchers know?
• What do they not know?
• Is the scientific manuscript reliable and trustworthy?
• What are the knowledge gaps of the researcher?

22. It helps the readers to identify the following for further reading of the scientific manuscript:

• What has been already established, discredited and accepted in the particular field of research
• Areas of controversy and conflicts among different schools of thought
• Unsolved problems and issues in the connected field of research
• The emerging trends and approaches
• How the research extends, builds upon and leaves behind from the previous research

A profound literature review with many relevant sources of reference will enhance the chances of the scientific manuscript publication in renowned and reputed scientific journals .

References:

http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/phd6.pdf

journal Publishing services  |  Scientific Editing Services  |  Medical Writing Services  |  scientific research writing service  |  Scientific communication services

Related Topics:

Meta Analysis

Scientific Research Paper Writing

Medical Research Paper Writing

Scientific Communication in healthcare

pubrica academy

Related posts.

Importance Of Proofreading For Scientific Writing Methods and Significance

Statistical analyses of case-control studies

Selecting material (e.g. excipient, active pharmaceutical ingredient, packaging material) for drug development

Comments are closed.

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

Secondary menu

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

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

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

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

University Libraries

Literature review.

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

• Strategies to Find Sources

Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources

Reading critically, tips to evaluate sources.

• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

A good literature review evaluates a wide variety of sources (academic articles, scholarly books, government/NGO reports). It also evaluates literature reviews that study similar topics. This page offers you a list of resources and tips on how to evaluate the sources that you may use to write your review.

• A Closer Look at Evaluating Literature Reviews Excerpt from the book chapter, “Evaluating Introductions and Literature Reviews” in Fred Pyrczak’s Evaluating Research in Academic Journals: A Practical Guide to Realistic Evaluation , (Chapter 4 and 5). This PDF discusses and offers great advice on how to evaluate "Introductions" and "Literature Reviews" by listing questions and tips. First part focus on Introductions and in page 10 in the PDF, 37 in the text, it focus on "literature reviews".
• Tips for Evaluating Sources (Print vs. Internet Sources) Excellent page that will guide you on what to ask to determine if your source is a reliable one. Check the other topics in the guide: Evaluating Bibliographic Citations and Evaluation During Reading on the left side menu.

To be able to write a good Literature Review, you need to be able to read critically. Below are some tips that will help you evaluate the sources for your paper.

Reading critically (summary from How to Read Academic Texts Critically)

• Who is the author? What is his/her standing in the field.
• What is the author’s purpose? To offer advice, make practical suggestions, solve a specific problem, to critique or clarify?
• Note the experts in the field: are there specific names/labs that are frequently cited?
• Pay attention to methodology: is it sound? what testing procedures, subjects, materials were used?
• Note conflicting theories, methodologies and results. Are there any assumptions being made by most/some researchers?
• Theories: have they evolved overtime?
• Evaluate and synthesize the findings and conclusions. How does this study contribute to your project?

Useful links:

• How to Read a Paper (University of Waterloo, Canada) This is an excellent paper that teach you how to read an academic paper, how to determine if it is something to set aside, or something to read deeply. Good advice to organize your literature for the Literature Review or just reading for classes.

Criteria to evaluate sources:

• Authority : Who is the author? what is his/her credentials--what university he/she is affliliated? Is his/her area of expertise?
• Usefulness : How this source related to your topic? How current or relevant it is to your topic?
• Reliability : Does the information comes from a reliable, trusted source such as an academic journal?

Useful site - Critically Analyzing Information Sources (Cornell University Library)

• << Previous: Strategies to Find Sources
• Next: Tips for Writing Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

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.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gists) in pediatric patients: a case report and literature review.

1. Introduction

2. epidemiology, 3. diagnostics, 3.1. clinical features, 3.2. pathology, 3.3. genetics and genotyping, 3.3.1. succinate dehydrogenase-deficient gists (dsdh), 3.3.2. braf and ras mutations, 3.4. imaging, 3.4.1. computed tomography, 3.4.2. magnetic resonance imaging, 3.4.3. contrast-enhanced and endoscopic contrast-enhance ultrasound, 3.5. endoscopy, 3.6. biopsy, 4. associations with other pathological entities, 4.1. carney triad and carney syndrome, 4.2. neurofibromatosis type i, 5. risk stratification, 6. treatment, 6.1. medical treatment, 6.2. surgical treatment, minimally invasive techniques, 7. follow-up and survival, 8. case report, case discussion, 9. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Miettinen, M.; Lasota, J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Review on morphology, molecular pathology, prognosis, and differential diagnosis. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006 , 130 , 1466–1478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dudzisz-śledź, M.; Klimczak, A.; Bylina, E.; Rutkowski, P. Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs): A Focus on Younger Patients. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 2831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, K.W.; Leabu, M. Interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST): Facts, speculations, and myths. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2006 , 10 , 995–1013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Miettinen, M.; Wang, Z.F.; Sarlomo-Rikala, M.; Osuch, C.; Rutkowski, P.; Lasota, J. Succinate dehydrogenase-deficient GISTs: A clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 66 gastric GISTs with predilection to young age. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2011 , 35 , 1712–1721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serrano, C.; Martín-Broto, J.; Asencio-Pascual, J.M. 2023 GEIS Guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2023 , 15 , 17588359231192388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrzejewska, M.; Czarny, J.; Derwich, K. Latest Advances in the Management of Pediatric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 4989. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• DeMatteo, R.P.; Lewis, J.J.; Leung, D.; Mudan, S.S.; Woodruff, J.M.; Brennan, M.F. Two hundred gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Recurrence patterns and prognostic factors for survival. Ann. Surg. 2000 , 231 , 51–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quiroz, H.J.; Willobee, B.A.; Sussman, M.S.; Fox, B.R.; Thorson, C.M.; Sola, J.E.; Perez, E.A. Pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumors—A review of diagnostic modalities. Transl. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018 , 3 , 54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raitio, A.; Salim, A.; Mullassery, D.; Losty, P.D. Current treatment and outcomes of pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): A systematic review of published studies. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2021 , 37 , 1161–1165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Theiss, L.; Contreras, C.M. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach and Esophagus. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2019 , 99 , 543–553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaemmer, D.A.; Otto, J.; Lassay, L.; Steinau, G.; Klink, C.; Junge, K.; Klinge, U.; Schumpelick, V. The gist of literature on pediatric GIST: Review of clinical presentation. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2009 , 31 , 108–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rink, L.; Godwin, A.K. Clinical and molecular characteristics of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the pediatric and young adult population. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2009 , 11 , 314–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tran, S.; Dingeldein, M.; Mengshol, S.C.; Kay, S.; Chin, A.C. Incidental GIST after appendectomy in a pediatric patient: A first instance and review of pediatric patients with CD117 confirmed GISTs. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2014 , 30 , 457–466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jing, X.; Meng, X.; Gao, Y.; Yu, J.; Liu, B. A 4-month-old boy with gastrointestinal stromal tumor of mesocolon. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2019 , 20 , 8–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hashizume, N.; Sakamoto, S.; Fukahori, S.; Ishii, S.; Saikusa, N.; Koga, Y.; Higashidate, N.; Tsuruhisa, S.; Nakahara, H.; Tanaka, Y.; et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor in perforated Meckel’s diverticulum: A case report and literature review. Surg. Case Rep. 2020 , 6 , 265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Khan, J.; Ullah, A.; Waheed, A.; Karki, N.R.; Adhikari, N.; Vemavarapu, L.; Belakhlef, S.; Bendjemil, S.M.; Mehdizadeh Seraj, S.; Sidhwa, F.; et al. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST): A Population-Based Study Using the SEER Database, including Management and Recent Advances in Targeted Therapy. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 3689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gold, J.S.; van der Zwan, S.M.; Gönen, M.; Maki, R.G.; Singer, S.; Brennan, M.F.; Antonescu, C.R.; De Matteo, R.P. Outcome of metastatic GIST in the era before tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2007 , 14 , 134–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agaram, N.P.; Laquaglia, M.P.; Ustun, B.; Guo, T.; Wong, G.C.; Socci, N.D.; Maki, R.G.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Besmer, P.; Antonescu, C.R. Molecular characterization of pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2008 , 14 , 3204–3215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janeway, K.A.; Pappo, A. Treatment guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in children and young adults. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2012 , 34 (Suppl. S2), S69–S72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, X.; Yue, C. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2012 , 3 , 189–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nishida, T.; Blay, J.Y.; Hirota, S.; Kitagawa, Y.; Kang, Y.K. The standard diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of gastrointestinal stromal tumors based on guidelines. Gastric Cancer 2016 , 19 , 3–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ruiz-Demoulin, S.; Trenquier, E.; Dekkar, S.; Deshayes, S.; Boisguérin, P.; Serrano, C.; de Santa Barbara, P.; Faure, S. LIX1 Controls MAPK Signaling Reactivation and Contributes to GIST-T1 Cell Resistance to Imatinib. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 , 24 , 7138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Javidi-Sharifi, N.; Traer, E.; Martinez, J.; Gupta, A.; Taguchi, T.; Dunlap, J.; Heinrich, M.C.; Corless, C.L.; Rubin, B.P.; Druker, B.J.; et al. Crosstalk between KIT and FGFR3 promotes gastrointestinal stromal tumor cell growth and drug resistance. Cancer Res. 2015 , 75 , 880–891. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daniels, M.; Lurkin, I.; Pauli, R.; Erbstösser, E.; Hildebrandt, U.; Hellwig, K.; Zschille, U.; Lüders, P.; Krüger, G.; Knolle, J.; et al. Spectrum of KIT/PDGFRA/BRAF mutations and Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase pathway gene alterations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Cancer Lett. 2011 , 312 , 43–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boikos, S.A.; Pappo, A.S.; Killian, J.K.; LaQuaglia, M.P.; Weldon, C.B.; George, S.; Trent, J.C.; von Mehren, M.; Wright, J.A.; Schiffman, J.D.; et al. Molecular Subtypes of KIT/PDGFRA Wild-Type Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Report From the National Institutes of Health Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Clinic. JAMA Oncol. 2016 , 2 , 922–928. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Urbini, M.; Astolfi, A.; Indio, V.; Nannini, M.; Schipani, A.; Bacalini, M.G.; Angelini, S.; Ravegnini, G.; Calice, G.; Del Gaudio, M.; et al. Gene duplication, rather than epigenetic changes, drives FGF4 overexpression in KIT/PDGFRA/SDH/RAS-P WT GIST. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 19829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steeghs, E.M.P.; Kroeze, L.I.; Tops, B.B.J.; van Kempen, L.C.; Ter Elst, A.; Kastner-van Raaij, A.W.M.; Hendriks-Cornelissen, S.J.B.; Hermsen, M.J.W.; Jansen, E.A.M.; Nederlof, P.M.; et al. Comprehensive routine diagnostic screening to identify predictive mutations, gene amplifications, and microsatellite instability in FFPE tumor material. BMC Cancer 2020 , 20 , 291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atiq, M.A.; Davis, J.L.; Hornick, J.L.; Dickson, B.C.; Fletcher, C.D.M.; Fletcher, J.A.; Folpe, A.L.; Mariño-Enríquez, A. Mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract with NTRK rearrangements: A clinicopathological, immunophenotypic, and molecular study of eight cases, emphasizing their distinction from gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Mod. Pathol. Off. J. United States Can. Acad. Pathol. Inc. 2021 , 34 , 95–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huss, S.; Pasternack, H.; Ihle, M.A.; Merkelbach-Bruse, S.; Heitkötter, B.; Hartmann, W.; Trautmann, M.; Gevensleben, H.; Büttner, R.; Schildhaus, H.-U.; et al. Clinicopathological and molecular features of a large cohort of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and review of the literature: BRAF mutations in KIT/PDGFRA wild-type GISTs are rare events. Hum. Pathol. 2017 , 62 , 206–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janeway, K.A.; Kim, S.Y.; Lodish, M.; Nosé, V.; Rustin, P.; Gaal, J.; Dahia, P.L.M.; Liegl, B.; Ball, E.R.; Raygada, M.; et al. Defects in succinate dehydrogenase in gastrointestinal stromal tumors lacking KIT and PDGFRA mutations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011 , 108 , 314–318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibrahim, A.; Chopra, S. Succinate Dehydrogenase-Deficient Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2020 , 144 , 655–660. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giger, O.T.; Ten Hoopen, R.; Shorthouse, D.; Abdullahi, S.; Bulusu, V.R.; Jadhav, S.; Maher, E.R.; Casey, R.T. Preferential MGMT hypermethylation in SDH-deficient wild-type GIST. J. Clin. Pathol. 2023 , 77 , 34–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cairncross, J.G.; Wang, M.; Jenkins, R.B.; Shaw, E.G.; Giannini, C.; Brachman, D.G.; Buckner, J.C.; Fink, K.L.; Souhami, L.; Laperriere, N.J.; et al. Benefit from procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in oligodendroglial tumors is associated with mutation of IDH. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2014 , 32 , 783–790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kansanen, E.; Kuosmanen, S.M.; Leinonen, H.; Levonen, A.-L. The Keap1-Nrf2 pathway: Mechanisms of activation and dysregulation in cancer. Redox Biol. 2013 , 1 , 45–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gayther, S.A.; Batley, S.J.; Linger, L.; Bannister, A.; Thorpe, K.; Chin, S.-F.; Daigo, Y.; Russell, P.; Wilson, A.; Sowter, H.M.; et al. Mutations truncating the EP300 acetylase in human cancers. Nat. Genet. 2000 , 24 , 300–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Y.; Feng, F.; Guo, Q.H.; Wang, Y.P.; Zhao, R. Role of succinate dehydrogenase deficiency and oncometabolites in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World J. Gastroenterol. 2020 , 26 , 5074–5089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, W.-T.; Huang, C.-J.; Wu, M.-T.; Yang, S.-F.; Su, Y.-C.; Chai, C.-Y. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha is associated with risk of aggressive behavior and tumor angiogenesis in gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 , 35 , 207–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, C.; Liu, X.; Qiu, C.; Zheng, J. FoxM1 is regulated by both HIF-1α and HIF-2α and contributes to gastrointestinal stromal tumor progression. Gastric Cancer 2019 , 22 , 91–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalfusova, A.; Linke, Z.; Kalinova, M.; Krskova, L.; Hilska, I.; Szabova, J.; Vicha, A.; Kodet, R. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors—Summary of mutational status of the primary/secondary KIT/PDGFRA mutations, BRAF mutations and SDH defects. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2019 , 215 , 152708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jašek, K.; Váňová, B.; Grendár, M.; Štanclová, A.; Szépe, P.; Hornáková, A.; Holubeková, V.; Plank, L.; Lasabová, Z. BRAF mutations in KIT/PDGFRA positive gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs): Is their frequency underestimated? Pathol. Res. Pract. 2020 , 216 , 153171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niinuma, T.; Suzuki, H.; Sugai, T. Molecular characterization and pathogenesis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Transl. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018 , 3 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Scheffzek, K.; Ahmadian, M.R.; Kabsch, W.; Wiesmüller, L.; Lautwein, A.; Schmitz, F.; Wittinghofer, A. The Ras-RasGAP complex: Structural basis for GTPase activation and its loss in oncogenic Ras mutants. Science 1997 , 277 , 333–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simanshu, D.K.; Nissley, D.V.; McCormick, F. RAS Proteins and Their Regulators in Human Disease. Cell 2017 , 170 , 17–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nishida, T.; Naito, Y.; Takahashi, T.; Saito, T.; Hisamori, S.; Manaka, D.; Ogawa, K.; Hirota, S.; Ichikawa, H. Molecular and clinicopathological features of KIT/PDGFRA wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Sci. 2024 , 115 , 894–904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Franck, C.; Rosania, R.; Franke, S.; Haybaeck, J.; Canbay, A.; Venerito, M. The BRAF Status May Predict Response to Sorafenib in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Resistant to Imatinib, Sunitinib, and Regorafenib: Case Series and Review of the Literature. Digestion 2019 , 99 , 179–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agaimy, A.; Terracciano, L.M.; Dirnhofer, S.; Tornillo, L.; Foerster, A.; Hartmann, A.; Bihl, M.P. V600E BRAF mutations are alternative early molecular events in a subset of KIT/PDGFRA wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumours. J. Clin. Pathol. 2009 , 62 , 613–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalkmann, J.; Zeile, M.; Antoch, G.; Berger, F.; Diederich, S.; Dinter, D.; Fink, C.; Janka, R.; Stattaus, J. Consensus report on the radiological management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST): Recommendations of the German GIST Imaging Working Group. Cancer Imaging 2012 , 12 , 126–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bano, S.; Puri, S.K.; Upreti, L.; Chaudhary, V.; Sant, H.K.; Gondal, R. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): An imaging perspective. Jpn. J. Radiol. 2012 , 30 , 105–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tsurumaru, D.; Nishimuta, Y.; Kai, S.; Oki, E.; Minoda, Y.; Ishigami, K. Clinical significance of dual-energy dual-layer CT parameters in differentiating small-sized gastrointestinal stromal tumors from leiomyomas. Jpn. J. Radiol. 2023 , 41 , 1389–1396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janeway, K.A.; Albritton, K.H.; Van Den Abbeele, A.D.; D’Amato, G.Z.; Pedrazzoli, P.; Siena, S.; Picus, J.; Butrynski, J.E.; Schlemmer, M.; Heinrich, M.C.; et al. Sunitinib treatment in pediatric patients with advanced GIST following failure of imatinib. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2009 , 52 , 767–771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, C.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, R.; Ding, L.; Xia, Y.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X. [ 18 F]FAPI-42 PET/CT versus [ 18107 F]FDG PET/CT for imaging of recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2022 , 50 , 194–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Herzberg, M.; Beer, M.; Anupindi, S.; Vollert, K.; Kröncke, T. Imaging pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). J. Pediatr. Surg. 2018 , 53 , 1862–1870. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, L.; Zhang, D.; Zheng, T.; Liu, D.; Fang, Y. Predicting the progression-free survival of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib therapy through multi-sequence magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom. Radiol. 2024 , 49 , 801–813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yu, M.H.; Lee, J.M.; Baek, J.H.; Han, J.K.; Choi, B.-I. MRI features of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014 , 203 , 980–991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Charles-Edwards, E.M.; De Souza, N.M. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and its application to cancer. Cancer Imaging 2006 , 6 , 135–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dietrich, C.; Hartung, E.; Ignee, A. The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in patients with GIST metastases that are negative in CT and PET. Ultraschall Med. 2008 , 29 (Suppl. S5), 276–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ignee, A.; Jenssen, C.; Hocke, M.; Dong, Y.; Wang, W.-P.; Cui, X.-W.; Woenckhaus, M.; Iordache, S.; Saftoiu, A.; Schuessler, G.; et al. Contrast-enhanced (endoscopic) ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound elastography in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Endosc. Ultrasound 2017 , 6 , 55–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okasha, H.H.; Naguib, M.; El Nady, M.; Ezzat, R.; Al-Gemeie, E.; Al-Nabawy, W.; Aref, W.; Abdel-Moaty, A.; Essam, K.; Hamdy, A. Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic-ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic biopsy negative gastrointestinal lesions. Endosc. Ultrasound 2017 , 6 , 156–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chhoda, A.; Jain, D.; Surabhi, V.R.; Singhal, S. Contrast enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound: A novel approach for diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin. Endosc. 2018 , 51 , 215–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, J.; Zhuang, M.; Zhou, Y.; Zhan, X.; Xie, W. The value of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasound in differential diagnosis and evaluation of malignant risk of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (<50 mm). Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2023 , 58 , 542–548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Facciorusso, A.; Crinò, S.F.; Ramai, D.; Ofosu, A.; Muscatiello, N.; Mangiavillano, B.; Lamonaca, L.; Lisotti, A.; Fusaroli, P.; Gkolfakis, P.; et al. Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions. Dig. liver Dis. Off. J. Ital. Soc. Gastroenterol. Ital. Assoc. Study Liver 2022 , 54 , 676–683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jacobson, B.C.; Bhatt, A.; Greer, K.B.; Lee, L.S.; Park, W.G.; Sauer, B.G.; Shami, V.M. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2023 , 118 , 46–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jakob, J.; Salameh, R.; Wichmann, D.; Charalambous, N.; Zygmunt, A.C.; Kreisel, I.; Heinz, J.; Ghadimi, M.; Ronellenfitsch, U. Needle tract seeding and abdominal recurrence following pre-treatment biopsy of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): Results of a systematic review. BMC Surg. 2022 , 22 , 202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hwang, J.H.; Rulyak, S.D.; Kimmey, M.B. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Technical Review on the Management of Gastric Subepithelial Masses. Gastroenterology 2006 , 130 , 2217–2228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Haller, F.; Moskalev, E.A.; Faucz, F.R.; Barthelmeß, S.; Wiemann, S.; Bieg, M.; Assie, G.; Bertherat, J.; Schaefer, I.M.; Otto, C.; et al. Aberrant DNA hypermethylation of SDHC: A novel mechanism of tumor development in Carney triad. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2014 , 21 , 567–577. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pitsava, G.; Settas, N.; Faucz, F.R.; Stratakis, C.A. Carney Triad, Carney-Stratakis Syndrome, 3PAS and Other Tumors Due to SDH Deficiency. Front. Endocrinol. 2021 , 12 , 680609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Killian, J.K.; Miettinen, M.; Walker, R.L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.J.; Waterfall, J.J.; Noyes, N.; Retnakumar, P.; Yang, Z.; Smith, W.I.J.; et al. Recurrent epimutation of SDHC in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Sci. Transl. Med. 2014 , 6 , 268ra177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matyakhina, L.; Bei, T.A.; McWhinney, S.R.; Pasini, B.; Cameron, S.; Gunawan, B.; Stergiopoulos, S.G.; Boikos, S.; Muchow, M.; Dutra, A.; et al. Genetics of carney triad: Recurrent losses at chromosome 1 but lack of germline mutations in genes associated with paragangliomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2007 , 92 , 2938–2943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Carney, J.A.; Stratakis, C.A. Familial paraganglioma and gastric stromal sarcoma: A new syndrome distinct from the Carney triad. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2002 , 108 , 132–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yao, M.-Q.; Jiang, Y.-P.; Yi, B.-H.; Yang, Y.; Sun, D.-Z.; Fan, J.-X. Neurofibromatosis type 1 with multiple gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A case report. World J. Clin. Cases 2023 , 11 , 2336–2342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Takazawa, Y.; Sakurai, S.; Sakuma, Y.; Ikeda, T.; Yamaguchi, J.; Hashizume, Y.; Yokoyama, S.; Motegi, A.; Fukayama, M. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of neurofibromatosis type I (von Recklinghausen’s disease). Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005 , 29 , 755–763. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gasparotto, D.; Rossi, S.; Polano, M.; Tamborini, E.; Lorenzetto, E.; Sbaraglia, M.; Mondello, A.; Massani, M.; Lamon, S.; Bracci, R.; et al. Quadruple-negative GIST is a sentinel for unrecognized neurofibromatosis type 1 syndrome. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017 , 23 , 273–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hudgi, A.R.; Azam, M.; Masood, M.; Arshad, H.M.S.; Yap, J.E.L. The Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of It: A Rare Presentation of Neurofibromatosis Type I. Cureus 2021 , 13 , e16034. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joensuu, H.; Vehtari, A.; Riihimäki, J.; Nishida, T.; Steigen, S.E.; Brabec, P.; Plank, L.; Nilsson, B.; Cirilli, C.; Braconi, C.; et al. Risk of recurrence of gastrointestinal stromal tumour after surgery: An analysis of pooled population-based cohorts. Lancet. Oncol. 2012 , 13 , 265–274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fletcher, C.D.M.; Berman, J.J.; Corless, C.; Gorstein, F.; Lasota, J.; Longley, B.J.; Miettinen, M.; O’Leary, T.J.; Remotti, H.; Rubin, B.P.; et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A consensus approach. Hum. Pathol. 2002 , 33 , 459–465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gold, J.S.; Gönen, M.; Gutiérrez, A.; Broto, J.M.; García-del-Muro, X.; Smyrk, T.C.; Maki, R.G.; Singer, S.; Brennan, M.F.; Antonescu, C.R.; et al. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for recurrence-free survival after complete surgical resection of localised primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour: A retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009 , 10 , 1045–1052. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joensuu, H. Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum. Pathol. 2008 , 39 , 1411–1419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hemming, M.L.; Coy, S.; Lin, J.-R.; Andersen, J.L.; Przybyl, J.; Mazzola, E.; Abdelhamid Ahmed, A.H.; van de Rijn, M.; Sorger, P.K.; Armstrong, S.A.; et al. HAND1 and BARX1 Act as Transcriptional and Anatomic Determinants of Malignancy in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2021 , 27 , 1706–1719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liegl, B.; Kepten, I.; Le, C.; Zhu, M.; Demetri, G.D.; Heinrich, M.C.; Fletcher, C.D.M.; Corless, C.L.; Fletcher, J.A. Heterogeneity of kinase inhibitor resistance mechanisms in GIST. J. Pathol. 2008 , 216 , 64–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schlemmer, M.; Bauer, S.; Schütte, R.; Hartmann, J.T.; Bokemeyer, C.; Hosius, C.; Reichardt, P. Activity and side effects of imatinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Data from a German multicenter trial. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2011 , 16 , 206–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Astolfi, A.; Pantaleo, M.A.; Indio, V.; Urbini, M.; Nannini, M. The emerging role of the FGF/FGFR pathway in gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 , 21 , 3313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mei, L.; Smith, S.C.; Faber, A.C.; Trent, J.; Grossman, S.R.; Stratakis, C.A.; Boikos, S.A. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: The GIST of Precision Medicine. Trends Cancer 2018 , 4 , 74–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Glod, J.; Arnaldez, F.I.; Wiener, L.; Spencer, M.; Killian, J.K.; Meltzer, P.; Dombi, E.; Derse-Anthony, C.; Derdak, J.; Srinivasan, R.; et al. A Phase II Trial of Vandetanib in Children and Adults with Succinate Dehydrogenase-Deficient Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 , 25 , 6302–6308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rusakiewicz, S.; Perier, A.; Semeraro, M.; Pitt, J.M.; von Strandmann, E.P.; Reiners, K.S.; Aspeslagh, S.; Pipéroglou, C.; Vély, F.; Ivagnes, A.; et al. NKp30 isoforms and NKp30 ligands are predictive biomarkers of response to imatinib mesylate in metastatic GIST patients. Oncoimmunology 2017 , 6 , e1137418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casali, P.G.; Blay, J.Y.; Abecassis, N.; Bajpai, J.; Bauer, S.; Biagini, R.; Bielack, S.; Bonvalot, S.; Boukovinas, I.; Bovee, J.V.M.G.; et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up ☆. Ann. Oncol. 2022 , 33 , 20–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reichardt, P. The Story of Imatinib in GIST—A Journey through the Development of a Targeted Therapy. Oncol. Res. Treat. 2018 , 41 , 472–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trent, J.C.; Subramanian, M.P. Managing GIST in the imatinib era: Optimization of adjuvant therapy. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2014 , 14 , 1445–1459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rihacek, M.; Selingerova, I.; Kocak, I.; Kocakova, I.; Rihackova, E.; Valik, D.; Sterba, J. Sunitinib-Induced Elevation of Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV)—Exploring Its Possible Clinical Relevance in Cancer Patients. Curr. Oncol. 2022 , 29 , 4138–4147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prior, J.O.; Montemurro, M.; Orcurto, M.-V.; Michielin, O.; Luthi, F.; Benhattar, J.; Guillou, L.; Elsig, V.; Stupp, R.; Delaloye, A.B.; et al. Early prediction of response to sunitinib after imatinib failure by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2009 , 27 , 439–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verschuur, A.C.; Bajčiová, V.; Mascarenhas, L.; Khosravan, R.; Lin, X.; Ingrosso, A.; Janeway, K.A. Sunitinib in pediatric patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor: Results from a phase I/II trial. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2019 , 84 , 41–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ben-Ami, E.; Barysauskas, C.M.; von Mehren, M.; Heinrich, M.C.; Corless, C.L.; Butrynski, J.E.; Morgan, J.A.; Wagner, A.J.; Choy, E.; Yap, J.T.; et al. Long-term follow-up results of the multicenter phase II trial of regorafenib in patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GI stromal tumor after failure of standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2016 , 27 , 1794–1799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Demetri, G.D.; Reichardt, P.; Kang, Y.-K.; Blay, J.-Y.; Rutkowski, P.; Gelderblom, H.; Hohenberger, P.; Leahy, M.; von Mehren, M.; Joensuu, H.; et al. Efficacy and safety of regorafenib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID): An international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013 , 381 , 295–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudigeos-Dubus, E.; Le Dret, L.; Lanvers-Kaminsky, C.; Bawa, O.; Opolon, P.; Vievard, A.; Villa, I.; Pagès, M.; Bosq, J.; Vassal, G.; et al. Regorafenib: Antitumor Activity upon Mono and Combination Therapy in Preclinical Pediatric Malignancy Models. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0142612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brinch, C.; Dehnfeld, M.; Hogdall, E.; Poulsen, T.S.; Toxvaerd, A.; Al-Farra, G.; Bergenfeldt, M.; Krarup-Hansen, A. Outstanding Response to Sorafenib in a Patient with Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour. Case Rep. Oncol. 2021 , 14 , 1567–1573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• George, S.; von Mehren, M.; Fletcher, J.A.; Sun, J.; Zhang, S.; Pritchard, J.R.; Hodgson, J.G.; Kerstein, D.; Rivera, V.M.; Haluska, F.G.; et al. Phase II Study of Ponatinib in Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Efficacy, Safety, and Impact of Liquid Biopsy and Other Biomarkers. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2022 , 28 , 1268–1276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garner, A.P.; Gozgit, J.M.; Anjum, R.; Vodala, S.; Schrock, A.; Zhou, T.; Serrano, C.; Eilers, G.; Zhu, M.; Ketzer, J.; et al. Ponatinib inhibits polyclonal drug-resistant KIT oncoproteins and shows therapeutic potential in heavily pretreated gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2014 , 20 , 5745–5755. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trent, J.C.; Wathen, K.; von Mehren, M.; Samuels, B.L.; Staddon, A.P.; Choy, E.; Butrynski, J.E.; Chugh, R.; Chow, W.A.; Rushing, D.A.; et al. A phase II study of dasatinib for patients with imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 , 29 , 10006. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Tilburg, C.M.; DuBois, S.G.; Albert, C.M.; Federman, N.; Nagasubramanian, R.; Geoerger, B.; Orbach, D.; Bielack, S.S.; Shukla, N.N.; Turpin, B.; et al. Larotrectinib efficacy and safety in pediatric TRK fusion cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 , 37 , 10010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, Y.-K.; George, S.; Jones, R.L.; Rutkowski, P.; Shen, L.; Mir, O.; Patel, S.; Zhou, Y.; von Mehren, M.; Hohenberger, P.; et al. Avapritinib Versus Regorafenib in Locally Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic GI Stromal Tumor: A Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Study. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2021 , 39 , 3128–3139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serrano, C.; Bauer, S.; Gómez-Peregrina, D.; Kang, Y.-K.; Jones, R.L.; Rutkowski, P.; Mir, O.; Heinrich, M.C.; Tap, W.D.; Newberry, K.; et al. Circulating tumor DNA analysis of the phase III VOYAGER trial: KIT mutational landscape and outcomes in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with avapritinib or regorafenib. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2023 , 34 , 615–625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ligon, J.A.; Sundby, R.T.; Wedekind, M.F.; Arnaldez, F.I.; Del Rivero, J.; Wiener, L.; Srinivasan, R.; Spencer, M.; Carbonell, A.; Lei, H.; et al. A Phase II Trial of Guadecitabine in Children and Adults with SDH-Deficient GIST, Pheochromocytoma, Paraganglioma, and HLRCC-Associated Renal Cell Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022 , 29 , 341–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tarn, C.; Rink, L.; Merkel, E.; Flieder, D.; Pathak, H.; Koumbi, D.; Testa, J.R.; Eisenberg, B.; von Mehren, M.; Godwin, A.K. Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor is a potential therapeutic target for gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 , 105 , 8387–8392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Von Mehren, M.; George, S.; Heinrich, M.C.; Schuetze, S.M.; Yap, J.T.; Yu, J.Q.; Abbott, A.; Litwin, S.; Crowley, J.; Belinsky, M.; et al. Linsitinib (OSI-906) for the treatment of adult and pediatric wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumors, a SARC phase II study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020 , 26 , 1837–1845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nishimura, J.; Nakajima, K.; Omori, T.; Takahashi, T.; Nishitani, A.; Ito, T.; Nishida, T. Surgical strategy for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Laparoscopic vs. open resection. Surg. Endosc. 2007 , 21 , 875–878. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Janeway, K.A.; Weldon, C.B. Pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Semin. Pediatr. Surg. 2012 , 21 , 31–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Valadão, M.; de Mello, E.L.R.; Lourenço, L.; Vilhena, B.; Romano, S.; dos Castro, L.S. What is the prognostic significance of metastatic lymph nodes in GIST? Hepatogastroenterology 2008 , 55 , 471–474. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, C.; Su, D.; Xie, C.; Chen, Q.; Zhou, J.; Wu, X. Lymphadenectomy is associated with poor survival in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ann. Transl. Med. 2019 , 7 , 558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stiles, Z.E.; Fleming, A.M.; Dickson, P.V.; Tsao, M.; Glazer, E.S.; Shibata, D.; Deneve, J.L. Lymph Node Metastases in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: An Uncommon Event. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022 , 29 , 8641–8648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agaimy, A.; Wünsch, P.H. Lymph node metastasis in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) occurs preferentially in young patients < or =40 years: An overview based on our case material and the literature. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2009 , 394 , 375–381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weldon, C.B.; Madenci, A.L.; Boikos, S.A.; Janeway, K.A.; George, S.; von Mehren, M.; Pappo, A.S.; Schiffman, J.D.; Wright, J.; Trent, J.C.; et al. Surgical Management of Wild-Type Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Report From the National Institutes of Health Pediatric and Wildtype GIST Clinic. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2017 , 35 , 523–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krajinovic, K.; Germer, C.T.; Agaimy, A.; Wünsch, P.H.; Isbert, C. Outcome after resection of one hundred gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Dig. Surg. 2010 , 27 , 313–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jakob, J.; Hohenberger, P. Neoadjuvant therapy to downstage the extent of resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Visc. Med. 2018 , 34 , 359–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hølmebakk, T.; Bjerkehagen, B.; Boye, K.; Bruland, Ø.; Stoldt, S.; Sundby Hall, K. Definition and clinical significance of tumour rupture in gastrointestinal stromal tumours of the small intestine. Br. J. Surg. 2016 , 103 , 684–691. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petrasova, N.; Snajdauf, J.; Petru, O.; Frybova, B.; Svojgr, K.; Linke, Z.; Mixa, V.; Kodet, R.; Kyncl, M.; Rygl, M. Gastric tumors in children: Single-center study with emphasis on treatment of repeated recurrence. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2020 , 36 , 917–924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hiki, N.; Yamamoto, Y.; Fukunaga, T.; Yamaguchi, T.; Nunobe, S.; Tokunaga, M.; Miki, A.; Ohyama, S.; Seto, Y. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastrointestinal stromal tumor dissection. Surg. Endosc. 2008 , 22 , 1729–1735. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aisu, Y.; Yasukawa, D.; Kimura, Y.; Hori, T. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric tumors: Perspective for actual practice and oncological benefits. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2018 , 10 , 381–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kikuchi, S.; Nishizaki, M.; Kuroda, S.; Tanabe, S.; Noma, K.; Kagawa, S.; Shirakawa, Y.; Kato, H.; Okada, H.; Fujiwara, T. Nonexposure laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (closed laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery) for gastric submucosal tumor. Gastric Cancer Off. J. Int. Gastric Cancer Assoc. Jpn. Gastric Cancer Assoc. 2017 , 20 , 553–557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pulido, J.; Garavito, J.; Franco, L.; Padilla, L.; Cabrera, F.; Pedraza, M.; Villarreal, R.; Bernal, F. Laparoendoscopic surgery for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A case series. Cir. Y Cir. (Engl. Ed.) 2022 , 90 (Suppl. S1), 121–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teng, T.Z.J.; Ishraq, F.; Chay, A.F.T.; Tay, K.V. Lap-Endo cooperative surgery (LECS) in gastric GIST: Updates and future advances. Surg. Endosc. 2023 , 37 , 1672–1682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Onimaru, M.; Inoue, H.; Ikeda, H.; Abad, M.R.A.; Quarta Colosso, B.M.; Shimamura, Y.; Sumi, K.; Deguchi, Y.; Ito, H.; Yokoyama, N. Combination of laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches for neoplasia with non-exposure technique (CLEAN-NET) for gastric submucosal tumors: Updated advantages and limitations. Ann. Transl. Med. 2019 , 7 , 582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hiki, N.; Nunobe, S.; Matsuda, T.; Hirasawa, T.; Yamamoto, Y.; Yamaguchi, T. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery. Dig. Endosc. 2015 , 27 , 197–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hiki, N.; Nunobe, S. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) for the gastrointestinal tract: Updated indications. Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2019 , 3 , 239–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fero, K.E.; Coe, T.; Fanta, P. Surgical Management of adolescents and young adults with GIST A US Population-based analysis. JAMA Surg. 2017 , 152 , 443–451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yonkus, J.A.; Alva-Ruiz, R.; Grotz, T.E. Surgical Management of Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2021 , 22 , 37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zamulko, O.Y.; Zamulko, A.O.; Dawson, M.J. Introducing GIST and Dieulafoy—Think of Them in GI Bleeding and Anemia. S. D. Med. 2019 , 72 , 528–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Sorour, M.A.; Kassem, M.I.; Ghazal, A.E.-H.A.; El-Riwini, M.T.; Abu Nasr, A. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) related emergencies. Int. J. Surg. 2014 , 12 , 269–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ling, A.L.; Solomon, I.H.; Landivar, A.M.; Nakashima, H.; Woods, J.K.; Santos, A.; Masud, N.; Fell, G.; Mo, X.; Yilmaz, A.S.; et al. Clinical trial links oncolytic immunoactivation to survival in glioblastoma. Nature 2023 , 623 , 157–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wesche, J.; Haglund, K.; Haugsten, E.M. Fibroblast growth factors and their receptors in cancer. Biochem. J. 2011 , 437 , 199–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tomlinson, D.C.; Knowles, M.A.; Speirs, V. Mechanisms of FGFR3 actions in endocrine resistant breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2012 , 130 , 2857–2866. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• André, F.; Bachelot, T.; Campone, M.; Dalenc, F.; Perez-Garcia, J.M.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Turner, N.; Rugo, H.; Smith, J.W.; Deudon, S.; et al. Targeting FGFR with Dovitinib (TKI258): Preclinical and Clinical Data in Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013 , 19 , 3693–3702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camillo Porta Palma Giglione, W.L.; Paglino, C. Dovitinib (CHIR258, TKI258): Structure, Development and Preclinical and Clinical Activity. Futur. Oncol. 2015 , 11 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boichuk, S.; Dunaev, P.; Skripova, V.; Galembikova, A.; Bikinieva, F.; Shagimardanova, E.; Gazizova, G.; Deviatiiarov, R.; Valeeva, E.; Mikheeva, E.; et al. Unraveling the Mechanisms of Sensitivity to Anti-FGF Therapies in Imatinib-Resistant Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) Lacking Secondary KIT Mutations. Cancers 2023 , 15 , 5354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Popoiu, T.-A.; Pîrvu, C.-A.; Popoiu, C.-M.; Iacob, E.R.; Talpai, T.; Voinea, A.; Albu, R.-S.; Tãban, S.; Bãlãnoiu, L.-M.; Pantea, S. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs) in Pediatric Patients: A Case Report and Literature Review. Children 2024 , 11 , 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11091040

Popoiu T-A, Pîrvu C-A, Popoiu C-M, Iacob ER, Talpai T, Voinea A, Albu R-S, Tãban S, Bãlãnoiu L-M, Pantea S. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs) in Pediatric Patients: A Case Report and Literature Review. Children . 2024; 11(9):1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11091040

Popoiu, Tudor-Alexandru, Cãtãlin-Alexandru Pîrvu, Cãlin-Marius Popoiu, Emil Radu Iacob, Tamas Talpai, Amalia Voinea, Rãzvan-Sorin Albu, Sorina Tãban, Larisa-Mihaela Bãlãnoiu, and Stelian Pantea. 2024. "Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs) in Pediatric Patients: A Case Report and Literature Review" Children 11, no. 9: 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11091040

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• DOI: 10.32025/jbm23001
• Corpus ID: 266244415

THE QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF INTEGRATED REPORTING: A STRUCTURED LITERATURE REVIEW

• Marcel Mock
• Published in Journal of Business… 2023
• Business, Environmental Science, Economics
• Journal of Business Management

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2024

Key contributors to malaria elimination in the People's Republic of China: a scoping review

• Samah Isam Abdalla Elhassan 1  

Malaria Journal volume  23 , Article number:  259 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Malaria continues to cause high levels of morbidity and mortality despite concerted efforts to control the disease. The global burden is predominantly shouldered by countries in which the disease is highly endemic. In juxtaposition, the majority of evidence on progress towards malaria elimination has been documented in countries where baseline transmission was low. A notable exception is the People's Republic of China, in which the last indigenous case of malaria was recorded in 2016 after reporting over 30 million cases across various transmission strata in 1949. This review examined the extent, range, and nature of the literature addressing key contributors to malaria elimination in China. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, Google Scholar and the WHO website were searched for relevant articles, and the JBI guidelines were followed for evidence selection, data extraction, and presentation of findings. The 17 articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria demonstrated the centrality of high-level political commitment in the elimination of malaria in China. The national malaria strategy was regularly updated to reflect evolving priorities, and the health system building blocks were strengthened to meet strategic targets. A whole-of-society approach to malaria was adopted, with intersectoral, interprovincial, regional, international, and community-mobilizing collaboration mechanisms established. Collaboration with academic institutions resulted in advantageous discoveries such as artemisinin, the current global gold standard for the treatment of malaria. The impact of malaria-specific interventions was augmented by China's economic growth. The findings of the review highlight the importance of adopting a comprehensive approach to malaria control that addresses the structural determinants of ill-health alongside downstream interventions.

On October 6, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that a malaria vaccine has been recommended for the first time in history [ 1 ]. The vaccine had taken 30 years to be developed and held promise of ameliorating one of the longest-standing conundrums in human history [ 1 , 2 ]. The Chinese Canon of Medicine—Nei Ching—had described recurrent fevers with signs and symptoms that closely resemble malaria as early as 2700 BCE, and malaria antigens were isolated from Egyptian mummies dating back to 3200 BCE [ 3 , 4 ]. Despite the resources pledged to control the disease, including one costly eradication attempt, the world continues to report over 200 million cases and 500,000 malaria deaths annually [ 2 , 5 ]. In addition to its impact on health, malaria results in substantial economic losses to affected individuals and populations [ 6 ]. While effective vaccines have been critical to the control of multiple life-threatening diseases and are expected to expedite progress towards malaria eradication [ 2 ], the elimination of malaria in countries prior to the recommendation of malaria vaccines underscores the existence of other contributors to effective malaria control.

As of June 2024, forty-three countries and one territory have been certified malaria-free by the WHO. To be certified malaria-free, a country must provide evidence of zero indigenous cases of malaria for at least three consecutive years [ 7 ]. The certification of China had received peculiarly heightened attention, with the number of publications about China far exceeding that of any other certified country. The elimination of malaria in the world's most populous country is a likely contributor to this enhanced coverage, as is China's interest in expanding its global presence [ 8 ]. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the fact that China is a vast country in which different malaria transmission patterns co-existed. Over 30 million malaria cases were recorded in the country in 1949, the same year the People's Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed [ 9 ]. Many cases were reported from the country’s southern provinces, where malaria was highly endemic [ 10 ]. The elimination of malaria from this region represents a divergence from the norm, as elimination tends to occur in settings where baseline transmission was already low [ 11 ].

In contrast, the global malaria burden is grossly skewed towards high-transmission settings. Twenty-nine countries account for 96% of malaria cases globally, with over half of the world's malaria deaths concentrated in just four countries: Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United Republic of Tanzania and the Niger [ 5 ]. The documentation of progress from regions with a comparable baseline is thus pertinent to synthesize evidence relevant in similar settings where elimination will produce the highest impact. Despite the presence of scholarly works describing the Chinese experience, the literature is dominated by expert opinion articles in which different hierarchical perspectives have been presented to describe how and why progress has taken place in China. As no systematic or scoping review has been previously conducted on the subject matter, the aim of this review is to comprehensively summarize the fragmented knowledge on China's journey; identifying and prioritizing factors that have collectively led to the elimination of malaria from the country.

The review objective is to examine the extent, range, and nature of the literature addressing contributors to malaria elimination in China. The scoping review methodology was selected to fit the exploratory nature of mapping the key characteristics of China's experience, as opposed to systematic reviews in which specific hypotheses are interrogated.

The scoping review methodology was selected to fit the exploratory nature of the question. This review was carried out in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [ 12 ], with an a priori protocol developed before undertaking the review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA- ScR) was used to enhance reporting transparency [ 13 ].

Review question

What is the extent, range and nature of the literature covering the key contributors to malaria elimination in The People's Republic of China?

Eligibility criteria

Articles covering contributors to malaria elimination in China were included in this scoping review. As the primary objective is to document a comprehensive review of China's malaria journey from endemicity to elimination, only articles published on or after 1st January, 2018 were considered, with the primary search process concluding on April 29th, 2024. The search was subsequently updated to include literature published up to June 25th, 2024. A peer-review condition was not imposed on articles to be included, since the majority of literature covering the topic are editorial, commentary and letter-to-the-editor articles, which are not typically subject to the same peer-review standards as their primary research counterparts. Articles must, however, be published in a peer-reviewed outlet in order to be eligible for inclusion. Relevant grey literature published by the World Health Organization, a reliable source of health-related information, was also included in the scoping review. No language restrictions were imposed on the search in accordance with the JBI guidelines [ 12 ]. Articles addressing malaria elimination in multi-country settings were excluded as they tend to provide brief recounts of individual country experiences and emphasize comparative analysis, deviating from the review’s purpose of exhaustively analysing the specific context of China. Literature restricted to pre-determined interventions, regions within China, and/or stages of malaria control have been excluded, as it is likely to overlook the impact of social determinants of health.

Search strategy

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and ProQuest were searched for relevant literature. Additional sources include the Google Scholar search engine and the official website of the World Health Organization. An initial limited search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar to analyse key words and generate the search strings used in the formal search process (Table  1 ).

Article selection

The obtained search results underwent a three-tiered screening process. Articles were sorted by title in the initial screening stage, and studies with irrelevant or duplicate titles were excluded. Eligible studies advanced to the secondary screening of abstracts, and studies with relevant abstracts were subsequently subject to full-text review. The search and screening processes were duplicated to improve sensitivity and specificity. Studies that were considered relevant both times automatically advanced to data extraction. Studies that were judged relevant in one round but not in the other were cross-checked in a third round and forwarded to data extraction accordingly. The reference lists of eligible articles were examined for further literature of relevance. The process for source identification and inclusion is summarized in Fig.  1 .

Flow diagram for the scoping review process, adapted from the PRISMA statement by Moher et al. [ 13 ]

Data extraction

Standard descriptive information charted include the title, author(s), methodology, language and year of publication for each article, along with key results relevant to the primary objective i.e. contributors to malaria elimination in China. Full texts were reviewed, analysed and relevant information extracted in two separate charting forms, which were subsequently combined into a unified table for data interpretation.

The selection criteria were fulfilled by 17 articles (Table  2 ). The majority of articles (n = 15) were published in or after 2021, the year China was certified malaria-free. 16 of the featured publications are expert opinion articles and one is an observational study. 15 publications are written in English and two are in Standard Chinese.

Key contributors to malaria elimination in China

Political commitment.

The scholarly narrative on China's elimination cascade has governance at its core. While the majority of articles cite the Chinese governments’ fervent commitment as the chief contributor to the country's success with other factors subsequently listed, close inspection of the literature reveals the positioning of other factors as extensions of this political engagement, rather than distinct entities in their own right [ 9 , 15 , 16 ]. The innovative approach of China for malaria control, for example, was another recurring contributory theme, with Tu Youyou’s discovery of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) frequently brought up as a specimen [ 17 , 18 ]. However, the discovery of artemisinin is consistently attributed to the government’s Project 523: “…as early as 1967, the Chinese government launched the 523 Project…this project led to an outstanding result regarding the discovery and extraction of artemisinin from Artemisia annua by Tu Youyou and her team” [ 18 ]. The vitality of government leadership in other areas covered, such as strengthening China's health system, mounting a coordinated malaria response, and securing donor funds for control activities, further reinforces their characterization as dependent variables [ 19 ].

Strategic adaptability

The adaptability of Chinese policies is illustrated by reviewing the history of malaria control in the PRC. Classically divided into five phases, each phase of malaria control in China has implemented a mix of interventions guided by the corresponding national plan. These plans, in turn, have been informed by the peculiarities of malaria transmission in each era [ 20 ]. During the first phase (1949–1959), the priority was to set the epidemiological baseline and the organizational infrastructure for malaria control. By the end of the first phase, malaria transmission nationwide was clear and pilot operations for infection control were launched [ 21 ]. Malaria control in the PRC faced its most serious threat during the decades of the second phase (1960–1979); when massive malaria epidemics erupted as a result of prolonged political unrest and natural disasters [ 10 ]. The predicaments of this period, however, have reinvigorated efforts to control the disease. National strategies featured countermeasures tailored to subnational stratifications, and interprovincial cooperation mechanisms were established. The renowned 523 Project, the parent project for artemisinin, was also a product of this time period. Malaria epidemics were under control by 1979, and disease incidence had dropped by 91.3% from its 1970 baseline [ 10 ]. The downward trend of the late second phase persisted into the third phase (1980–1999), bolstered by the country's economic growth. By 2000, the maiden year of the fourth phase (2000–2009), malaria was under control in all but two provinces: Yunnan and Hainan. A strategic elimination plan had long been on the table, with pilot elimination programmes launched in select counties around the country. The National Malaria Elimination Action Plan (NMEAP) was officially endorsed in 2010, and came to be known as the fifth phase of malaria control in China [ 22 ]. Strict surveillance and response policies were enforced, reference laboratories were set up to improve case detection, and interprovincial collaboration was maximized. The strategic target set by the NMEAP was met three years ahead of schedule, with indigenous malaria transmission dropping to zero in 2017 [ 9 ].

Capacity building

Capacity building refers to the development of the health system infrastructure to meet the requirements of implementing planned control interventions. The National Institute of Parasitic Diseases (NIPD) and the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were both established after the foundation of the PRC, and the national malaria control and prevention network was extended down to the grassroots level [ 10 ]. Another essential component of malaria control, the surveillance system, underwent numerous reformations. The county-based, mail-delivered system of the 1970s and early 1980s was replaced with computerized reporting sheets in 1985. The national surveillance system had to be further adjusted as the country moved to adopt the elimination strategy, and the National Information System for Malaria Control and Elimination was launched, with the “1-3-7” approach becoming the standard surveillance and response method [ 15 ]. In this model, all malaria cases had to be reported within one day, followed by case confirmation and epidemiological investigation within three days and the completion of foci investigation and response in seven days. The “1-3-7” had since received international acclaim and was later incorporated into WHO publications [ 17 ]. The healthcare cadre in charge for surveillance, response, and laboratory diagnosis underwent regular training that was sustained even after malaria was eliminated nationwide [ 18 , 23 ].

Multi-axial collaboration

The Chinese government's multi-axial mechanisms encompass six collaborative themes: multisectoral, provincial, regional, international, community-oriented, and partnership with academic institutions. A notable example of multisectoral action is The National Malaria Elimination Action Plan (2010–2020), having been signed by representatives from over 13 ministries and governmental bodies [ 24 , 25 ]. Examples of similarly robust multisectoral ventures from earlier malaria control phases are relatively scarce, although the reference of Yin et al. [ 10 ] to malaria inclusion in the draft document for national agricultural development (1956–1967) may qualify as an example of the state's early interest in involving non-health sectors in malaria control. Conversely, a number of large-scale interprovincial projects have been established throughout the twentieth century, including the Middle Five Provinces Malaria Joint Control and Prevention Programme in 1974 and the Southern Three Provinces Malaria Joint Control and Prevention Programme in 1992 [ 26 ]. The political interest in forging regional consensus grew as China moved to adopt the elimination strategy and the prospect of cross-border malaria transmission became increasingly worrisome [ 21 ].

Mounting a coordinated cross-border response was predictably more complicated than in-country coordination; the last known case of indigenous malaria transmission in China occurred in Yunnan, a province that shares borders with three malaria-endemic countries [ 9 ]. However, China’s proactive approach to developing joint mechanisms, as well as the shared interest in reducing the malaria burden across the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) proved effective in halting disease reestablishment in the Chinese border provinces. On a broader scale, China’s relationship with the international community has been mutually lucrative, with China's growing financial and political weight resulting in the country’s transition from recipient to donor status, as illustrated by the changing dynamic between China and the Global Fund [ 17 , 19 ].

The collaboration between the Chinese community and government manifests in China's Patriotic Health Campaign. Members of the community participated in mass health promotion campaigns to improve sanitation and modify mosquito habitats [ 27 ]. However, the literature's lack of reference to the involvement of community members in the decision-making process suggests a largely top-down management orientation. The role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) is another notable omission from the literature, indicating the lack of substantial contributions by CSOs to malaria control in China (See 4. " Discussion ").

The final collaborative axis, the political-academic duo, is showcased by the close alignment of scientific output with national needs and the timely incorporation of research findings into control strategies. A classic example is the launch of the confidential Project 523 in 1967 in response to the spread of chloroquine-resistant malaria during the Vietnam War. Professor Tu Youyou, who led one of the project teams at the time, experimented with Artemisia annua , and the extracted active ingredient, artemisinin, was shown to have potent anti-malarial properties. The discovery earned Youyou the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, with artemisinin derivatives the current gold standard for malaria treatment [ 9 , 28 ]. Furthermore, policymakers in China highly prioritized locally generated evidence, as demonstrated by the widespread distribution of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) well before their recommendation by the WHO [ 18 ].

Conducive economic policies

The impact of economic policies on malaria control is examined from two perspectives: direct expenditure on health and the effect of economic megatrends on malaria epidemiology. The considerable upscale in the health system's organizational capacity to meet strategic control targets is indicative of increased health expenditure, as is the provision of packages of basic health services to citizens free of charge [ 19 , 22 ]. The introduction of the Global Fund in 2002 further augmented the resources available for healthcare and malaria control in China. The country applied for five Global Fund rounds dedicated to malaria—R1, R5, R6, R10, and the National Strategy Application—before losing eligibility in 2014. The impetus created by the Global Fund was sustained, however, as the government moved to bridge the deficit [ 18 ].

While the impact of economic megatrends in China was somewhat overshadowed in the literature by the emphasis on direct health expenditure, some insight can still be derived. The Chinese economy’s enormous growth provided leverage for the government’s capacity to implement malaria control measures, such as the labour-intensive 1-3-7 strategy, regular cadre training, drug procurement and health promotion campaigns. Another, more nuanced, point of view took into account the impact of rising living standards on malaria epidemiology. As the GDP per capita increased from ¥385 in 1978 to ¥70,000 in 2019, so did the population’s ability to access improved sanitation, nutrition and healthcare [ 18 , 29 ].

The findings of the review illustrate that malaria elimination in China was the outcome of a government-led tetrad of strategic adaptability, health system strengthening, multi-axial collaboration mechanisms, and favourable socioeconomic megatrends. The intimate correlation between malaria epidemiology and political crossroads in China, as showcased in the dramatic fall in malaria incidence following the proclamation of the PRC in 1949 and the massive epidemics that followed the turmoil of Mao's Cultural Revolution in 1966, demonstrates the decisive role of politics in the country's elimination journey [ 30 , 31 ]. It may be argued that these changes were strongly confounded by the country's economic circumstances at the time, rather than being a direct product of deliberate political action, as was the case with many countries in Europe and North America where malaria elimination was largely a spontaneous by-product of economic prosperity [ 32 ]. Socioeconomic progress is, of course, also contingent on the financial policies enforced by the state; yet the findings of this study suggest a stronger link between political action and malaria burden reduction in China. Indeed, the vigour of malaria control in the PRC cannot be fully accounted for without the broader context of the long standing politicization of health in China [ 33 , 34 ]. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its predecessor, the Nationalist Party (GMD), have both embraced public health as an important constituent of their visions, divergent as they were [ 33 ]. As a result, the reduction in malaria and other communicable diseases in the PRC was frequently in excess of what was expected from the country's parallel level of economic development [ 30 ].

This correlation between malaria control and political action is well-recognized and has been long reported in acadaemia, including the audit report produced by the United States Agency for International Development in 1976, in which the malaria epidemics that succeeded the Global Malaria Eradication Programme (GMEP) were said to “have been very largely related to the unwillingness of national governments to make the requisite resources available when in fact such resources existed” [ 35 ]. The failure of the GMEP itself has been attributed to the lack of genuine political commitment among member states [ 2 ]. The political imperative has since frequently reprised in scholarly works addressing malaria from a public health standpoint [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Nonetheless, literature prioritizing more technical elements of malaria control is arguably more abundant [ 38 ], with the de facto global blueprint for malaria, the WHO's Global Technical Strategy, representing an outstanding example of technical alignment. The need for political commitment does feature in the rationale of the GTS, but is not tangibly translated into the strategy's operational framework [ 39 ]. This disposition to gloss over the political roots of underdevelopment, including ill-health, is not uncommon in NGO-engineered international policies [ 40 ]. The postulation is reflected in the WHO’s persistent prescription of evidence-based preventive and case management interventions for malaria control [ 41 , 42 ]. However, the grossly off-track malaria trends necessitated rethinking the GTS’s approach, culminating in the launch of the High Burden to High Impact (HBHI) initiative in 2018. Political commitment is declared a flagship element by the HBHI, re-centring the role of government leadership in the malaria narrative [ 43 ]. The second and third elements of the HBHI initiative call for the departure from a one-size-fits-all approach and the adaptation of strategy to context, corresponding to the strategic adaptability of malaria control in China. As the catastrophes of the GMEP unfolded in many parts of the world, malaria in China was strategically manoeuvred [ 2 , 21 ]. The GMEP involved a highly rigid and inflexible approach to malaria eradication, primarily via uniform spraying of the residual insecticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). By failing to respond to local realities, the project suffered from repeatedly prolonged schedules and exploding costs, eventually leading to its abandonment in 1969 [ 2 ]. China's policies, on the other hand, have shown remarkable adaptability over time and to varied local conditions, with the disease gradually phased out over seven decades [ 10 ].

The effectiveness of proposed strategies, adaptable or otherwise, is contingent on the capacity of health systems to implement the propositions. The decisive role of health systems in malaria responsiveness is entrenched in the report produced by the Lancet Commission on Malaria Eradication, in which the feasibility of an eradication campaign is hinged on strengthening national health systems [ 44 ]. The confluence between malaria control and health systems cannot conclude without venturing into the health information component, an independent predictor of progress in malaria control [ 45 ]. A functional surveillance system is a prerequisite for effective malaria control in all countries regardless of their placement in the endemicity continuum [ 39 ], with robust surveillance and response mechanisms constituting the most important pillar for the successful elimination campaigns in Algeria, China, El Salvador, Paraguay and Sri Lanka [ 46 ]. As countries near elimination, multisectoral collaboration is increasingly employed for case detection and reporting [ 28 , 46 ]. The well-known recommendation of involving multiple sectors in malaria control is, for the most part, a rational rather than an empirical decision, as evidence for multisectoral action in malaria control remains generally inconclusive [ 45 ]. Nevertheless, multisectoral action continues to be strongly supported by academia. In the analysis by Herdiana et al . [ 47 ], the recommended response to the lack of robust evidence is the continued implementation of inter-sectorality with improved documentation of indicators to address knowledge gaps. This viewpoint is shared by global organizations; the Multisectoral Action Framework for Malaria, a joint project between the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, places multisectoral action at the heart of adequate malaria responsiveness [ 32 ].

The premise of the second and third collaborative axes in China, provincial and regional joint projects, is the transcendence of malaria to man-made borders. Regional initiatives in GMS were successful in reducing malaria mortality across common border regions through information and skill transfer between neighbouring states, and the region is currently on track to meet the milestones of the WHO Strategy for malaria elimination in the GMS (2015–2030) [ 48 ]. On a larger scale, China’s relationship with the global community has morphed over the last few decades with the country’s increasing international presence. The partnership between China and the Global Fund, China's most noteworthy benefactor in its pre-elimination era, illustrates the reconfiguration. China successfully bid for Global Fund support on five different occasions between 2002 and 2013, but lost fund eligibility as the country’s economy grew and the malaria burden dwindled [ 49 ]. Today, China is the 20th largest public donor to the Global Fund, with a total investment of US$81 million to date [ 50 ]. The PRC-Global Fund partnership is generally held favourably, since the five rounds of Global Fund support have met their objectives [ 49 ]. However, the Global Fund's legacy in China has been also described as “deeply mixed”, with the gains of providing financial leverage, bridging the normative gap between China and the global community, and engaging civil society in policymaking juxtaposed with low-value-for-money projects and unintended negative consequences for China's civil society [ 51 ]. Malaria control projects in China have been predominantly top-down, with community members strongly encouraged to engage in the implementation of pre-determined activities but excluded from decision-making. The lack of civil society participation in decision-making was a recurring source of contention, with one incident leading to the suspension of all Fund grants allocated to China and the resumption of operations only after Chinese authorities guaranteed sufficient civil society participation. While CSO involvement did increase afterwards, the policy led to the proliferation of inefficient NGOs, many of which emerged to harvest funds with little interest in service provision [ 51 ].

The last collaborative axis, linking the Chinese government with acadaemia, has produced transformative discoveries as well as policy-informing research. The research trends in China have closely followed research needs for malaria control, as illustrated by the amount, focus, and author affiliation of malaria research in the country. Over 16,000 malaria articles were published in Chinese academic journals between 1980 and 2019. The keywords “antimalarial drugs ” and “ Anopheles sinensis’ ’ were frequently in use as the strategic interest in drug development and vector control peaked during the 1980s and 1990s, but their usage declined in later decades in favour of keywords such as “imported case”, “surveillance” and “elimination” when the national agenda shifted towards elimination. The majority of highly cited authors were from public institutes of parasitic diseases and CDCs, cutting down the time required to translate research output into national and subnational strategies [ 52 ]. The scarcity of bibliometric publications from other countries renders a comprehensive analogy challenging, however, one study from Malawi interestingly found that the Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Programme is the most common author affiliation of malaria research in Malawi [ 53 ]. This hegemony of a politically and economically independent global entity is likely to have ramifications on the dynamic between research and policymaking in Malawi, just as the affiliation of reputable authors with public institutions did in China.

The last thematic area addresses the economics of malaria control and elimination in China. Systematic data collected from countries all over the globe reveal a positive feedback mechanism between malaria and socioeconomic development [ 54 ]. Malaria incidence declines as countries move up the socioeconomic ladder, irrespective of health system ranking and/or the implementation of malaria-specific interventions. Earlier in the discussion section, it was concluded that China deviates from the standard format, with malaria control gains exceeding what would be expected from the country's vis-à-vis degree of economic development. Deviation, however, is not disjunction; the steady decline of malaria in China over the previous four decades has corresponded with substantial economic growth [ 15 ]. The impact of China's prosperity on malaria is particularly evident in the country's ability to absorb the shock of the market-oriented health sector reforms in the 1980s without incurring significant losses in control gains. The reforms, however, jeopardized the country's capacity to respond to the 2003 SARS outbreak, and the devastating consequences that ensued led to extensive revision of China's health policy [ 55 ]. The government's commitment to the resource-intensive surveillance requirements of malaria elimination reflects the reinvigorated interest in public health in the post-SARS era [ 56 , 57 ].

Knowledge gaps

While the overarching principles of malaria elimination in China have been summarized in this scoping review, more in-depth research is required to break down the political processes of how, why and by whom was priority allocated to malaria in China, in order to produce conclusions that are informative from a policy-making perspective.

Study limitations

While the search process was as inclusive as permissible within the limits of feasibility, it is possible that more results could have been obtained if a reviewer proficient in the language and research culture in China was included, as valuable insight would have been gathered from local information sources. However, since the majority of included articles are authored by Chinese academics, there is reason to believe that the local perspective has been accounted for in this scoping review. Furthermore, the decision to omit articles focusing on specific interventions and/or regions in China, as well as articles published prior to malaria elimination from the country, may have led to the exclusion of relevant literature. However, had the study lost sight of the greater scope of events, the results would have been skewed to overrepresent the impact of micro-level interventions to the detriment of the study objective.

The malaria-free certification of China in 2021 was the result of a series of structural reforms initiated by the government seven decades earlier. The successive governments of the new-found state prioritized malaria; national strategies were geographically stratified and regularly updated, and the health system was scaled up to meet strategic targets. Collaboration was critical to malaria elimination in China; regional initiatives were established to control cross-border malaria, while international organizations supported the transition from control to elimination. A whole-of-society approach to malaria control was adopted; non-health sectors were involved, scientific endeavour was encouraged, and community members were mobilized. These malaria-specific interventions have occurred in concomitance with socioeconomic development and improving living standards; independent predictors of malaria burden reduction. The documentation of China's journey re-centres the role of the social determinants of health in the malaria narrative, challenging the contemporary global health paradigm in which downstream interventions are given precedence.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

World Health Organization. WHO recommends groundbreaking malaria vaccine for children at risk. Geneva: WHO; 2021.

Google Scholar  

WHO. Malaria eradication: benefits, future scenarios & feasibility. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

Moss WJ, Shah SN, Morrow RH. History of malaria and its control. In: Quah S, Cockerham WC, editors. International Encyclopedia of Public Health. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016.

Miller RL, Ikram S, Armelagoss GJ, Walker R, Harers B, Shiffi CJ, et al. Diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum infections in mummies using the rapid manual ParaSightTM-F test. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1994;88:31–2.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

WHO. World malaria report 2022. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

Gallup JL, Sachs JD. The economic burden of malaria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2001;64:85–96.

WHO. Countries and territories certified malaria-free by WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.

Jenkins R. How China is reshaping the global economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2022.

Book   Google Scholar  

Zhou XN. China declared malaria-free: a milestone in the world malaria eradication and Chinese public health. Infect Dis Poverty. 2021;10:98.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Yin JH, Zhang L, Feng XY, Xia ZG. Evolution of anti-malaria policies and measures in P.R. China for achieving and sustaining malaria-free. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1094859.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Feachem RGA, Phillips AA, Hwang J, Cotter C, Wielgosz B, Greenwood BM, et al. Shrinking the malaria map: progress and prospects. Lancet. 2010;376:1566–78.

Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Eds). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Antes G, Atkins D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

Badmos AO, Alaran AJ, Adebisi YA, Bouaddi O, Onibon Z, Dada A, et al. What sub-Saharan African countries can learn from malaria elimination in China. Trop Med Health. 2021;49:86.

Burki T. Triumph in China as it is certified malaria-free by WHO. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21:1220–1.

Chen JH, Fen J, Zhou XN. From 30 million to zero malaria cases in China: lessons learned for China-Africa collaboration in malaria elimination. Infect Dis Poverty. 2021;10:51.

Feng X, Huang F, Yin J, Wang R, Xia Z. Key takeaways from China’s success in eliminating malaria: leveraging existing evidence for a malaria-free world. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7:e008351.

WHO. From 30 million cases to zero: China is certified malaria-free by WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

Feng J, Zhang L, Huang F, Yin JH, Tu H, Xia ZG, et al. Ready for malaria elimination: zero indigenous case reported in the People’s Republic of China. Malar J. 2018;17:315.

Wang D-Q, Liang X-H, Shen-Ning L, Ding W, Huang J, Wen X, et al. China’s long march to malaria elimination: a case of adaptive management. Malar J. 2022;21:38.

Nkfusai NC, Ngou O, Ekoko Subi C, Mohlin S, Bemadoum F, Teboh S, et al. Malaria elimination: what can Africa learn from China? Int J MCH AIDS. 2022;11:526.

Article   Google Scholar  

Xiao N, Xu Q, Feng J, Xia Z, Duan L, Wang D, et al. Approaching malaria elimination in China. China CDC Wkly. 2020;2:293–7.

Yin JH, Lengeler C, Tanner M, Zhou XN. A malaria-free China: global importance and key experience. Adv Parasitol. 2022;116:15–9.

WHO. Q&A on malaria elimination in China. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

Feng J, Zhang L, Xia ZG, Xiao N. Malaria elimination in China: an eminent milestone in the anti-malaria campaign and challenges in the post-elimination stage. Chinese J Parasitol Parasit Dis. 2021;39:421–8.

Wang D, Lv S, Ding W, Lu S, Zhang H, Kassegne K, et al. Could China’s journey of malaria elimination extend to Africa? Infect Dis Poverty. 2022;11:55.

Chen Y, Hou X, Jiang W, Yu C. “China’s Malaria Terminator”—Malaria in China. Chinese J Epidemiol. 2022;43.

Badmos AO, Alaran AJ, Adebisi YA, Bouaddi O, Onibon Z, Dada A, et al. What sub-Saharan African countries can learn from malaria elimination in China. Trop Med Health. 2021;49:89.

Feng X, Xia ZG, Feng J, Zhang L, Yan H, Tang L, et al. The contributions and achievements on malaria control and forthcoming elimination in China over the past 70 years by NIPD-CTDR. Adv Parasitol. 2020;110:63–105.

Lin Y. Unleash the Pandora’s box: political turmoil and malaria outbreak during China’s Cultural Revolution. Aust Econ Hist Rev. 2020;60:220–49.

Blas E. Multisectoral Action Framework for Malaria. Roll Back Malaria Partnership/UNDP. 2013. https://endmalaria.org/sites/default/files/9_Multisectoral-Action-Framework-for-Malaria.pdf .

Bu L. Public health and the modernization of China, 1865–2015. London: Routledge Publ; 2017.

New PK, New LM. The links between health and the political structure in New China. Hum Organ. 1975;34:237–51.

Cleaver H. Malaria and the political economy of public health. Int J Health Serv. 1977;7:557–79.

Kidson C, Indaratna K. Ecology, economics and political will: the vicissitudes of malaria strategies in Asia. Parassitologia. 1998;40:39–46.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ren M. Greater political commitment needed to eliminate malaria. Infect Dis Poverty. 2019;8:28.

Parkhurst J, Ghilardi L, Webster J, Snow RW, Lynch CA. Competing interests, clashing ideas and institutionalizing influence: insights into the political economy of malaria control from seven African countries. Health Policy Plan. 2021;36:35–44.

WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

Acemoglu D. Why nations fail? Pak Dev Rev. 2015;54:301–12.

WHO. A Global strategy for malaria control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1993.

WHO. Guidelines for malaria. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.

WHO. High burden to high impact: a targeted malaria response. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.

Feachem RGA, Chen I, Akbari O, Bertozzi-Villa A, Bhatt S, Binka F, et al. Malaria eradication within a generation: ambitious, achievable, and necessary. Lancet. 2019;394:1056–112.

Sahu M, Tediosi F, Noor AM, Aponte JJ, Fink G. Health systems and global progress towards malaria elimination, 2000–2016. Malar J. 2020;19:141.

Sharma S, Verma R, Yadav B, Kumar A, Rahi M, Sharma A. What India can learn from globally successful malaria elimination programmes. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7:e008431.

Herdiana H, Sari JFK, Whittaker M. Intersectoral collaboration for the prevention and control of vector borne diseases to support the implementation of a global strategy: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2019;13:e0204659.

WHO. Countries of the greater Mekong ready for the “last mile” of malaria elimination. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

Wang RB, Zhang QF, Zheng B, Xia ZG, Sen ZS, Tang LH, et al. Transition from control to elimination: Impact of the 10-Year global fund project on malaria control and elimination in China. Adv Parasitol. 2014;86:289–318.

Global Fund. Government and Public Donors. 2023. https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/government/profiles/china/ . Accessed 25 Jun 2024.

Huang Y, Ping J. The Global Fund’s China Legacy. 2014. https://www.cfr.org/report/global-funds-china-legacy .

Du YQ, Zhu GD, Cao J, Huang JY. Research supporting malaria control and elimination in China over four decades: a bibliometric analysis of academic articles published in Chinese from 1980 to 2019. Malar J. 2021;20:158.

Mwendera CA, De Jager C, Longwe H, Hongoro C, Mutero CM, Phiri KS. Malaria research in Malawi from 1984 to 2016: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Malar J. 2017;16:246.

WHO. World health statistics 2019: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.

Wang L, Wang Z, Ma Q, Fang G, Yang J. The development and reform of public health in China from 1949 to 2019. Global Health. 2019;15:45.

Xu JW, Li JJ, Guo HP, Pu SW, Li SM, Wang RH, et al. Malaria from hyperendemicity to elimination in Hekou County on China-Vietnam border: an ecological study. Malar J. 2017;16:66.

Lu G, Zhou S, Horstick O, Wang X, Liu Y, Müller O. Malaria outbreaks in China (1990–2013): a systematic review. Malar J. 2014;13:269.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge Professor Elfatih Malik for his valuable input.

The research expenses have been exclusively covered by the author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Malaria Control Programme, Federal Ministry of Health, ElQasr Avenue, Khartoum, Sudan

Samah Isam Abdalla Elhassan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Manuscript conceptualization, literature review, article selection, data extraction, and report writing were undertaken by S.E.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samah Isam Abdalla Elhassan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Elhassan, S.I.A. Key contributors to malaria elimination in the People's Republic of China: a scoping review. Malar J 23 , 259 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-024-05090-y

Download citation

Received : 25 July 2024

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 27 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-024-05090-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Elimination

Malaria Journal

ISSN: 1475-2875

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]