synthesis and literature

Literature Syntheis 101

How To Synthesise The Existing Research (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | August 2023

One of the most common mistakes that students make when writing a literature review is that they err on the side of describing the existing literature rather than providing a critical synthesis of it. In this post, we’ll unpack what exactly synthesis means and show you how to craft a strong literature synthesis using practical examples.

This post is based on our popular online course, Literature Review Bootcamp . In the course, we walk you through the full process of developing a literature review, step by step. If it’s your first time writing a literature review, you definitely want to use this link to get 50% off the course (limited-time offer).

Overview: Literature Synthesis

• What exactly does “synthesis” mean?
• Aspect 1: Agreement
• Aspect 2: Disagreement
• Aspect 3: Key theories
• Aspect 4: Contexts
• Aspect 5: Methodologies
• Bringing it all together

What does “synthesis” actually mean?

As a starting point, let’s quickly define what exactly we mean when we use the term “synthesis” within the context of a literature review.

Simply put, literature synthesis means going beyond just describing what everyone has said and found. Instead, synthesis is about bringing together all the information from various sources to present a cohesive assessment of the current state of knowledge in relation to your study’s research aims and questions .

Put another way, a good synthesis tells the reader exactly where the current research is “at” in terms of the topic you’re interested in – specifically, what’s known , what’s not , and where there’s a need for more research .

So, how do you go about doing this?

Well, there’s no “one right way” when it comes to literature synthesis, but we’ve found that it’s particularly useful to ask yourself five key questions when you’re working on your literature review. Having done so,  you can then address them more articulately within your actual write up. So, let’s take a look at each of these questions.

1. Points Of Agreement

The first question that you need to ask yourself is: “Overall, what things seem to be agreed upon by the vast majority of the literature?”

For example, if your research aim is to identify which factors contribute toward job satisfaction, you’ll need to identify which factors are broadly agreed upon and “settled” within the literature. Naturally, there may at times be some lone contrarian that has a radical viewpoint , but, provided that the vast majority of researchers are in agreement, you can put these random outliers to the side. That is, of course, unless your research aims to explore a contrarian viewpoint and there’s a clear justification for doing so. 

Identifying what’s broadly agreed upon is an essential starting point for synthesising the literature, because you generally don’t want (or need) to reinvent the wheel or run down a road investigating something that is already well established . So, addressing this question first lays a foundation of “settled” knowledge.

Need a helping hand?

2. Points Of Disagreement

Related to the previous point, but on the other end of the spectrum, is the equally important question: “Where do the disagreements lie?” .

In other words, which things are not well agreed upon by current researchers? It’s important to clarify here that by disagreement, we don’t mean that researchers are (necessarily) fighting over it – just that there are relatively mixed findings within the empirical research , with no firm consensus amongst researchers.

This is a really important question to address as these “disagreements” will often set the stage for the research gap(s). In other words, they provide clues regarding potential opportunities for further research, which your study can then (hopefully) contribute toward filling. If you’re not familiar with the concept of a research gap, be sure to check out our explainer video covering exactly that .

3. Key Theories

The next question you need to ask yourself is: “Which key theories seem to be coming up repeatedly?” .

Within most research spaces, you’ll find that you keep running into a handful of key theories that are referred to over and over again. Apart from identifying these theories, you’ll also need to think about how they’re connected to each other. Specifically, you need to ask yourself:

• Are they all covering the same ground or do they have different focal points  or underlying assumptions ?
• Do some of them feed into each other and if so, is there an opportunity to integrate them into a more cohesive theory?
• Do some of them pull in different directions ? If so, why might this be?
• Do all of the theories define the key concepts and variables in the same way, or is there some disconnect? If so, what’s the impact of this ?

Simply put, you’ll need to pay careful attention to the key theories in your research area, as they will need to feature within your theoretical framework , which will form a critical component within your final literature review. This will set the foundation for your entire study, so it’s essential that you be critical in this area of your literature synthesis.

If this sounds a bit fluffy, don’t worry. We deep dive into the theoretical framework (as well as the conceptual framework) and look at practical examples in Literature Review Bootcamp . If you’d like to learn more, take advantage of our limited-time offer to get 60% off the standard price.

4. Contexts

The next question that you need to address in your literature synthesis is an important one, and that is: “Which contexts have (and have not) been covered by the existing research?” .

For example, sticking with our earlier hypothetical topic (factors that impact job satisfaction), you may find that most of the research has focused on white-collar , management-level staff within a primarily Western context, but little has been done on blue-collar workers in an Eastern context. Given the significant socio-cultural differences between these two groups, this is an important observation, as it could present a contextual research gap .

In practical terms, this means that you’ll need to carefully assess the context of each piece of literature that you’re engaging with, especially the empirical research (i.e., studies that have collected and analysed real-world data). Ideally, you should keep notes regarding the context of each study in some sort of catalogue or sheet, so that you can easily make sense of this before you start the writing phase. If you’d like, our free literature catalogue worksheet is a great tool for this task.

5. Methodological Approaches

Last but certainly not least, you need to ask yourself the question: “What types of research methodologies have (and haven’t) been used?”

For example, you might find that most studies have approached the topic using qualitative methods such as interviews and thematic analysis. Alternatively, you might find that most studies have used quantitative methods such as online surveys and statistical analysis.

But why does this matter?

Well, it can run in one of two potential directions . If you find that the vast majority of studies use a specific methodological approach, this could provide you with a firm foundation on which to base your own study’s methodology . In other words, you can use the methodologies of similar studies to inform (and justify) your own study’s research design .

On the other hand, you might argue that the lack of diverse methodological approaches presents a research gap , and therefore your study could contribute toward filling that gap by taking a different approach. For example, taking a qualitative approach to a research area that is typically approached quantitatively. Of course, if you’re going to go against the methodological grain, you’ll need to provide a strong justification for why your proposed approach makes sense. Nevertheless, it is something worth at least considering.

Regardless of which route you opt for, you need to pay careful attention to the methodologies used in the relevant studies and provide at least some discussion about this in your write-up. Again, it’s useful to keep track of this on some sort of spreadsheet or catalogue as you digest each article, so consider grabbing a copy of our free literature catalogue if you don’t have anything in place.

Bringing It All Together

Alright, so we’ve looked at five important questions that you need to ask (and answer) to help you develop a strong synthesis within your literature review.  To recap, these are:

• Which things are broadly agreed upon within the current research?
• Which things are the subject of disagreement (or at least, present mixed findings)?
• Which theories seem to be central to your research topic and how do they relate or compare to each other?
• Which contexts have (and haven’t) been covered?
• Which methodological approaches are most common?

Importantly, you’re not just asking yourself these questions for the sake of asking them – they’re not just a reflection exercise. You need to weave your answers to them into your actual literature review when you write it up. How exactly you do this will vary from project to project depending on the structure you opt for, but you’ll still need to address them within your literature review, whichever route you go.

The best approach is to spend some time actually writing out your answers to these questions, as opposed to just thinking about them in your head. Putting your thoughts onto paper really helps you flesh out your thinking . As you do this, don’t just write down the answers – instead, think about what they mean in terms of the research gap you’ll present , as well as the methodological approach you’ll take . Your literature synthesis needs to lay the groundwork for these two things, so it’s essential that you link all of it together in your mind, and of course, on paper.

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 .

excellent , thank you

Thank you for this significant piece of information.

This piece of information is very helpful. Thank you so much and look forward to hearing more literature review from you in near the future.

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

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Synthesize your Information

Synthesize: combine separate elements to form a whole.

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.

After summarizing and evaluating your sources, arrange them in a matrix or use a citation manager to help you see how they relate to each other and apply to each of your themes or variables.  

By arranging your sources by theme or variable, you can see how your sources relate to each other, and can start thinking about how you weave them together to create a narrative.

• Step-by-Step Approach
• Example Matrix from NSCU
• Matrix Template
• << Previous: Summarize
• Next: Integrate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

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

Synthesis Visualization

Synthesis matrix example.

• 7. Write a Literature Review

• Synthesis Worksheet

About Synthesis

Approaches to Synthesis

You can sort the literature in various ways, for example:

How to Begin?

Read your sources carefully and find the main idea(s) of each source

Look for similarities in your sources – which sources are talking about the same main ideas? (for example, sources that discuss the historical background on your topic)

Use the worksheet (above) or synthesis matrix (below) to get organized

This work can be messy. Don't worry if you have to go through a few iterations of the worksheet or matrix as you work on your lit review!

Four Examples of Student Writing

In the four examples below, only ONE shows a good example of synthesis: the fourth column, or  Student D . For a web accessible version, click the link below the image.

Long description of "Four Examples of Student Writing" for web accessibility

• Download a copy of the "Four Examples of Student Writing" chart

Click on the example to view the pdf.

From Jennifer Lim

• << Previous: 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• Next: 7. Write a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 11:48 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

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

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

How to Synthesize Written Information from Multiple Sources

Shona McCombes

Content Manager

B.A., English Literature, University of Glasgow

Shona McCombes is the content manager at Scribbr, Netherlands.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

When you write a literature review or essay, you have to go beyond just summarizing the articles you’ve read – you need to synthesize the literature to show how it all fits together (and how your own research fits in).

Synthesizing simply means combining. Instead of summarizing the main points of each source in turn, you put together the ideas and findings of multiple sources in order to make an overall point.

At the most basic level, this involves looking for similarities and differences between your sources. Your synthesis should show the reader where the sources overlap and where they diverge.

Unsynthesized Example

Franz (2008) studied undergraduate online students. He looked at 17 females and 18 males and found that none of them liked APA. According to Franz, the evidence suggested that all students are reluctant to learn citations style. Perez (2010) also studies undergraduate students. She looked at 42 females and 50 males and found that males were significantly more inclined to use citation software ( p < .05). Findings suggest that females might graduate sooner. Goldstein (2012) looked at British undergraduates. Among a sample of 50, all females, all confident in their abilities to cite and were eager to write their dissertations.

Synthesized Example

Studies of undergraduate students reveal conflicting conclusions regarding relationships between advanced scholarly study and citation efficacy. Although Franz (2008) found that no participants enjoyed learning citation style, Goldstein (2012) determined in a larger study that all participants watched felt comfortable citing sources, suggesting that variables among participant and control group populations must be examined more closely. Although Perez (2010) expanded on Franz’s original study with a larger, more diverse sample…

Step 1: Organize your sources

After collecting the relevant literature, you’ve got a lot of information to work through, and no clear idea of how it all fits together.

Before you can start writing, you need to organize your notes in a way that allows you to see the relationships between sources.

One way to begin synthesizing the literature is to put your notes into a table. Depending on your topic and the type of literature you’re dealing with, there are a couple of different ways you can organize this.

Summary table

A summary table collates the key points of each source under consistent headings. This is a good approach if your sources tend to have a similar structure – for instance, if they’re all empirical papers.

Each row in the table lists one source, and each column identifies a specific part of the source. You can decide which headings to include based on what’s most relevant to the literature you’re dealing with.

For example, you might include columns for things like aims, methods, variables, population, sample size, and conclusion.

For each study, you briefly summarize each of these aspects. You can also include columns for your own evaluation and analysis.

The summary table gives you a quick overview of the key points of each source. This allows you to group sources by relevant similarities, as well as noticing important differences or contradictions in their findings.

Synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix is useful when your sources are more varied in their purpose and structure – for example, when you’re dealing with books and essays making various different arguments about a topic.

Each column in the table lists one source. Each row is labeled with a specific concept, topic or theme that recurs across all or most of the sources.

Then, for each source, you summarize the main points or arguments related to the theme.

The purposes of the table is to identify the common points that connect the sources, as well as identifying points where they diverge or disagree.

Step 2: Outline your structure

Now you should have a clear overview of the main connections and differences between the sources you’ve read. Next, you need to decide how you’ll group them together and the order in which you’ll discuss them.

For shorter papers, your outline can just identify the focus of each paragraph; for longer papers, you might want to divide it into sections with headings.

There are a few different approaches you can take to help you structure your synthesis.

If your sources cover a broad time period, and you found patterns in how researchers approached the topic over time, you can organize your discussion chronologically .

That doesn’t mean you just summarize each paper in chronological order; instead, you should group articles into time periods and identify what they have in common, as well as signalling important turning points or developments in the literature.

If the literature covers various different topics, you can organize it thematically .

That means that each paragraph or section focuses on a specific theme and explains how that theme is approached in the literature.

Source Used with Permission: The Chicago School

If you’re drawing on literature from various different fields or they use a wide variety of research methods, you can organize your sources methodologically .

That means grouping together studies based on the type of research they did and discussing the findings that emerged from each method.

If your topic involves a debate between different schools of thought, you can organize it theoretically .

That means comparing the different theories that have been developed and grouping together papers based on the position or perspective they take on the topic, as well as evaluating which arguments are most convincing.

Step 3: Write paragraphs with topic sentences

What sets a synthesis apart from a summary is that it combines various sources. The easiest way to think about this is that each paragraph should discuss a few different sources, and you should be able to condense the overall point of the paragraph into one sentence.

This is called a topic sentence , and it usually appears at the start of the paragraph. The topic sentence signals what the whole paragraph is about; every sentence in the paragraph should be clearly related to it.

A topic sentence can be a simple summary of the paragraph’s content:

“Early research on [x] focused heavily on [y].”

For an effective synthesis, you can use topic sentences to link back to the previous paragraph, highlighting a point of debate or critique:

“Several scholars have pointed out the flaws in this approach.” “While recent research has attempted to address the problem, many of these studies have methodological flaws that limit their validity.”

By using topic sentences, you can ensure that your paragraphs are coherent and clearly show the connections between the articles you are discussing.

As you write your paragraphs, avoid quoting directly from sources: use your own words to explain the commonalities and differences that you found in the literature.

Don’t try to cover every single point from every single source – the key to synthesizing is to extract the most important and relevant information and combine it to give your reader an overall picture of the state of knowledge on your topic.

Step 4: Revise, edit and proofread

Like any other piece of academic writing, synthesizing literature doesn’t happen all in one go – it involves redrafting, revising, editing and proofreading your work.

Checklist for Synthesis

•   Do I introduce the paragraph with a clear, focused topic sentence?
•   Do I discuss more than one source in the paragraph?
•   Do I mention only the most relevant findings, rather than describing every part of the studies?
•   Do I discuss the similarities or differences between the sources, rather than summarizing each source in turn?
•   Do I put the findings or arguments of the sources in my own words?
•   Is the paragraph organized around a single idea?
•   Is the paragraph directly relevant to my research question or topic?
•   Is there a logical transition from this paragraph to the next one?

Further Information

How to Synthesise: a Step-by-Step Approach

Help…I”ve Been Asked to Synthesize!

Learn how to Synthesise (combine information from sources)

How to write a Psychology Essay

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix

Published on July 4, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Synthesizing sources involves combining the work of other scholars to provide new insights. It’s a way of integrating sources that helps situate your work in relation to existing research.

Synthesizing sources involves more than just summarizing . You must emphasize how each source contributes to current debates, highlighting points of (dis)agreement and putting the sources in conversation with each other.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field or throughout your research paper when you want to position your work in relation to existing research.

Table of contents

Example of synthesizing sources, how to synthesize sources, synthesis matrix, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about synthesizing sources.

Let’s take a look at an example where sources are not properly synthesized, and then see what can be done to improve it.

This paragraph provides no context for the information and does not explain the relationships between the sources described. It also doesn’t analyze the sources or consider gaps in existing research.

Research on the barriers to second language acquisition has primarily focused on age-related difficulties. Building on Lenneberg’s (1967) theory of a critical period of language acquisition, Johnson and Newport (1988) tested Lenneberg’s idea in the context of second language acquisition. Their research seemed to confirm that young learners acquire a second language more easily than older learners. Recent research has considered other potential barriers to language acquisition. Schepens, van Hout, and van der Slik (2022) have revealed that the difficulties of learning a second language at an older age are compounded by dissimilarity between a learner’s first language and the language they aim to acquire. Further research needs to be carried out to determine whether the difficulty faced by adult monoglot speakers is also faced by adults who acquired a second language during the “critical period.”

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

To synthesize sources, group them around a specific theme or point of contention.

As you read sources, ask:

• What questions or ideas recur? Do the sources focus on the same points, or do they look at the issue from different angles?
• How does each source relate to others? Does it confirm or challenge the findings of past research?
• Where do the sources agree or disagree?

Once you have a clear idea of how each source positions itself, put them in conversation with each other. Analyze and interpret their points of agreement and disagreement. This displays the relationships among sources and creates a sense of coherence.

Consider both implicit and explicit (dis)agreements. Whether one source specifically refutes another or just happens to come to different conclusions without specifically engaging with it, you can mention it in your synthesis either way.

Synthesize your sources using:

• Topic sentences to introduce the relationship between the sources
• Signal phrases to attribute ideas to their authors
• Transition words and phrases to link together different ideas

To more easily determine the similarities and dissimilarities among your sources, you can create a visual representation of their main ideas with a synthesis matrix . This is a tool that you can use when researching and writing your paper, not a part of the final text.

In a synthesis matrix, each column represents one source, and each row represents a common theme or idea among the sources. In the relevant rows, fill in a short summary of how the source treats each theme or topic.

This helps you to clearly see the commonalities or points of divergence among your sources. You can then synthesize these sources in your work by explaining their relationship.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Synthesizing sources means comparing and contrasting the work of other scholars to provide new insights.

It involves analyzing and interpreting the points of agreement and disagreement among sources.

You might synthesize sources in your literature review to give an overview of the field of research or throughout your paper when you want to contribute something new to existing research.

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.

Topic sentences help keep your writing focused and guide the reader through your argument.

In an essay or paper , each paragraph should focus on a single idea. By stating the main idea in the topic sentence, you clarify what the paragraph is about for both yourself and your reader.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

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.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). Synthesizing Sources | Examples & Synthesis Matrix. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/synthesizing-sources/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, signal phrases | definition, explanation & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to find sources | scholarly articles, books, etc., "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”

Literature Synthesis: Guide To Synthesise & Write Literature Review

Literature synthesis is a crucial skill for researchers and scholars, allowing them to integrate findings from multiple sources into a coherent analysis. Mastering literature synthesis will enhance your research and writing skills. 

This guide will walk you through the process of synthesising and writing a literature review, providing practical steps and insider tips. Learn how to:

• organise your sources,
• identify key themes, and
• create a cohesive narrative that highlights both agreements and disagreements within the existing literature.

Literature Synthesis vs Literature Review

You may be familiar with literature review, and the term literature synthesis may throw you off a bit. Are they a similar thing, or something different from each other?

If you are still unsure about how literature synthesis is different from literature review, here are a couple of points to think about: 

Approach To Sources

One difference is the approach to sources. In a literature review, you might describe each source separately, detailing its findings and contributions.

With synthesis, you combine the ideas from multiple sources to highlight relationships and gaps.

One example would be you may find that several studies agree on a particular theme but use different methodologies to reach their conclusions.

Organisation

A second difference is the organization. Literature reviews typically follow a structured format, summarizing each source in a new paragraph.

In contrast, synthesis requires organising sources around key themes or topics. This might involve using a synthesis matrix to align findings and theories from different sources into a cohesive analysis.

How To Evaluate Literature

Evaluating the literature also differs. When you write a literature review, you summarise and describe the existing research. Synthesis goes further by:

• critically evaluating the sources,
• identifying points of agreement and disagreement, and
• assessing the overall state of knowledge.

You need to address the methodological approaches used and how they relate to your research questions.

In terms of purpose, a literature review provides an overview of what’s known about a topic. It sets the stage for your research by summarising existing knowledge.

Synthesis, meanwhile, aims to create new insights by combining and contrasting different sources. This process helps you identify research gaps and questions that need further investigation.

Writing Process

Finally, the writing process differs. A literature review involves compiling summaries, often following a step-by-step guide.

With synthesis, you need to integrate:

• theories, and
• methodologies from various sources.

This involves weaving together different perspectives into a single, cohesive narrative that supports your research aims.

How To Perform Literature Synthesis?

Performing literature synthesis can be daunting, but by breaking it down step by step, you can create a comprehensive and coherent analysis of your topic.

Here’s a guide to help you through the process, with insider details and practical examples that will make your task easier.

Organise Your Sources

First, you need to gather and organise your sources. Start by conducting a thorough search of the existing literature on your topic, using

• research guides,
• library databases, and
• academic journals to find relevant sources.

There are plenty of AI tools that can help with process as well – make sure you check out my guide on best AI tools for literature review.

Record the main points of each source in a summary table. This table should include columns for:

• the author,
• publication year,
• key points,
• methodologies used, and

By organising your sources in this way, you’ll have a clear overview of the existing literature.

Identify Themes

Once you have your sources organised, it’s time to start synthesising the literature. This means combining the ideas and findings from multiple sources to create a cohesive analysis.

Begin by identifying the key themes that emerge from your sources. These themes will form the basis of your synthesis.

Suppose you are you’re researching job satisfaction, In this case, you might find recurring themes such as work-life balance, salary, and workplace environment.

Create A Synthesis Matrix

Next, create a synthesis matrix. This tool helps you organize the key points from each source under the identified themes.

Each row in the matrix represents a source, and each column represents a theme.

By filling in the matrix, you can see how different sources relate to each theme. This will help you identify similarities and differences between the sources.

Write Your Literature Synthesis

With your synthesis matrix in hand, you can start writing your literature synthesis.

Begin each paragraph with a clear topic sentence that identifies the theme you’re discussing. Then, weave together the findings from different sources, highlighting points of agreement and disagreement.

One way you may write this include: “While Franz (2008) found that salary is a major factor in job satisfaction, Goldstein (2012) argued that work-life balance plays a more significant role.”

Critically Evaluate Your Sources

Be sure to critically evaluate the sources as you synthesize the literature. This means assessing the methodologies used in each study and considering their impact on the findings.

Let’s say you found that most studies on job satisfaction used qualitative methods , you might question whether the findings would differ if quantitative methods were used. Addressing these methodological differences can help you identify research gaps and areas for further study.

Don’t Just Summarise

As you write your paragraphs, avoid simply summarising each source. Instead, combine the key points from multiple sources to create a more comprehensive analysis.

If we reuse Franz (2008) as example, rather than describing Franz’s study in one paragraph and Goldstein’s study in another, integrate their findings to show how they relate to each other.

This approach will make your synthesis more cohesive and easier to follow.

Address The Broader Context Of The Topic

To create a strong synthesis, you also need to address the broader context of your research. This means considering the theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence that underpin your topic.

If you’re researching job satisfaction, you might discuss how different theories of motivation relate to your findings. By integrating these broader perspectives, you can provide a more comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge.

Keep Questioning Yourself

Throughout the writing process, keep the five key questions in mind:

• What’s broadly agreed upon within the current research?
• Where do the disagreements lie?
• Which theories are central to your research topic?
• Which contexts have been covered, and which haven’t?
• What types of research methodologies have been used?

Addressing these questions will help you create a more thorough and insightful synthesis.

Revise & Edit

Finally, revise and edit your work. This means checking for clarity, coherence, and logical flow. Make sure each paragraph has a clear topic sentence and that all sentences within the paragraph relate to that topic.

Remove any unnecessary information and ensure that your synthesis is well-organised and easy to follow.

Your Guide To Synthesise Literature

Performing literature synthesis may seem overwhelming, but by following this step-by-step guide, you can create a comprehensive and cohesive analysis of your topic.

Use tools like summary tables and synthesis matrices to organise your sources, and focus on combining the key points from multiple sources to create a strong synthesis.

With careful planning and critical evaluation, you can produce a literature synthesis that provides valuable insights into your field of study.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Literature Review Basics

• What is a Literature Review?
• Synthesizing Research
• Using Research & Synthesis Tables
• Additional Resources

Synthesis: What is it?

First, let's be perfectly clear about what synthesizing your research isn't :

• - It isn't  just summarizing the material you read
• - It isn't  generating a collection of annotations or comments (like an annotated bibliography)
• - It isn't  compiling a report on every single thing ever written in relation to your topic

When you  synthesize  your research, your job is to help your reader understand the current state of the conversation on your topic, relative to your research question.  That may include doing the following:

• - Selecting and using representative work on the topic
• - Identifying and discussing trends in published data or results
• - Identifying and explaining the impact of common features (study populations, interventions, etc.) that appear frequently in the literature
• - Explaining controversies, disputes, or central issues in the literature that are relevant to your research question
• - Identifying gaps in the literature, where more research is needed
• - Establishing the discussion to which your own research contributes and demonstrating the value of your contribution

Essentially, you're telling your reader where they are (and where you are) in the scholarly conversation about your project.

Synthesis: How do I do it?

Synthesis, step by step.

This is what you need to do  before  you write your review.

• Identify and clearly describe your research question (you may find the Formulating PICOT Questions table at  the Additional Resources tab helpful).
• Collect sources relevant to your research question.
• Organize and describe the sources you've found -- your job is to identify what  types  of sources you've collected (reviews, clinical trials, etc.), identify their  purpose  (what are they measuring, testing, or trying to discover?), determine the  level of evidence  they represent (see the Levels of Evidence table at the Additional Resources tab ), and briefly explain their  major findings . Use a Research Table to document this step.
• Study the information you've put in your Research Table and examine your collected sources, looking for  similarities  and  differences . Pay particular attention to  populations ,   methods  (especially relative to levels of evidence), and  findings .
• Analyze what you learn in (4) using a tool like a Synthesis Table. Your goal is to identify relevant themes, trends, gaps, and issues in the research.  Your literature review will collect the results of this analysis and explain them in relation to your research question.

Analysis tips

• - Sometimes, what you  don't  find in the literature is as important as what you do find -- look for questions that the existing research hasn't answered yet.
• - If any of the sources you've collected refer to or respond to each other, keep an eye on how they're related -- it may provide a clue as to whether or not study results have been successfully replicated.
• - Sorting your collected sources by level of evidence can provide valuable insight into how a particular topic has been covered, and it may help you to identify gaps worth addressing in your own work.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Using Research & Synthesis Tables >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 12:06 PM
• URL: https://usi.libguides.com/literature-review-basics

Literature Review How To

• Things To Consider
• Synthesizing Sources
• Video Tutorials
• Books On Literature Reviews

What is Synthesis

What is Synthesis? Synthesis writing is a form of analysis related to comparison and contrast, classification and division. On a basic level, synthesis requires the writer to pull together two or more summaries, looking for themes in each text. In synthesis, you search for the links between various materials in order to make your point. Most advanced academic writing, including literature reviews, relies heavily on synthesis. (Temple University Writing Center)  

How To Synthesize Sources in a Literature Review

Literature reviews synthesize large amounts of information and present it in a coherent, organized fashion. In a literature review you will be combining material from several texts to create a new text – your literature review.

You will use common points among the sources you have gathered to help you synthesize the material. This will help ensure that your literature review is organized by subtopic, not by source. This means various authors' names can appear and reappear throughout the literature review, and each paragraph will mention several different authors. 

When you shift from writing summaries of the content of a source to synthesizing content from sources, there is a number things you must keep in mind: 

• Look for specific connections and or links between your sources and how those relate to your thesis or question.
• When writing and organizing your literature review be aware that your readers need to understand how and why the information from the different sources overlap.
• Organize your literature review by the themes you find within your sources or themes you have identified. 
• << Previous: Things To Consider
• Next: Video Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Nov 30, 2018 4:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csun.edu/literature-review

Report ADA Problems with Library Services and Resources

Literature Reviews

• Introduction
• Tutorials and resources
• Step 1: Literature search
• Step 2: Analysis, synthesis, critique
• Step 3: Writing the review

If you need any assistance, please contact the library staff at the Georgia Tech Library Help website . 

Analysis, synthesis, critique

Literature reviews build a story. You are telling the story about what you are researching. Therefore, a literature review is a handy way to show that you know what you are talking about. To do this, here are a few important skills you will need.

Skill #1: Analysis

Analysis means that you have carefully read a wide range of the literature on your topic and have understood the main themes, and identified how the literature relates to your own topic. Carefully read and analyze the articles you find in your search, and take notes. Notice the main point of the article, the methodologies used, what conclusions are reached, and what the main themes are. Most bibliographic management tools have capability to keep notes on each article you find, tag them with keywords, and organize into groups.

Skill #2: Synthesis

After you’ve read the literature, you will start to see some themes and categories emerge, some research trends to emerge, to see where scholars agree or disagree, and how works in your chosen field or discipline are related. One way to keep track of this is by using a Synthesis Matrix .

Skill #3: Critique

As you are writing your literature review, you will want to apply a critical eye to the literature you have evaluated and synthesized. Consider the strong arguments you will make contrasted with the potential gaps in previous research. The words that you choose to report your critiques of the literature will be non-neutral. For instance, using a word like “attempted” suggests that a researcher tried something but was not successful. For example: 

There were some attempts by Smith (2012) and Jones (2013) to integrate a new methodology in this process.

On the other hand, using a word like “proved” or a phrase like “produced results” evokes a more positive argument. For example:

The new methodologies employed by Blake (2014) produced results that provided further evidence of X.

In your critique, you can point out where you believe there is room for more coverage in a topic, or further exploration in in a sub-topic.

Need more help?

If you are looking for more detailed guidance about writing your dissertation, please contact the folks in the Georgia Tech Communication Center .

• << Previous: Step 1: Literature search
• Next: Step 3: Writing the review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:21 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.gatech.edu/litreview

Literature Synthesis

• First Online: 31 August 2021

Cite this chapter

• Ana Paula Cardoso Ermel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3874-9792 5 ,
• D. P. Lacerda   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8011-3376 6 ,
• Maria Isabel W. M. Morandi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1337-1487 7 &
• Leandro Gauss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5708-5912 8  

1056 Accesses

1 Citations

• The original version of this chapter was revised: Figure 5.1 was moved to section 5.2.9. The correction to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_10

This chapter addresses the concept of Literature Synthesis and classifies it as Configurative and Aggregative based upon the research approach and objectives. For each type of synthesis, its main characteristics, techniques, and applications are pointed out.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

06 february 2022.

In addition to the changes described above, we note that

Bacharach, S.B.: Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Acad. Manag. Rev. Manag. 14 (4), 496–515. ISSN 1989.03637425

Google Scholar  

Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J.: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9 (1), 1–11 (2009). ISSN 1471-2288

Barry, M., Roux, L.: The case study method in examining land registration usage. Geomatica 67 (1), 9–20 (2013)

Article   Google Scholar  

Borenstein, M., et al.: Introduction to Meta-analysis, 421 p. Wiley, Padstow (2009). ISBN 978-0-470-05724-7

Borenstein, M.: Impact of Tamiflu on flu symptoms. (2021). Disponível em: www.Meta-Analysis.com . Acesso em: 3 fev 2021

Carroll, C., Booth, A., Cooper, K.: A worked example of “best fit” framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11 (2011)

Cruzes, D.S. et al.: Case studies synthesis: a thematic, cross-case, and narrative synthesis worked example. Empir. Softw. Eng. 20 (6), 1634–1665 (2015)

Dixon-Woods, M., et al.: Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 6 , 1–13 (2006)

Flemming, K.: Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research: an example using critical interpretive synthesis. J. Adv. Nurs. 66 (1), 201–217 (2009)

France, E.F. et al.: A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14 (119), 1–16 (2014)

Gauss, L., Lacerda, D.P., Cauchick Miguel, P.A.: Module-based product family design: systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. J. Intell. Manuf. 32 (1), 265–312 (2021)

Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J.: An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, 1st edn, 288 p. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2012). ISBN 9781849201803

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank quarterly, 82 (4), 581–629. (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

Higgins, J., Green, S.: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Higgins, J., Li, T., Deeks, J.J.: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1. (2020a). Disponível em: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10

Higgins, J., Li, T., Deeks, J.J.: Choosing Effect Measures and Computing Estimates of Effect. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1. Cochrane (2020b). Disponível em: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Hopia, H., Latvala, E., Liimatainen, L.: Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 30 (4), 662–669 (2016)

Hull, S.: Doing Grounded Theory: Notes for the Aspiring Qualitative Analyst. Division of Geomatics, University of Cape Town (2013)

Kastner, M., et al.: Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 73 (1), 1–21 (2016)

Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J.: Place of Meta-analysis Among Other Methods of Research Synthesis. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution, 1st edn, pp. 3–13. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (2013)

Lau, J., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Schmid, C.H.: Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann. Intern. Med. 127 (9), 820–826 (1997)

Lucas, P.J., et al.: Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology v. 7 , 2007.

Monforte-Royo, C., et al.: What lies behind the wish to hasten death? A systematic review and meta-ethnography from the perspective of patients. PLoS One 7 (5) (2012). ISSN 1932-6203

Morandi, M.I.W.M., Camargo, L.F.R.: Systematic Literature Review. Design Science Research: A Method for Science and Technology Advancement, 1st edn, pp. 141–172. Springer International Publishing, New York (2015)

Noblit, G.W., Hare, R.D.: Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies, 1st edn. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park (1988). ISBN 9780803930230

Pawson, R., et al.: Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10 (SUPPL. 1), 21–34 (2005)

Popay, J., et al.: Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. In: ESRC Methods Programme, 92 p (2006). https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Saini, M., Shlonsky, A.: Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research, 1st edn, 223 p. Oxford University Press, New York (2012). ISBN 9780195387216

Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J.: Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qual. Health Res 13 (6), 781–820 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303013006003

Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., Voils, C.I.: Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res. Nurs. Health 30 (1), 99–111 (2007)

Stern, P.N.: Grounded Theory Methodology: Its Uses and Processes. XII (1), (1980)

Straus, S.E., et al.: Introduction: engaging researchers on developing, using, and improving knowledge synthesis methods: a series of articles describing the results of a scoping review on emerging knowledge synthesis methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 73 (1), 15–18 (2016)

Strauss A, Corbin J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, 2nd edn, 272 p. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park (1990). ISBN 978-1412906449

Thomas, J., Harden, A., Newman, M.: Synthesis: Combining Results Systematically and Appropriately. An introduction to Systematic Reviews, 1st edn, p. 288. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2012)

Thomas, K.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 264 p. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962). ISBN 9780226458113

Walsh, D., Downe, S.: Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 50 (2), 204–211 (2005). ISSN 1365-2648

Weed, M.: A potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: issues in the development of “meta-interpretation.” Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 11 (1), 13–28 (2008)

Whittemore, R., Knafl, K.: The integrative review: updated methodology. Methodol. Issues Nurs. Res. 52 (5), 546–553 (2005)

Yearworth, M., White, L.: The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology: developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 231 (1), 151–161 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.05.002

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Production and Systems Engineering, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Ana Paula Cardoso Ermel

D. P. Lacerda

Maria Isabel W. M. Morandi

Leandro Gauss

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Paula Cardoso Ermel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cardoso Ermel, A.P., Lacerda, D.P., Morandi, M.I.W.M., Gauss, L. (2021). Literature Synthesis. In: Literature Reviews. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_5

Published : 31 August 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-75721-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-75722-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Literature Reviews

• 5. Synthesize your findings
• Getting started
• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results

How to synthesize

Approaches to synthesis.

• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

In the synthesis step of a literature review, researchers analyze and integrate information from selected sources to identify patterns and themes. This involves critically evaluating findings, recognizing commonalities, and constructing a cohesive narrative that contributes to the understanding of the research topic.

Here are some examples of how to approach synthesizing the literature:

💡 By themes or concepts

🕘 Historically or chronologically

📊 By methodology

These organizational approaches can also be used when writing your review. It can be beneficial to begin organizing your references by these approaches in your citation manager by using folders, groups, or collections.

Create a synthesis matrix

A synthesis matrix allows you to visually organize your literature.

Topic: ______________________________________________

Topic: Chemical exposure to workers in nail salons

• << Previous: 4. Organize your results
• Next: 6. Write the review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Library Guides

Literature reviews: synthesis.

• Criticality

Synthesise Information

So, how can you create paragraphs within your literature review that demonstrates your knowledge of the scholarship that has been done in your field of study?  

You will need to present a synthesis of the texts you read.  

Doug Specht, Senior Lecturer at the Westminster School of Media and Communication, explains synthesis for us in the following video:  

Synthesising Texts  

What is synthesis? 

Synthesis is an important element of academic writing, demonstrating comprehension, analysis, evaluation and original creation.  

With synthesis you extract content from different sources to create an original text. While paraphrase and summary maintain the structure of the given source(s), with synthesis you create a new structure.  

The sources will provide different perspectives and evidence on a topic. They will be put together when agreeing, contrasted when disagreeing. The sources must be referenced.  

Perfect your synthesis by showing the flow of your reasoning, expressing critical evaluation of the sources and drawing conclusions.  

When you synthesise think of "using strategic thinking to resolve a problem requiring the integration of diverse pieces of information around a structuring theme" (Mateos and Sole 2009, p448). 

Synthesis is a complex activity, which requires a high degree of comprehension and active engagement with the subject. As you progress in higher education, so increase the expectations on your abilities to synthesise. 

How to synthesise in a literature review: 

Identify themes/issues you'd like to discuss in the literature review. Think of an outline.  

Read the literature and identify these themes/issues.  

Critically analyse the texts asking: how does the text I'm reading relate to the other texts I've read on the same topic? Is it in agreement? Does it differ in its perspective? Is it stronger or weaker? How does it differ (could be scope, methods, year of publication etc.). Draw your conclusions on the state of the literature on the topic.  

Start writing your literature review, structuring it according to the outline you planned.  

Put together sources stating the same point; contrast sources presenting counter-arguments or different points.  

Present your critical analysis.  

Always provide the references. 

The best synthesis requires a "recursive process" whereby you read the source texts, identify relevant parts, take notes, produce drafts, re-read the source texts, revise your text, re-write... (Mateos and Sole, 2009). 

What is good synthesis?  

The quality of your synthesis can be assessed considering the following (Mateos and Sole, 2009, p439):  

Integration and connection of the information from the source texts around a structuring theme. 

Selection of ideas necessary for producing the synthesis. 

Appropriateness of the interpretation.  

Elaboration of the content.  

Example of Synthesis

Original texts (fictitious): 

Synthesis: 

Animal experimentation is a subject of heated debate. Some argue that painful experiments should be banned. Indeed it has been demonstrated that such experiments make animals suffer physically and psychologically (Chowdhury 2012; Panatta and Hudson 2016). On the other hand, it has been argued that animal experimentation can save human lives and reduce harm on humans (Smith 2008). This argument is only valid for toxicological testing, not for tests that, for example, merely improve the efficacy of a cosmetic (Turner 2015). It can be suggested that animal experimentation should be regulated to only allow toxicological risk assessment, and the suffering to the animals should be minimised.   

Bibliography

Mateos, M. and Sole, I. (2009). Synthesising Information from various texts: A Study of Procedures and Products at Different Educational Levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education,  24 (4), 435-451. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760 [Accessed 29 June 2021].

• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Criticality >>
• Last Updated: Nov 18, 2023 10:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/literature-reviews

CONNECT WITH US

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

Chapter 7: Synthesizing Sources

Learning objectives.

At the conclusion of this chapter, you will be able to:

• synthesize key sources connecting them with the research question and topic area.

7.1 Overview of synthesizing

7.1.1 putting the pieces together.

Combining separate elements into a whole is the dictionary definition of synthesis.  It is a way to make connections among and between numerous and varied source materials.  A literature review is not an annotated bibliography, organized by title, author, or date of publication.  Rather, it is grouped by topic to create a whole view of the literature relevant to your research question.

Your synthesis must demonstrate a critical analysis of the papers you collected as well as your ability to integrate the results of your analysis into your own literature review.  Each paper collected should be critically evaluated and weighed for “adequacy, appropriateness, and thoroughness” ( Garrard, 2017 ) before inclusion in your own review.  Papers that do not meet this criteria likely should not be included in your literature review.

Begin the synthesis process by creating a grid, table, or an outline where you will summarize, using common themes you have identified and the sources you have found. The summary grid or outline will help you compare and contrast the themes so you can see the relationships among them as well as areas where you may need to do more searching. Whichever method you choose, this type of organization will help you to both understand the information you find and structure the writing of your review.  Remember, although “the means of summarizing can vary, the key at this point is to make sure you understand what you’ve found and how it relates to your topic and research question” ( Bennard et al., 2014 ).

As you read through the material you gather, look for common themes as they may provide the structure for your literature review.  And, remember, research is an iterative process: it is not unusual to go back and search information sources for more material.

At one extreme, if you are claiming, ‘There are no prior publications on this topic,’ it is more likely that you have not found them yet and may need to broaden your search.  At another extreme, writing a complete literature review can be difficult with a well-trod topic.  Do not cite it all; instead cite what is most relevant.  If that still leaves too much to include, be sure to reference influential sources…as well as high-quality work that clearly connects to the points you make. ( Klingner, Scanlon, & Pressley, 2005 ).

7.2 Creating a summary table

Literature reviews can be organized sequentially or by topic, theme, method, results, theory, or argument.  It’s important to develop categories that are meaningful and relevant to your research question.  Take detailed notes on each article and use a consistent format for capturing all the information each article provides.  These notes and the summary table can be done manually, using note cards.  However, given the amount of information you will be recording, an electronic file created in a word processing or spreadsheet is more manageable. Examples of fields you may want to capture in your notes include:

• Authors’ names
• Article title
• Publication year
• Main purpose of the article
• Methodology or research design
• Participants
• Measurement
• Conclusions

  Other fields that will be useful when you begin to synthesize the sum total of your research:

• Specific details of the article or research that are especially relevant to your study
• Key terms and definitions
• Strengths or weaknesses in research design
• Relationships to other studies
• Possible gaps in the research or literature (for example, many research articles conclude with the statement “more research is needed in this area”)
• Finally, note how closely each article relates to your topic.  You may want to rank these as high, medium, or low relevance.  For papers that you decide not to include, you may want to note your reasoning for exclusion, such as ‘small sample size’, ‘local case study,’ or ‘lacks evidence to support assertion.’

This short video demonstrates how a nursing researcher might create a summary table.

7.2.1 Creating a Summary Table

  Summary tables can be organized by author or by theme, for example:

For a summary table template, see http://blogs.monm.edu/writingatmc/files/2013/04/Synthesis-Matrix-Template.pdf

7.3 Creating a summary outline

An alternate way to organize your articles for synthesis it to create an outline. After you have collected the articles you intend to use (and have put aside the ones you won’t be using), it’s time to identify the conclusions that can be drawn from the articles as a group.

  Based on your review of the collected articles, group them by categories.  You may wish to further organize them by topic and then chronologically or alphabetically by author.  For each topic or subtopic you identified during your critical analysis of the paper, determine what those papers have in common.  Likewise, determine which ones in the group differ.  If there are contradictory findings, you may be able to identify methodological or theoretical differences that could account for the contradiction (for example, differences in population demographics).  Determine what general conclusions you can report about the topic or subtopic as the entire group of studies relate to it.  For example, you may have several studies that agree on outcome, such as ‘hands on learning is best for science in elementary school’ or that ‘continuing education is the best method for updating nursing certification.’ In that case, you may want to organize by methodology used in the studies rather than by outcome.

Organize your outline in a logical order and prepare to write the first draft of your literature review.  That order might be from broad to more specific, or it may be sequential or chronological, going from foundational literature to more current.  Remember, “an effective literature review need not denote the entire historical record, but rather establish the raison d’etre for the current study and in doing so cite that literature distinctly pertinent for theoretical, methodological, or empirical reasons.” ( Milardo, 2015, p. 22 ).

As you organize the summarized documents into a logical structure, you are also appraising and synthesizing complex information from multiple sources.  Your literature review is the result of your research that synthesizes new and old information and creates new knowledge.

7.4 Additional resources:

Literature Reviews: Using a Matrix to Organize Research / Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources / Indiana University

Writing a Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix / Florida International University

 Sample Literature Reviews Grid / Complied by Lindsay Roberts

Select three or four articles on a single topic of interest to you. Then enter them into an outline or table in the categories you feel are important to a research question. Try both the grid and the outline if you can to see which suits you better. The attached grid contains the fields suggested in the video .

Literature Review Table  

Test Yourself

• Select two articles from your own summary table or outline and write a paragraph explaining how and why the sources relate to each other and your review of the literature.
• In your literature review, under what topic or subtopic will you place the paragraph you just wrote?

Image attribution

Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students Copyright © by Linda Frederiksen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research to Action

The Global Guide to Research Impact

Social Media

Framing challenges

Synthetic literature reviews: An introduction

By Steve Wallis and Bernadette Wright 26/05/2020

Whether you are writing a funding proposal or an academic paper, you will most likely be required to start with a literature review of some kind. Despite (or because of) the work involved, a literature review is a great opportunity to showcase your knowledge on a topic. In this post, we’re going to take it one step further. We’re going to tell you a very practical approach to conducting literature reviews that allows you to show that you are advancing scientific knowledge before your project even begins. Also – and this is no small bonus – this approach lets you show how your literature review will lead to a more successful project.

Literature review – start with the basics

A literature review helps you shape effective solutions to the problems you (and your organisation) are facing. A literature review also helps you demonstrate the value of your activities. You can show how much you add to the process before you spend any money collecting new data. Finally, your literature review helps you avoid reinventing the wheel by showing you what relevant research already exists, so that you can target your new research more efficiently and more effectively.

We all want to conduct good research and have a meaningful impact on people’s lives. To do this, a literature review is a critical step. For funders, a literature review is especially important because it shows how much useful knowledge the writer already has.

Past methods of literature reviews tend to be focused on ‘muscle power’, that is spending more time and more effort to review more papers and adhering more closely to accepted standards. Examples of standards for conducting literature reviews include the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions and the guidelines for assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews developed by the Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines . Given the untold millions of papers in many disciplines, even a large literature review that adheres to the best guidelines does little to move us toward integrated knowledge in and across disciplines.

In short, we need we need to work smarter, not harder!

Synthetic literature reviews

One approach that can provide more benefit is the synthetic literature review. Synthetic meaning synthesised or integrated, not artificial. Rather than explaining and reflecting on the results of previous studies (as is typically done in literature reviews), a synthetic literature review strives to create a new and more useful theoretical perspective by rigorously integrating the results of previous studies.

Many people find the process of synthesis difficult, elusive, or mysterious. When presenting their views and making recommendations for research, they tend to fall back on intuition (which is neither harder nor smarter).

After defining your research topic (‘poverty’ for example), the next step is to search the literature for existing theories or models of poverty that have been developed from research. You can use Google Scholar or your institutional database, or the assistance of a research librarian. A broad topic such as ‘poverty’, however, will lead you to millions of articles. You’ll narrow that field by focusing more closely on your topic and adding search terms. For example, you might be more interested in poverty among Latino communities in central California. You might also focus your search according to the date of the study (often, but not always, more recent results are preferred), or by geographic location. Continue refining and focusing your search until you have a workable number of papers (depending on your available time and resources). You might also take this time to throw out the papers that seem to be less relevant.

Skim those papers to be sure that they are really relevant to your topic. Once you have chosen a workable number of relevant papers, it is time to start integrating them.

Next, sort them according to the quality of their data.

Next, read the theory presented in each paper and create a diagram of the theory. The theory may be found in a section called ‘theory’ or sometimes in the ‘introduction’. For research papers, that presented theory may have changed during the research process, so you should look for the theory in the ‘findings’, ‘results’, or ‘discussion’ sections.

That diagram should include all relevant concepts from the theory and show the causal connections between the concepts that have been supported by research (some papers will present two theories, one before and one after the research – use the second one – only the hypotheses that have been supported by the research).

For a couple of brief and partial example from a recent interdisciplinary research paper, one theory of poverty might say ‘Having more education will help people to stay out of poverty’, while another might say ‘The more that the economy develops, the less poverty there will be’.

We then use those statements to create a diagram as we have in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Two (simple, partial) theories of poverty. (We like to use dashed lines to indicate ’causes less’, and solid lines to indicate ’causes more’)

When you have completed a diagram for each theory, the next step is to synthesise (integrate) them where the concepts are the same (or substantively similar) between two or more theories. With causal diagrams such as these, the process of synthesis becomes pretty direct. We simply combine the two (or more) theories to create a synthesised theory, such as in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Two theories synthesised where they overlap (in this case theories of poverty)

Much like a road map, a causal diagram of a theory with more concepts and more connecting arrows is more useful for navigation. You can show that your literature review is better than previous reviews by showing that you have taken a number of fragmented theories (as in Figure 1) and synthesised them to create a more coherent theory (as in Figure 2).

To go a step further, you may use Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) to quantify the extent to which your research has improved the structure and potential usefulness of your knowledge through the synthesis. Another source is our new book from Practical Mapping for Applied Research and Program Evaluation (see especially Chapter 5). (For the basics, you can look at Chapter One for free on the publisher’s site by clicking on the ‘Preview’ tab here. )

Once you become comfortable with the process, you will certainly be working ‘smarter’ and showcasing your knowledge to funders!

Contribute Write a blog post, post a job or event, recommend a resource

Partner with Us Are you an institution looking to increase your impact?

Most Recent Posts

• Nothing about us without us
• Youth-focused initiatives: GAGE programme
• Impact to Implementation: measurement, partnerships and storytelling
• Africa Evidence Week 2024
• “Nothing about us without us”: Youth inclusion in research

The latest #R2AImpactPractitioners post features an article by Karen Bell and Mark Reed on the Tree of Participation (ToP) model, a groundbreaking framework designed to enhance inclusive decision-making. By identifying 12 key factors and 7 contextual elements, ToP empowers marginalized groups and ensures processes that are inclusive, accountable, and balanced in power dynamics. The model uses a tree metaphor to illustrate its phases: roots (pre-process), branches (process), and leaves (post-process), all interconnected within their context. Discover more by following the #R2Aimpactpractitioners link in our linktree 👉🔗

Do you use AI in your work? AI is increasingly present in all our lives, but how can we use it effectively to enhance research practice? Earlier this year Inés Arangüena explored this question in a two part series. Follow the link in our bio to read more. https://ow.ly/IV0R50SH5tI #AI

🌟 This week, #R2ARecommends this webinar on demystifying evaluation practice, produced by the Global Evaluation Initiative. 🌟 🔗Follow the #R2ARecommends link in our linktree to find out more! #Evaluation #Webinar #InclusiveCommunication #GEI #GlobalEval

Research To Action (R2A) is a learning platform for anyone interested in maximising the impact of research and capturing evidence of impact.

The site publishes practical resources on a range of topics including research uptake, communications, policy influence and monitoring and evaluation. It captures the experiences of practitioners and researchers working on these topics and facilitates conversations between this global community through a range of social media platforms.

R2A is produced by a small editorial team, led by CommsConsult . We welcome suggestions for and contributions to the site.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our contributors

Browse all authors

Friends and partners

• Global Development Network (GDN)
• Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
• International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
• On Think Tanks
• Politics & Ideas
• Research for Development (R4D)
• Research Impact

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Using Evidence: Synthesis

Synthesis video playlist.

Note that these videos were created while APA 6 was the style guide edition in use. There may be some examples of writing that have not been updated to APA 7 guidelines.

Basics of Synthesis

As you incorporate published writing into your own writing, you should aim for synthesis of the material.

Synthesizing requires critical reading and thinking in order to compare different material, highlighting similarities, differences, and connections. When writers synthesize successfully, they present new ideas based on interpretations of other evidence or arguments. You can also think of synthesis as an extension of—or a more complicated form of—analysis. One main difference is that synthesis involves multiple sources, while analysis often focuses on one source.

Conceptually, it can be helpful to think about synthesis existing at both the local (or paragraph) level and the global (or paper) level.

Local Synthesis

Local synthesis occurs at the paragraph level when writers connect individual pieces of evidence from multiple sources to support a paragraph’s main idea and advance a paper’s thesis statement. A common example in academic writing is a scholarly paragraph that includes a main idea, evidence from multiple sources, and analysis of those multiple sources together.

Global Synthesis

Global synthesis occurs at the paper (or, sometimes, section) level when writers connect ideas across paragraphs or sections to create a new narrative whole. A literature review , which can either stand alone or be a section/chapter within a capstone, is a common example of a place where global synthesis is necessary. However, in almost all academic writing, global synthesis is created by and sometimes referred to as good cohesion and flow.

Synthesis in Literature Reviews

While any types of scholarly writing can include synthesis, it is most often discussed in the context of literature reviews. Visit our literature review pages for more information about synthesis in literature reviews.

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Analysis
• Next Page: Citing Sources Properly
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Systematic reviews & evidence synthesis methods.

• Schedule a Consultation / Meet our Team
• What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Preliminary Searching
• 1. Develop a Protocol
• 2. Draft your Research Question
• 3. Select Databases
• 4. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 5. Write a Search Strategy
• 6. Register a Protocol
• 7. Translate Search Strategies
• 8. Citation Management
• 9. Article Screening
• 10. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 11. Data Extraction
• 12. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Evidence Synthesis Resources & Tools

What are evidence syntheses?

According to the Royal Society, 'evidence synthesis' refers to the process of bringing together information from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. They generally include a methodical and comprehensive literature synthesis focused on a well-formulated research question. Their aim is to identify and synthesize all of the scholarly research on a particular topic, including both published and unpublished studies. Evidence syntheses are conducted in an unbiased, reproducible way to provide evidence for practice and policy-making, as well as to identify gaps in the research. Evidence syntheses may also include a meta-analysis, a more quantitative process of synthesizing and visualizing data retrieved from various studies.

Evidence syntheses are much more time-intensive than traditional literature reviews and require a multi-person research team. See this PredicTER tool to get a sense of a systematic review timeline (one type of evidence synthesis). Before embarking on an evidence synthesis, it's important to clearly identify your reasons for conducting one. For a list of types of evidence synthesis projects, see the Types of Evidence Synthesis tab.

How does a traditional literature review differ from evidence synthesis?

One commonly used form of evidence synthesis is a systematic review. This table compares a traditional literature review with a systematic review.

Video: Reproducibility and transparent methods (Video 3:25)

Reporting standards

There are some reporting standards for evidence syntheses. These can serve as guidelines for protocol and manuscript preparation and journals may require that these standards are followed for the review type that is being employed (e.g. systematic review, scoping review, etc).​

• PRISMA checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• PRISMA-P Standards An updated version of the original PRISMA standards for protocol development.
• PRISMA - ScR Reporting guidelines for scoping reviews and evidence maps
• PRISMA-IPD Standards Extension of the original PRISMA standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data.
• EQUATOR Network The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines. They provide a list of various standards for reporting in systematic reviews.

Video: Guidelines and reporting standards

PRISMA flow diagram

The PRISMA flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of an evidence synthesis. It maps the search (number of records identified), screening (number of records included and excluded), and selection (reasons for exclusion). Many evidence syntheses include a PRISMA flow diagram in the published manuscript.

See below for resources to help you generate your own PRISMA flow diagram.

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Tool
• PRISMA Flow Diagram Word Template
• << Previous: Schedule a Consultation / Meet our Team
• Next: Types of Evidence Synthesis >>
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/evidence-synthesis

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Synthesizing Sources

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

When you look for areas where your sources agree or disagree and try to draw broader conclusions about your topic based on what your sources say, you are engaging in synthesis. Writing a research paper usually requires synthesizing the available sources in order to provide new insight or a different perspective into your particular topic (as opposed to simply restating what each individual source says about your research topic).

Note that synthesizing is not the same as summarizing.  

• A summary restates the information in one or more sources without providing new insight or reaching new conclusions.
• A synthesis draws on multiple sources to reach a broader conclusion.

There are two types of syntheses: explanatory syntheses and argumentative syntheses . Explanatory syntheses seek to bring sources together to explain a perspective and the reasoning behind it. Argumentative syntheses seek to bring sources together to make an argument. Both types of synthesis involve looking for relationships between sources and drawing conclusions.

In order to successfully synthesize your sources, you might begin by grouping your sources by topic and looking for connections. For example, if you were researching the pros and cons of encouraging healthy eating in children, you would want to separate your sources to find which ones agree with each other and which ones disagree.

After you have a good idea of what your sources are saying, you want to construct your body paragraphs in a way that acknowledges different sources and highlights where you can draw new conclusions.

As you continue synthesizing, here are a few points to remember:

• Don’t force a relationship between sources if there isn’t one. Not all of your sources have to complement one another.
• Do your best to highlight the relationships between sources in very clear ways.
• Don’t ignore any outliers in your research. It’s important to take note of every perspective (even those that disagree with your broader conclusions).

Example Syntheses

Below are two examples of synthesis: one where synthesis is NOT utilized well, and one where it is.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for KidsHealth , encourages parents to be role models for their children by not dieting or vocalizing concerns about their body image. The first popular diet began in 1863. William Banting named it the “Banting” diet after himself, and it consisted of eating fruits, vegetables, meat, and dry wine. Despite the fact that dieting has been around for over a hundred and fifty years, parents should not diet because it hinders children’s understanding of healthy eating.

In this sample paragraph, the paragraph begins with one idea then drastically shifts to another. Rather than comparing the sources, the author simply describes their content. This leads the paragraph to veer in an different direction at the end, and it prevents the paragraph from expressing any strong arguments or conclusions.

An example of a stronger synthesis can be found below.

Parents are always trying to find ways to encourage healthy eating in their children. Different scientists and educators have different strategies for promoting a well-rounded diet while still encouraging body positivity in children. David R. Just and Joseph Price suggest in their article “Using Incentives to Encourage Healthy Eating in Children” that children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables if they are given a reward (855-856). Similarly, Elena Pearl Ben-Joseph, a doctor and writer for Kids Health , encourages parents to be role models for their children. She states that “parents who are always dieting or complaining about their bodies may foster these same negative feelings in their kids. Try to keep a positive approach about food” (Ben-Joseph). Martha J. Nepper and Weiwen Chai support Ben-Joseph’s suggestions in their article “Parents’ Barriers and Strategies to Promote Healthy Eating among School-age Children.” Nepper and Chai note, “Parents felt that patience, consistency, educating themselves on proper nutrition, and having more healthy foods available in the home were important strategies when developing healthy eating habits for their children.” By following some of these ideas, parents can help their children develop healthy eating habits while still maintaining body positivity.

In this example, the author puts different sources in conversation with one another. Rather than simply describing the content of the sources in order, the author uses transitions (like "similarly") and makes the relationship between the sources evident.

How to Write a Synthesis Essay With PDF Download

To write a synthesis essay, you need to have great coordination skills. You will need it to link various sources and research outcomes together while deriving and building on your thesis statement.

Fredrick Eghosa

Aug 26, 2024

Table of Contents

Key takeaways

What is a synthesis essay, components of a synthesis essay, the difference between a synthesis essay and an argumentative essay, different types of synthesis essays, how to write a synthesis essay step-by-step with examples, steps to write a synthetic essay, how to use ai to write a synthesis essay.

• A synthesis essay involves analyzing various sources and combining them to create a cohesive and well-supported argument. It is more than just summarizing; it requires blending information to reveal new insights.
• The key components of a synthesis essay are:
• Synthesis essays combine multiple viewpoints to create a new viewpoint whereas argumentative essays focus on rebuttal.
• AI tools like Cowriter.ai can assist with research, summarizing sources, drafting, paraphrasing, editing, and managing citations, making the essay-writing process more efficient.
• Use a provocative question, a jarring fact, a relevant quote, or statistics to make your readers interested in what you have to say.
• A smart writing assistant like Cowriter.ai makes writing hooks so fun and simple. All you need to do is input the topic and nudge it in the direction you desire, depending on whether you want your hook to be a provocative question or a jarring fact.
• Introduction
• The body of the essay is divided into paragraphs for each point. (Combine information from different sources within each paragraph to support the point. Note that you can improve your essay by using transition words to show how the sources connect to each other and to your thesis.)
• Conclusion: Summarize your main points and restate your thesis in a new way. Explain why this synthesis is important or what it shows about the topic.

Join other 100,000+ writers now!

Ready to take the next big step for your writing?

AI Content Expert

Related posts

Aug 13, 2024

How to Write a Debate Essay

To write a compelling debate essay, you have to master the art of persuasion. Start by choosing a strong topic, researching your topic to frame it perfectly, understanding the opposing side well to come up with firm counterarguments, and incorporating persuasive techniques to make your case even more convincing.

How to Write a Discursive Essay + Downloadable PDF

Writing a discursive essay means exploring multiple perspectives on the given topic. Typically, you should aim to create tension between two or more prominent viewpoints.

Aug 12, 2024

How to Edit Academic Papers: Checklist for Editing

To edit an academic paper, focus on clarity, and structure, and support your arguments with evidence. To save time and avoid human errors like missing important parts that need correction, use CoWriter AI to streamline the process and ensure your paper meets high academic standards.

Aug 27, 2024

10 Biographical Essay Examples

Writing a biographical essay like the ones in these examples involves more than just recounting events. You have to research and identify the key moments that define a person's life. 

Jul 29, 2024

10 Thesis Statement Essay Examples + PDF Downloadable

These ten thesis statement essay examples we are about to discuss in this article will help you to learn how to write thesis statements that are effective and hit right at the point.

Aug 20, 2024

How to Write a Biographical Essay

To write a biographical essay, focus on a specific aspect of the subject's life. Your essay should provide depth and insight, which makes it crucial to have a strong purpose to feed your direction and, most importantly, a frame. Choosing the right subject, conducting thorough research, and crafting a compelling thesis are all important points to note.

How to Write an Analysis Essay

Writing an analysis essay calls for objective thinking. The first rule is to understand that this kind of essay, although expository, is not an opinion piece.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

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

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

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

Computational approaches improve evidence synthesis and inform broad fisheries trends

Addressing ecological impacts with effective conservation actions requires information on the links between human pressures and localized responses. Understanding links is a priority for many conservation contexts, including the world's fresh waters, which face intensifying threats to disproportionately high species diversity, including more than half of the world's fish species. Literature synthesis can uncover links and highlight potential research gaps, yet can be very cumbersome and time consuming. Emerging tools like text mining can improve efficiency in extracting relevant information from vast scientific outputs. This study synthesizes evidence of direct anthropogenic threats to major inland fisheries and examines driver-impact-response patterns using coupled automated and manual text classification methods. We screened 9336 abstracts from 45 river basins of high importance to inland fish production; 1152 abstracts contained evidence of direct threats to fish. The most common documented drivers were pollution, dams, and fishing pressure, which were most strongly linked to decreased fitness, altered reproduction, and mortality, respectively. Strong impact-response links to pollution signal potential bias toward documenting acute threats that generate more visible and immediate impacts. The use of machine learning-based text classification performed best in classifying extraneous information. Results can inform the development of inland fisheries indicators and threat-based metrics, highlight possible evidence gaps in linking global drivers to fishery-level responses, and illustrate the application of a coupled synthesis approach for improved efficiency and extraction of information relevant to conservation outcomes. The associated user and interpretation guides address accessibility and technical barriers faced by conservation scientists to improve efficiency in evidence synthesis.

Citation Information

Related Content

Abigail j. lynch, ph.d., research fish biologist, national casc.

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

Trends in physiotherapy of chronic low back pain research: knowledge synthesis based on bibliometric analysis.

1. Introduction

• What is the volume, scope and dynamics of the research literature production on physiotherapy in CLBP?
• What is the spatial distribution of physiotherapy in CLBP literature production among the most prolific source titles, institutions, countries and funding institutions?
• What is the most prolific physiotherapy in CLBP research themes, how have they evolved over time and what is their association?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. search procedure, 2.2. data analysis, 2.3. thematic analysis, 3.1. volume and prevalence of the research literature production, 3.2. the dynamics of the research literature production, 3.3. the thematic analysis, 3.4. the chronological analysis.

• Development of pain assessment tools: pain measurement → pain assessment → pain management . These tools first measure and evaluate pain, in order to ultimately contribute to the most functional treatment possible;
• Development of CLBP processing: disease severity → disability evaluation → disease duration → treatment duration → clinical outcomes and effectiveness . The evolution of CLBP processing first began with assessing the severity and then the inability to perform normal bodily functions caused by the pain. The latter affected the duration of the disease, which in turn resulted in the duration of the treatment. Research in this area has continued in the field of studying the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of therapeutic methods of treating CLBP;
• Development of study methodology: follow-up studies → comparative studies → randomized control trials → meta-analysis → cohort analysis . The methodological design first started with follow-up studies, followed by comparative studies and later by randomized control trials. Based on the conclusions of these studies, after further research authors began to summarize the main findings and suggest further possibilities for the development of physiotherapy for CLBP in meta-analysis. They were followed by cohort analyses studying causal factors over time.

4. Discussion

5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Gedin, F.; Alexanderson, K.; Zethraeus, N.; Karampampa, K. Productivity Losses among People with Back Pain and among Population-Based References: A Register-Based Study in Sweden. BMJ Open 2020 , 10 , e036638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stanciu, L.-E.; Petcu, L.C.; Apostol, S.; Ionescu, E.-V.; Oprea, D.; Oprea, C.; Țucmeanu, E.-R.; Iliescu, M.-G.; Popescu, M.-N.; Obada, B. The Influence of Low Back Pain on Health–Related Quality of Life and the Impact of Balneal Treatment. Balneo PRM Res. J. 2021 , 12 , 433–438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahman, S.; Kidwai, A.; Rakhamimova, E.; Elias, M.; Caldwell, W.; Bergese, S.D. Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Pain. Diagnostics 2023 , 13 , 3689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• van Middelkoop, M.; Rubinstein, S.M.; Kuijpers, T.; Verhagen, A.P.; Ostelo, R.; Koes, B.W.; van Tulder, M.W. A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Physical and Rehabilitation Interventions for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain. Eur. Spine J. 2011 , 20 , 19–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamper, S.J.; Apeldoorn, A.; Chiarotto, A.; Smeets, R.; Ostelo, R.; Guzman, J.; van Tulder, M. Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation for Chronic Low Back Pain: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ 2015 , 350 , h444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gerdle, B.; Molander, P.; Stenberg, G.; Stalnacke, B.-M.; Enthoven, P. Weak Outcome Predictors of Multimodal Rehabilitation at One-Year Follow-up in Patients with Chronic Pain-a Practice Based Evidence Study from Two SQRP Centres. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2016 , 17 , 490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kwan-Yee Ho, E.; Chen, L.; Simic, M.; Ashton-James, C.E.; Comachio, J.; Xin Mo Wang, D.; Hayden, J.A.; Loureiro Ferreira, M.; Henrique Ferreira, P. Psychological Interventions for Chronic, Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis. BMJ 2022 , 376 , e067718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monticone, M.; Vullo, S.S.; Lecca, I.L.; Meloni, F.; Portoghese, I.; Campagna, M. Effectiveness of Multimodal Exercises Integrated with Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Working Patients with Chronic Neck Pain: Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Follow-Up. Trials 2022 , 23 , 425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mackey, S.; Gilam, G.; Darnall, B.; Goldin, P.; Kong, J.-T.; Law, C.; Heirich, M.; Karayannis, N.; Kao, M.-C.; Lu, T.; et al. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Acupuncture in Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol for Two Linked Randomized Controlled Trials. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2022 , 11 , e37823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jurak, I.; Delaš, K.; Erjavec, L.; Stare, J.; Locatelli, I. Effects of Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial Rehabilitation on Short-Term Pain and Disability in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023 , 12 , 7489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kokol, P. Synthetic Knowledge Synthesis in Hospital Libraries. J. Hosp. Librariansh. 2023 , 24 , 10–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, R.; Weng, L.; Peng, M.; Wang, X. Exercise for Low Back Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research from 1980 to 2018. J. Rehabil. Med. 2020 , 53 , jrm00052. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, D.; Kawchuk, G.; Bussières, A.E.; Al Zoubi, F.M.; Hartvigsen, J.; Fu, S.N.; de Luca, K.; Weiner, D.; Karppinen, J.; Samartzis, D.; et al. Trends of Low Back Pain Research in Older and Working-Age Adults from 1993 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Pain Res. 2023 , 16 , 3325–3341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moral-Munoz, J.A.; Arroyo-Morales, M.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Cobo, M.J. An Overview of Thematic Evolution of Physical Therapy Research Area From 1951 to 2013. Front. Res. Metrics Anal. 2018 , 3 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, L.; Li, J.; Xiao, B.; Tang, Y.; Huang, J.; Li, Y.; Fang, F. Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends on Manual Therapy for Low Back Pain Over Past 2 Decades. J. Pain Res. 2023 , 16 , 3045–3060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zang, W.; Yan, J. Exercise Interventions for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research from 2018 to 2023. Front. Med. 2024 , 11 , 1390920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual ; Univeristeit Leiden: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017 , 11 , 959–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garfield, E. The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. JAMA 2006 , 295 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hawkins, D.T. Bibliometrics of Electronic Journals in Information Science. Inf. Res. 2001 , 7 , 120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Železnik, U.; Kokol, P.; Starc, J.; Železnik, D.; Završnik, J.; Vošner, H.B. Research Trends in Motivation and Weight Loss: A Bibliometric-Based Review. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 3086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahl, C.; Cleland, J.A. Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire: An Overview of Psychometric Properties. Phys. Ther. Rev. 2005 , 10 , 123–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hjermstad, M.J.; Fayers, P.M.; Haugen, D.F.; Caraceni, A.; Hanks, G.W.; Loge, J.H.; Fainsinger, R.; Aass, N.; Kaasa, S. Studies Comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for Assessment of Pain Intensity in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2011 , 41 , 1073–1093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ryan, C.G.; Gray, H.G.; Newton, M.; Granat, M.H. Pain Biology Education and Exercise Classes Compared to Pain Biology Education Alone for Individuals with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial. Man. Ther. 2010 , 15 , 382–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yamada, A.S. Physiotherapeutic Treatment Associated with Neuroscience of Pain Education for Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain—Single-Blind Randomized Pilot Clinical Trial. Ağrı J. Turk. Soc. Algol. 2023 , 35 , 153–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, Z.; Li, Y.; Dou, W.; Zhu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zou, Y. Ultra-Short Echo Time MR Imaging in Assessing Cartilage Endplate Damage and Relationship between Its Lesion and Disc Degeneration for Chronic Low Back Pain Patients. BMC Med. Imaging 2023 , 23 , 60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, K.; Chang, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, Y.; Zuo, J.; Ni, H.; Xie, B.; Yao, J.; Xu, Z.; Bian, S.; et al. The Enhanced Connectivity between the Frontoparietal, Somatomotor Network and Thalamus as the Most Significant Network Changes of Chronic Low Back Pain. Neuroimage 2024 , 290 , 120558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aaron, R.V.; Mun, C.J.; McGill, L.S.; Finan, P.H.; Campbell, C.M. The Longitudinal Relationship Between Emotion Regulation and Pain-Related Outcomes: Results from a Large, Online Prospective Study. J. Pain 2022 , 23 , 981–994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vlaeyen, J.W.S.; Linton, S.J. Fear-Avoidance and Its Consequences in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A State of the Art. Pain 2000 , 85 , 317–332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miyagi, M.; Uchida, K.; Takano, S.; Nakawaki, M.; Sekiguchi, H.; Nakazawa, T.; Imura, T.; Saito, W.; Shirasawa, E.; Kawakubo, A.; et al. Role of CD14-positive Cells in Inflammatory Cytokine and Pain-related Molecule Expression in Human Degenerated Intervertebral Discs. J. Orthop. Res. 2021 , 39 , 1755–1762. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chapman, J.R.; Norvell, D.C.; Hermsmeyer, J.T.; Bransford, R.J.; DeVine, J.; McGirt, M.J.; Lee, M.J. Evaluating Common Outcomes for Measuring Treatment Success for Chronic Low Back Pain. Spine 2011 , 36 , S54–S68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiarotto, A.; Maxwell, L.J.; Terwee, C.B.; Wells, G.A.; Tugwell, P.; Ostelo, R.W. Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: Which Has Better Measurement Properties for Measuring Physical Functioning in Nonspecific Low Back Pain? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys. Ther. 2016 , 96 , 1620–1637. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linton, S.J.; Bergbom, S. Understanding the Link between Depression and Pain. Scand. J. Pain 2011 , 2 , 47–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Higgins, N.C.; Bailey, S.J.; LaChapelle, D.L.; Harman, K.; Hadjistavropoulos, T. Coping Styles, Pain Expressiveness, and Implicit Theories of Chronic Pain. J. Psychol. 2015 , 149 , 737–750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hong, J.H.; Kim, H.D.; Shin, H.H.; Huh, B. Assessment of Depression, Anxiety, Sleep Disturbance, and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain in Korea. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2014 , 66 , 444–450. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herrero, P.; Val, P.; Lapuente-Hernández, D.; Cuenca-Zaldívar, J.N.; Calvo, S.; Gómez-Trullén, E.M. Effects of Lifestyle Interventions on the Improvement of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stanhope, J.; Breed, M.F.; Weinstein, P. Exposure to Greenspaces Could Reduce the High Global Burden of Pain. Environ. Res. 2020 , 187 , 109641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roddy, E.; Zwierska, I.; Jordan, K.P.; Dawes, P.; Hider, S.L.; Packham, J.; Stevenson, K.; Hay, E.M. Musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services at the Primary-Secondary Care Interface: An Observational Study. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2013 , 63 , E141–E148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, T.-H.; Tam, K.-W.; Yang, Y.-L.; Liou, T.-H.; Hsu, T.-H.; Rau, C.-L. Meditation-Based Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pain Med. 2022 , 23 , 1800–1811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, A.M.; Ferreira, P.H.; Maher, C.G.; Latimer, J.; Ferreira, M.L. The Influence of the Therapist-Patient Relationship on Treatment Outcome in Physical Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review. Phys. Ther. 2010 , 90 , 1099–1110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Good, C.H.; Bright, F.A.S.; Mooney, S. The Role and Function of Body Communication in Physiotherapy Practice: A Qualitative Thematic Synthesis. N. Z. J. Physiother. 2024 , 52 , 35–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bushnell, M.C.; Čeko, M.; Low, L.A. Cognitive and Emotional Control of Pain and Its Disruption in Chronic Pain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013 , 14 , 502–511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Henschke, N.; Kamper, S.J.; Maher, C.G. The Epidemiology and Economic Consequences of Pain. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2015 , 90 , 139–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fisker, A.; Langberg, H.; Petersen, T.; Mortensen, O.S. Effects of an Early Multidisciplinary Intervention on Sickness Absence in Patients with Persistent Low Back Pain—A Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2022 , 23 , 854. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators Global, Regional, and National Incidence, Prevalence, and Years Lived with Disability for 310 Diseases and Injuries, 1990–2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016 , 388 , 1545–1602. [ CrossRef ]
• Bingefors, K.; Isacson, D. Epidemiology, Co-Morbidity, and Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life of Self-Reported Headache and Musculoskeletal Pain—A Gender Perspective. Eur. J. Pain 2004 , 8 , 435–450. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ricci, J.A.; Stewart, W.F.; Chee, E.; Leotta, C.; Foley, K.; Hochberg, M.C. Back Pain Exacerbations and Lost Productive Time Costs in United States Workers. Spine 2006 , 31 , 3052–3060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costa, L.O.P.; Maher, C.G.; Latimer, J.; Ferreira, P.H.; Ferreira, M.L.; Pozzi, G.C.; Freitas, L.M.A. Clinimetric Testing of Three Self-Report Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Patients in Brazil. Spine 2008 , 33 , 2459–2463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, H.; McIntosh, G. Low Back Pain (Chronic). BMJ Clin. Evid. 2008 , 10 , 1116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dagenais, S.; Tricco, A.C.; Haldeman, S. Synthesis of Recommendations for the Assessment and Management of Low Back Pain from Recent Clinical Practice Guidelines. Spine J. 2010 , 10 , 514–529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Canjuga, M.; Läubli, T.; Bauer, G.F. Can the Job Demand Control Model Explain Back and Neck Pain? Cross-Sectional Study in a Representative Sample of Swiss Working Population. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2010 , 40 , 663–668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chou, R. Will This Patient Develop Persistent Disabling Low Back Pain? JAMA 2010 , 303 , 1295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vereckei, E.; Susanszky, E.; Kopp, M.; Ratko, I.; Czimbalmos, A.; Nagy, Z.; Palkonyai, E.; Hodinka, L.; Temesvari, I.P.; Kiss, E.; et al. Psychosocial, Educational, and Somatic Factors in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain. Rheumatol. Int. 2013 , 33 , 587–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Del Pozo-Cruz, B.; Gusi, N.; Del Pozo-Cruz, J.; Adsuar, J.; Hernandez-Mocholí, M.; Parraca, J. Clinical Effects of a Nine-Month Web-Based Intervention in Subacute Non-Specific Low Back Pain Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2013 , 27 , 28–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schaafsma, F.G.; Whelan, K.; van der Beek, A.J.; van der Es-Lambeek, L.C.; Ojajärvi, A.; Verbeek, J.H. Physical Conditioning as Part of a Return to Work Strategy to Reduce Sickness Absence for Workers with Back Pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013 , 2013 , CD001822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holtzman, S.; Beggs, T.R. Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials/Le Yoga Pour Soulager Les Douleurs Lombaires: Une Méta-Analyse d’essais Aléatoires et Contrôlés. Pain Res. Manag. J. Can. Pain Soc. 2013 , 18 , 267–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pomp, S.; Fleig, L.; Schwarzer, R.; Lippke, S. Effects of a Self-Regulation Intervention on Exercise are Moderated by Depressive Symptoms: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2013 , 13 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Inani, S.B.; Selkar, S.P. Effect of Core Stabilization Exercises versus Conventional Exercises on Pain and Functional Status in Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2013 , 26 , 37–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Notarnicola, A.; Fischetti, F.; Maccagnano, G.; Comes, R.; Tafuri, S.; Moretti, B. Daily Pilates Exercise or Inactivity for Patients with Low Back Pain: A Clinical Prospective Observational Study. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2014 , 50 , 59–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, M.C.; Wanigasekera, V.; Tracey, I. Imaging Opioid Analgesia in the Human Brain and Its Potential Relevance for Understanding Opioid Use in Chronic Pain. Neuropharmacology 2014 , 84 , 123–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Neill, A.; O’Sullivan, K.; O’Sullivan, P.; Purtill, H.; O’Keeffe, M. Examining What Factors Mediate Treatment Effect in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Mediation Analysis of a Cognitive Functional Therapy Clinical Trial. Eur. J. Pain 2020 , 24 , 1765–1774. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goossens, M.E.J.B.; de Kinderen, R.J.A.; Leeuw, M.; de Jong, J.R.; Ruijgrok, J.; Evers, S.M.A.A.; Vlaeyen, J.W.S. Is Exposure in Vivo Cost-Effective for Chronic Low Back Pain? A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2015 , 15 , 549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ickmans, K.; Moens, M.; Putman, K.; Buyl, R.; Goudman, L.; Huysmans, E.; Diener, I.; Logghe, T.; Louw, A.; Nijs, J. Back School or Brain School for Patients Undergoing Surgery for Lumbar Radiculopathy? Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Trial. J. Physiother. 2016 , 62 , 165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Caby, I.; Olivier, N.; Janik, F.; Vanvelcenaher, J.; Pelayo, P. A Controlled and Retrospective Study of 144 Chronic Low Back Pain Patients to Evaluate the Effectiveness of an Intensive Functional Restoration Program in France. Healthcare 2016 , 4 , 23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cook, C.E.; Moore, T.J.; Learman, K.; Showalter, C.; Snodgrass, S.J. Can Experienced Physiotherapists Identify which Patients are Likely to Succeed with Physical Therapy Treatment? Arch. Physiother. 2015 , 5 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Synnott, A.; O’Keeffe, M.; Bunzli, S.; Dankaerts, W.; O’Sullivan, P.; O’Sullivan, K. Physiotherapists May Stigmatise or Feel Unprepared to Treat People with Low Back Pain and Psychosocial Factors that Influence Recovery: A Systematic Review. J. Physiother. 2015 , 61 , 68–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murray, A.; Hall, A.M.; Williams, G.C.; McDonough, S.M.; Ntoumanis, N.; Taylor, I.M.; Jackson, B.; Matthews, J.; Hurley, D.A.; Lonsdale, C. Effect of a Self-Determination Theory-Based Communication Skills Training Program on Physiotherapists’ Psychological Support for Their Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2015 , 96 , 809–816. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Driver, C.; Kean, B.; Oprescu, F.; Lovell, G.P. Knowledge, Behaviors, Attitudes and Beliefs of Physiotherapists towards the Use of Psychological Interventions in Physiotherapy Practice: A Systematic Review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2017 , 39 , 2237–2249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raheel, H. Depression and Associated Factors among Adolescent Females in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a Cross-sectional Study. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2015 , 6 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borys, C.; Lutz, J.; Strauss, B.; Altmann, U. Effectiveness of a Multimodal Therapy for Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Regarding Pre-Admission Healthcare Utilization. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0143139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamada, T.; Komatsu, H.; Rosenzweig, M.Q.; Chohnabayashi, N.; Nishimura, N.; Oizumi, S.; Ren, D. Impact of Symptom Clusters on Quality of Life Outcomes in Patients from Japan with Advanced Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancers. Asia-Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2016 , 3 , 370–381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Compare, A.; Marchettini, P.; Zarbo, C. Risk Factors Linked to Psychological Distress, Productivity Losses, and Sick Leave in Low-Back-Pain Employees: A Three-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study. Pain Res. Treat. 2016 , 2016 , 3797493. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borsook, D.; Linnman, C.; Faria, V.; Strassman, A.M.; Becerra, L.; Elman, I. Reward Deficiency and Anti-Reward in Pain Chronification. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2016 , 68 , 282–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mansell, G.; Hill, J.C.; Main, C.; Vowles, K.E.; van der Windt, D. Exploring What Factors Mediate Treatment Effect: Example of the STarT Back Study High-Risk Intervention. J. Pain 2016 , 17 , 1237–1245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Borys, C.; Nodop, S.; Anders, C.; Tutzschke, R.; Scholle, H.C.; Thomas, A.; Altmann, U.; Strauss, B. Interpersonal Problem Behavior and Low Back Pain. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0207173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alamam, D.M.; Leaver, A.; Moloney, N.; Alsobayel, H.I.; Alashaikh, G.; Mackey, M.G. Pain Behaviour Scale (PaBS): An Exploratory Study of Reliability and Construct Validity in a Chronic Low Back Pain Population. Pain Res. Manag. J. Can. Pain Soc. 2019 , 2019 , 2508019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, M.; Xu, B.; Li, Z.; Zhu, S.; Tian, Z.; Li, D.; Cen, J.; Cheng, S.; Wang, Y.; Guo, Y.; et al. A Comparison between the Low Back Pain Scales for Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation: Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2020 , 18 , 175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Benz, T.; Lehmann, S.; Elfering, A.; Sandor, P.S.; Angst, F. Comprehensiveness and Validity of a Multidimensional Assessment in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2021 , 22 , 291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ezzati, K.; Laakso, E.-L.; Salari, A.; Hasannejad, A.; Fekrazad, R.; Aris, A. The Beneficial Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Co-Interventions on Musculoskeletal Pain Management: A Systematic Review. J. Lasers Med. Sci. 2020 , 11 , 81–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lin, H.-T.; Kuo, W.-C.; Chen, Y.; Lo, T.-Y.; Li, Y.-I.; Chang, J.-H. Effects of Fatigue in Lower Back Muscles on Basketball Jump Shots and Landings. Phys. Act. Health 2022 , 6 , 273–286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, U.U.O.; Servin, E.T.N.; Leal, P.D.C.; De-Oliveira, C.M.B.; Moura, E.C.R.; Silva-Junior, O.D.M. High-Intensity Laser for the Treatment of Pain: Systematic Review. Braz. J. Pain 2023 , 6 , 160–170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdildin, Y.; Tapinova, K.; Viderman, N.; Jyeniskhan, D. High-Intensity Laser Therapy in Low Back Pain Management: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Lasers Med. Sci. 2023 , 38 , 166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Blažun Vošner, H.; Železnik, D.; Kokol, P.; Vošner, J.; Završnik, J. Trends in Nursing Ethics Research: Mapping the Literature Production. Nurs. Ethics 2017 , 24 , 892–907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kokol, P.; Blažun Vošner, H.; Završnik, J. Application of Bibliometrics in Medicine: A Historical Bibliometrics Analysis. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2021 , 38 , 125–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pritchard, A. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? J. Doc. 1969 , 25 , 348–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Završnik, J.; Blažun Vošner, H.; Kokol, P.; Pišot, R.; Krečič Javornik, M. Sport Education and Society: Bibliometric Visualization of Taxonomy. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2016 , 16 , 1278–1286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vos, T.; Abajobir, A.A.; Abate, K.H.; Abbafati, C.; Abbas, K.M.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdulkader, R.S.; Abdulle, A.M.; Abebo, T.A.; Abera, S.F.; et al. Global, Regional, and National Incidence, Prevalence, and Years Lived with Disability for 328 Diseases and Injuries for 195 Countries, 1990–2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017 , 390 , 1211–1259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Souza, I.M.B.; Merini, L.R.; Vidal Ramos, L.A.; Pássaro, A.D.C.; França, J.I.D.; Marques, A.P. Prevalence of Low Back Pain and Associated Factors in Older Adults: Amazonia Brazilian Community Study. Healthcare 2021 , 9 , 539. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Øverås, C.K.; Johansson, M.S.; de Campos, T.F.; Ferreira, M.L.; Natvig, B.; Mork, P.J.; Hartvigsen, J. Distribution and Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Pain Co-Occurring with Persistent Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2021 , 22 , 91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartvigsen, J.; Natvig, B.; Ferreira, M. Is It All about a Pain in the Back? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2013 , 27 , 613–623. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Takasaki, H. Predictors of 1-Year Perceived Recovery, Absenteeism, and Expenses Due to Low Back Pain in Workers Receiving Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy: A Prospective Cohort Study. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 1293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• von der Hoeh, N.H.; Voelker, A.; Gulow, J.; Uhle, U.; Przkora, R.; Heyde, C.-E. Impact of a Multidisciplinary Pain Program for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery and Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Patient Saf. Surg. 2014 , 8 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Furunes, H.; Storheim, K.; Brox, J.I.; Johnsen, L.G.; Skouen, J.S.; Franssen, E.; Solberg, T.K.; Sandvik, L.; Hellum, C. Total Disc Replacement versus Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and Degenerative Discs: 8-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial. Spine J. 2017 , 17 , 1480–1488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nees, T.A.; Riewe, E.; Waschke, D.; Schiltenwolf, M.; Neubauer, E.; Wang, H. Multidisciplinary Pain Management of Chronic Back Pain: Helpful Treatments from the Patients’ Perspective. J. Clin. Med. 2020 , 9 , 145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cholewicki, J.; Breen, A.; Popovich, J.J.M.; Reeves, N.P.; Sahrmann, S.A.; van Dillen, L.R.; Vleeming, A.; Hodges, P.W. Can Biomechanics Research Lead to More Effective Treatment of Low Back Pain? A Point-Counterpoint Debate. J. Orthop. Sport. Phys. Ther. 2019 , 49 , 425–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhou, Z.; Hui, E.S.; Kranz, G.S.; Chang, J.R.; de Luca, K.; Pinto, S.M.; Chan, W.W.; Yau, S.; Chau, B.K.; Samartzis, D.; et al. Potential Mechanisms Underlying the Accelerated Cognitive Decline in People with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Scoping Review. Ageing Res. Rev. 2022 , 82 , 101767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rashbaum, I.; Sarno, J. Psychosomatic Concepts in Chronic Pain. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2003 , 84 , 76–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brunner, E.; De Herdt, A.; Minguet, P.; Baldew, S.S.; Probst, M. Can Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Based Strategies Be Integrated into Physiotherapy for the Prevention of Chronic Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2013 , 35 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Erp, R.M.A.; Huijnen, I.P.J.; Verbunt, J.A.; Smeets, R.J.E.M. A Biopsychosocial Primary Care Intervention (Back on Track) versus Primary Care as Usual in a Subgroup of People with Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Randomised, Controlled Trial. J. Physiother. 2015 , 61 , 155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stojmanovska Shukova, D.; Velichkovska, L.A.; Ibrahimi-Kacuri, D. Low Back Pain, Influence of Anxiety in Its Treatment. Res. Phys. Educ. Sport Health 2018 , 7 , 37–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berković-Šubić, M. Povezanost Depresije, Katastrofiziranja i Jačine Boli s Funkcionalnom Onesposobljenošću Bolesnika s Kroničnom Križoboljom Prije i Nakon Terapijskih Vježbi. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2021; pp. 16–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamji, M.F.; Setton, L.A.; Jarvis, W.; So, S.; Chen, J.; Jing, L.; Bullock, R.; Isaacs, R.E.; Brown, C.; Richardson, W.J. Proinflammatory Cytokine Expression Profile in Degenerated and Herniated Human Intervertebral Disc Tissues. Arthritis Rheum. 2010 , 62 , 1974–1982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Licciardone, J.C.; Kearns, C.M.; Hodge, L.M.; Bergamini, M.V.W. Associations of Cytokine Concentrations with Key Osteopathic Lesions and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: Results from the OSTEOPATHIC Trial. J. Osteopath. Med. 2012 , 112 , 596–605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• de Queiroz, B.Z.; Pereira, D.S.; Lopes, R.A.; Felício, D.C.; Silva, J.P.; de Britto Rosa, N.M.; Dias, J.M.D.; Dias, R.C.; Lustosa, L.P.; Pereira, L.S.M. Association Between the Plasma Levels of Mediators of Inflammation with Pain and Disability in the Elderly with Acute Low Back Pain. Spine 2016 , 41 , 197–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Synnott, A.; O’Keeffe, M.; Bunzli, S.; Dankaerts, W.; O’Sullivan, P.; Robinson, K.; O’Sullivan, K. Physiotherapists Report Improved Understanding of and Attitude toward the Cognitive, Psychological and Social Dimensions of Chronic Low Back Pain after Cognitive Functional Therapy Training: A Qualitative Study. J. Physiother. 2016 , 62 , 215–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vukičević, A.; Ogurlić, R.; Lazić, M.; Beqaj, S.; Švraka, E. Patients’ Trust in the Health-Care System and Physiotherapists. J. Health Sci. 2021 , 11 , 84–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Šajnović, U.; Kokol, P.; Završnik, J.; Vošner, H.B. Trends in Physiotherapy of Chronic Low Back Pain Research: Knowledge Synthesis Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12161676

Šajnović U, Kokol P, Završnik J, Vošner HB. Trends in Physiotherapy of Chronic Low Back Pain Research: Knowledge Synthesis Based on Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare . 2024; 12(16):1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12161676

Šajnović, Urška, Peter Kokol, Jernej Završnik, and Helena Blažun Vošner. 2024. "Trends in Physiotherapy of Chronic Low Back Pain Research: Knowledge Synthesis Based on Bibliometric Analysis" Healthcare 12, no. 16: 1676. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12161676

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals