article research review

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: August 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,135,705 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• CME Reviews
• Best of 2021 collection
• Abbreviated Breast MRI Virtual Collection
• Contrast-enhanced Mammography Collection
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Accepted Papers Resource Guide
• About Journal of Breast Imaging
• About the Society of Breast Imaging
• Guidelines for Reviewers
• Resources for Reviewers and Authors
• Editorial Board
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Manisha Bahl, A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article, Journal of Breast Imaging , Volume 5, Issue 4, July/August 2023, Pages 480–485, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbad028

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

• narrative discourse

Society of Breast Imaging members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2631-6129
• Print ISSN 2631-6110
• Copyright © 2024 Society of Breast Imaging
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper. Picardi N. Picardi N. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3. Ann Ital Chir. 2016. PMID: 28474609
• How to write an original article. Mateu Arrom L, Huguet J, Errando C, Breda A, Palou J. Mateu Arrom L, et al. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Nov;42(9):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.011. Epub 2018 May 18. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018. PMID: 29779648 Review. English, Spanish.
• [Writing a scientific review, advice and recommendations]. Turale S. Turale S. Soins. 2013 Dec;(781):39-43. Soins. 2013. PMID: 24558688 French.
• How to write a research paper. Alexandrov AV. Alexandrov AV. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(2):135-8. doi: 10.1159/000079266. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004. PMID: 15218279 Review.
• How to write a review article. Williamson RC. Williamson RC. Hosp Med. 2001 Dec;62(12):780-2. doi: 10.12968/hosp.2001.62.12.2389. Hosp Med. 2001. PMID: 11810740 Review.
• A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data. Connolly A, Kirwan M, Matthews A. Connolly A, et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article. Review.
• Ado-tratuzumab emtansine beyond breast cancer: therapeutic role of targeting other HER2-positive cancers. Zheng Y, Zou J, Sun C, Peng F, Peng C. Zheng Y, et al. Front Mol Biosci. 2023 May 11;10:1165781. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1165781. eCollection 2023. Front Mol Biosci. 2023. PMID: 37251081 Free PMC article. Review.
• Connecting authors with readers: what makes a good review for the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Kim HK. Kim HK. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023 Mar;29(1):1-4. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.02.23. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2023. PMID: 37037445 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ketcham C, Crawford J. The impact of review articles. Lab Invest. 2007;87:1174-85. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700688
• Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35:49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
• Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
• Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia. 2020;58(6):345-9. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
• Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Maksaev AA, Kitas GD. Article-level metrics. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(11):e74.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

• Insights blog

What is a review article?

Learn how to write a review article.

What is a review article? A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results.

Writing a review of literature is to provide a critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential research areas to explore next, and sometimes they will draw new conclusions from the existing data.

Why write a review article?

To provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic.

To explain the current state of knowledge.

To identify gaps in existing studies for potential future research.

To highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Did you know? 

There are some journals that only publish review articles, and others that do not accept them.

Make sure you check the  aims and scope  of the journal you’d like to publish in to find out if it’s the right place for your review article.

How to write a review article

Below are 8 key items to consider when you begin writing your review article.

Check the journal’s aims and scope

Make sure you have read the aims and scope for the journal you are submitting to and follow them closely. Different journals accept different types of articles and not all will accept review articles, so it’s important to check this before you start writing.

Define your scope

Define the scope of your review article and the research question you’ll be answering, making sure your article contributes something new to the field. 

As award-winning author Angus Crake told us, you’ll also need to “define the scope of your review so that it is manageable, not too large or small; it may be necessary to focus on recent advances if the field is well established.” 

Finding sources to evaluate

When finding sources to evaluate, Angus Crake says it’s critical that you “use multiple search engines/databases so you don’t miss any important ones.” 

For finding studies for a systematic review in medical sciences,  read advice from NCBI . 

Writing your title, abstract and keywords

Spend time writing an effective title, abstract and keywords. This will help maximize the visibility of your article online, making sure the right readers find your research. Your title and abstract should be clear, concise, accurate, and informative. 

For more information and guidance on getting these right, read our guide to writing a good abstract and title  and our  researcher’s guide to search engine optimization . 

Introduce the topic

Does a literature review need an introduction? Yes, always start with an overview of the topic and give some context, explaining why a review of the topic is necessary. Gather research to inform your introduction and make it broad enough to reach out to a large audience of non-specialists. This will help maximize its wider relevance and impact. 

Don’t make your introduction too long. Divide the review into sections of a suitable length to allow key points to be identified more easily.

Include critical discussion

Make sure you present a critical discussion, not just a descriptive summary of the topic. If there is contradictory research in your area of focus, make sure to include an element of debate and present both sides of the argument. You can also use your review paper to resolve conflict between contradictory studies.

What researchers say

Angus Crake, researcher

As part of your conclusion, include making suggestions for future research on the topic. Focus on the goal to communicate what you understood and what unknowns still remains.

Use a critical friend

Always perform a final spell and grammar check of your article before submission. 

You may want to ask a critical friend or colleague to give their feedback before you submit. If English is not your first language, think about using a language-polishing service.

Find out more about how  Taylor & Francis Editing Services can help improve your manuscript before you submit.

What is the difference between a research article and a review article?

Before you submit your review article…

Complete this checklist before you submit your review article:

Have you checked the journal’s aims and scope?

Have you defined the scope of your article?

Did you use multiple search engines to find sources to evaluate?

Have you written a descriptive title and abstract using keywords?

Did you start with an overview of the topic?

Have you presented a critical discussion?

Have you included future suggestions for research in your conclusion?

Have you asked a friend to do a final spell and grammar check?

Expert help for your manuscript

Taylor & Francis Editing Services  offers a full range of pre-submission manuscript preparation services to help you improve the quality of your manuscript and submit with confidence.

Related resources

How to edit your paper

Writing a scientific literature review

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

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

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

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.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

Keeping CALM: When distributed consistency is easy

Intel: new core ultra processors deliver breakthrough performance, telugu cinema icon akkineni nageswara rao’s centenary to be celebrated with film festival (exclusive), nyt connections today: see hints and answers for september 4, target drops exclusive ‘wednesday’ ya novel inspired by hit netflix show, openai and anthropic agree to send models to us government for safety evaluation, interviewing tim sweeney and neal stephenson, daniel craig offers himself up completely to the shimmering sensuality of queer, why i self host my servers (and what i’ve recently learned), show hn: i’m making an ai scraper called fetchfox, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

4 Ways to Relax Before Going to Bed

How to Hide Electrical Outlets

How to Macrame

11 Simple Ways to Talk to Someone You Don’t Know Online

3 Ways to Punch Harder  

How to Care for a Miniature Horse

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Writing a good review article

• 3 minute read
• 95.6K views

Table of Contents

As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research.

Types of review articles

Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.

A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more.

A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings.

Tips for writing a good review article

Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:

• Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a hypothesis, inference, or conclusion. A carefully defined scientific question will give you more clarity in determining the novelty of your inferences.
• Identify credible sources: Identify relevant as well as credible studies that you can base your review on, with the help of multiple databases or search engines. It is also a good idea to conduct another search once you have finished your article to avoid missing relevant studies published during the course of your writing.
• Take notes: A literature search involves extensive reading, which can make it difficult to recall relevant information subsequently. Therefore, make notes while conducting the literature search and note down the source references. This will ensure that you have sufficient information to start with when you finally get to writing.
• Describe the title, abstract, and introduction: A good starting point to begin structuring your review is by drafting the title, abstract, and introduction. Explicitly writing down what your review aims to address in the field will help shape the rest of your article.
• Be unbiased and critical: Evaluate every piece of evidence in a critical but unbiased manner. This will help you present a proper assessment and a critical discussion in your article.
• Include a good summary: End by stating the take-home message and identify the limitations of existing studies that need to be addressed through future studies.
• Ask for feedback: Ask a colleague to provide feedback on both the content and the language or tone of your article before you submit it.
• Check your journal’s guidelines: Some journals only publish reviews, while some only publish research articles. Further, all journals clearly indicate their aims and scope. Therefore, make sure to check the appropriateness of a journal before submitting your article.

Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!

What are Implications in Research?

How to Write the Results Section: Guide to Structure and Key Points

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

• Published: 02 October 2017
• Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
• Mark B. Houston 2 &
• John Hulland 3  

241k Accesses

486 Citations

65 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?

• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

A literature review is an academic text that surveys, synthesizes, and critically evaluates the existing literature on a specific topic. It is typically required for theses, dissertations, or long reports and  serves several key purposes:

• Surveying the Literature : It involves a comprehensive search and examination of relevant academic books, journal articles, and other sources related to the chosen topic.
• Synthesizing Information : The literature review summarizes and organizes the information found in the literature, often identifying patterns, themes, and gaps in the current knowledge.
• Critical Analysis : It critically analyzes the collected information, highlighting limitations, gaps, and areas of controversy, and suggests directions for future research.
• Establishing Context : It places the current research within the broader context of the field, demonstrating how the new research builds on or diverges from previous studies.

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews can take various forms, including:

• Narrative Reviews : These provide a qualitative summary of the literature and are often used to give a broad overview of a topic. They may be less structured and more subjective, focusing on synthesizing the literature to support a particular viewpoint.
• Systematic Reviews : These are more rigorous and structured, following a specific methodology to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a particular question. They aim to minimize bias and provide a comprehensive summary of the existing evidence.
• Integrative Reviews : Similar to systematic reviews, but they aim to generate new knowledge by integrating findings from different studies to develop new theories or frameworks.

Importance of Literature Reviews

• Foundation for Research : They provide a solid background for new research projects, helping to justify the research question and methodology.

Identifying Gaps : Literature reviews highlight areas where knowledge is lacking, guiding future research efforts.

• Building Credibility : Demonstrating familiarity with existing research enhances the credibility of the researcher and their work.

In summary, a literature review is a critical component of academic research that helps to frame the current state of knowledge, identify gaps, and provide  a basis for new research.

The research, the body of current literature, and the particular objectives should all influence the structure of a literature review. It is also critical to remember that creating a literature review is an ongoing process - as one reads and analyzes the literature, one's understanding may change, which could require rearranging the literature review.

Paré, G. and Kitsiou, S. (2017) 'Methods for Literature Reviews' , in: Lau, F. and Kuziemsky, C. (eds.)  Handbook of eHealth evaluation: an evidence-based approach . Victoria (BC): University of Victoria.

Perplexity AI (2024) Perplexity AI response to Kathy Neville, 31 July.       

Royal Literary Fund (2024)  The structure of a literature review.  Available at: https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/ (Accessed: 23 July 2024).

Library Services for Undergraduate Research (2024) Literature review: a definition . Available at: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our?p=302677 (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading:

Methods for Literature Reviews

Literature Review (The University of Edinburgh)

Literature Reviews (University of Sheffield)

• How to Write a Literature Review Paper? Wee, Bert Van ; Banister, David ISBN: 0144-1647

• Next: Steps for Creating a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 06 September 2024

The need for high quality research regarding donor human milk supplementation in moderately-late preterm and early-term infants

• Leslie Parker 1  

Pediatric Research ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The benefits of breastfeeding and receipt of mother’s own milk (MOM) for infants of all gestational ages are well established and include reduced risk of infection, improved neurodevelopment, and fewer prematurity related complications. 1 , 2 , 3 These benefits are dose dependent with the most protection provided to infants who are exclusively breastfed or who receive high doses of MOM. However, supplementation of MOM is often indicated due to maternal factors including delayed secretory activation as well as infant factors such as hypoglycemia and poor breastfeeding. This is especially important for infants born moderately-late preterm (MLP) and early term (ET) due to their higher need for supplementation and greater risk of morbidity compared to infants born at term. 4 , 5 Because infants born MLP and ET represent a significant proportion of infants, there is a critical need for strong evidence regarding the use of donor human milk (DHM) versus infant formula (IF) for supplementation when MOM is unavailable. 6

For preterm very low birth weight (VLBW; <1500 grams) infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), national and international organizations recommend supplementation with pasteurized DHM when MOM is unavailable. 7 , 8 For infant born MLP and ET, exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6-months and avoidance of IF are recommended, but no clear recommendations are available regarding the use of DHM for supplementation. Because previous research suggests supplementation with IF may decrease rates and duration of exclusive breastfeeding 9 and can alter the infant’s intestinal microbiome, 10 well-infant nurseries and maternity wards are increasing using DHM as an alternative to IF. In fact, as of 2020, 20% of well-infant nurseries supplemented with DHM rather than IF and it is likely this percentage has continued to increase. 11 Furthermore, 78% of clinicians believe there are clinical benefits to providing DHM to healthy infants and 94% believe supplementation with DHM improves exclusive breastfeeding rates. 12 Thus there is need for robust research regarding the risks and benefits of DHM in relatively healthy infants.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 14 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 17,96 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Patel, A. L. et al. Impact of early human milk on sepsis and health-care costs in very low birth weight infants. J. Perinatol. 33 , 514–519 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bharwani, S. K. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of human milk intake and retinopathy of prematurity: a significant update. J. Perinatol. 36 , 913–920 (2016).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Huang, J. et al. Human milk as a protective factor for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 104 , F128–F136 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mitha, A. et al. Neonatal morbidities in infants born late preterm at 35-36 weeks of gestation: a Swedish nationwide population-based Study. J. Pediatr. 233 , 43–50.e5 (2021).

Helle, E. et al. Morbidity and health care costs after early term birth. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 30 , 533–540 (2016).

Delnord, M. & Zeitlin, J. Epidemiology of late preterm and early term births—an international perspective. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 24 , 3–10 (2019).

Maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health: guidelines on optimal feeding of low birth-weight infants in low- and middle-income countries . Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241548366 (2011).

Meek, J. Y. & Noble, L. Policy statement: Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics 150 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-057988 (2022).

McCoy, M. B., Heggie, P. In-hospital formula feeding and breastfeeding duration. Pediatrics 146 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2946 (2020).

Ma, J. et al. Comparison of gut microbiota in exclusively breast-fed and formula-fed babies: a study of 91 term infants. Sci. Rep. 10 , 15792 (2020).

Parker, M. G. et al. National prevalence of donor milk use among level 1 nurseries. Hosp. Pediatr. 10 , 1078–1086 (2020).

Belfort, M. B. et al. Prevalence and trends in donor milk use in the well-baby nursery: a survey of northeast United States birth hospitals. Breastfeed. Med. 13 , 34–41, https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2017.0147 (2018).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

McClintock, T. et al. Donor human milk versus infant formula for low-risk infants: a systematic review. Pediatr. Res . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03309-x (2024).

Kair, L. R., Flaherman, V. J. & Colaizy, T. T. Effect of donor milk supplementation on breastfeeding outcomes in term newborns: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Pediatr. 58 , 534–540 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Merjaneh, N. et al. The impact on the exclusive breastfeeding rate at 6 months of life of introducing supplementary donor milk into the level 1 newborn nursery. J. Perinatol. 40 , 1109–1114 (2020).

Parker, L. A. et al. Consumption of mother’s own milk by infants born extremely preterm following implementation of a donor human milk program: a retrospective cohort study. J. Pediatr. 211 , 33–38 (2019).

Corallo, J. et al. The impact of a Donor Human Milk Program on the provision of mothers’ own milk at discharge in very low birth weight infants. J. Perinatol. 42 , 1473–1479 (2022).

Tshamala, D., Pelecanos, A. & Davies, M. W. Factors associated with infants receiving their mother’s own breast milk on discharge from hospital in a unit where pasteurised donor human milk is available. J. Paediatr. Child Health 54 , 1016–1022 (2018).

Aguilar-Lopez, M., Wetzel, C., MacDonald, A., Ho, T. T. B. & Donovan, S. M. Metagenomic profile of the fecal microbiome of preterm infants consuming mother’s own milk with bovine milk-based fortifier or infant formula: a cross-sectional study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 116 , 435–445 (2022).

Perrin, M. T. et al. The nutritional composition and energy content of donor human milk: a systematic review. Adv. Nutr. 11 , 960–970 (2020).

Rodríguez-Camejo, C. et al. Impact of Holder pasteurization on immunological properties of human breast milk over the first year of lactation. Pediatr. Res. 87 , 32–41 (2020).

Peila, C. et al. The effect of Holder pasteurization on nutrients and biologically-active components in donor human milk: a review. Nutrients 8 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu8080477 (2016).

Quigley, M., Embleton, N. D. & McGuire, W. Formula versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 6 , Cd002971 (2018).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gialeli, G. et al. Supplementation of mother’s own milk with preterm donor human milk: Impact on protein intake and growth in very low birth weight infants-A randomized controlled study. Nutrients 15 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030566 (2023).

Hoban, R., Khatri, S., Patel, A. & Unger, S. L. Supplementation of mother’s own milk with donor milk in infants with gastroschisis or intestinal atresia: a retrospective study. Nutrients 12 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12020589 (2020).

Nguyen, T. T. et al. Neonatal abstinence syndrome and mother’s own milk at discharge. J. Perinatol. 42 , 1044–1050 (2022).

Walters, D. D., Phan, L. T. H. & Mathisen, R. The cost of not breastfeeding: global results from a new tool. Health Policy Plan 34 , 407–417 (2019).

Kair, L. R. et al. Disparities in donor human milk supplementation among well newborns. J. Hum. Lact 36 , 74–80 (2020).

Asiodu, I. V., Bugg, K. & Palmquist, A. E. L. Achieving breastfeeding equity and justice in Black communities: past, present, and future. Breastfeed. Med 16 , 447–451 (2021).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, University of Florida College of Nursing, Health Professions Nursing and Pharmacy Building, Gainesville, FL, USA

Leslie Parker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leslie Parker .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Parker, L. The need for high quality research regarding donor human milk supplementation in moderately-late preterm and early-term infants. Pediatr Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03549-x

Download citation

Received : 08 August 2024

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 06 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03549-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

MA indicates meta-analysis.

ROR indicates ratio of odds ratio.

eAppendix 1. Search Strategy

eAppendix 2. Data Extraction

eTable 1. The Composite Primary Outcome and Effect Estimates of Mega-Trials Identified by Our Search but Analyzed Only for a Subset of the Primary Outcome

eAppendix 3. Mega-Trials Not Included in Meta-Analyses

eTable 4. Characteristics of Mega-Trials Identified by Our Search but Had No Eligible Meta-Analysis

eTable 2. Characteristics of the Additional Identified Mega-Trials That Have Not Been Identified by Our Search

eAppendix 4. Meta-Analyses of Mega-Trials vs Smaller Trials for the Primary Outcome

eFigure 1. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials for Primary Outcome: Random Effects (DerSimonian Laird)

eAppendix 5. Meta-Analyses of Mega-Trials vs Smaller Trials for All-Cause Mortality

eFigure 2. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials for All-Cause Mortality: Random Effects (DerSimonian Laird)

eFigure 3. Agreement Between Smaller Trials Prior and After the Publication of the First Mega-Trial

eTable 3. Results of Uni- and Multivariable Meta-Regression

eFigure 4. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials With 1/5 of the Least Weighted Mega-Trial

eFigure 5. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials With 1/10 of the Least Weighted Megatrial

eFigure 6. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials, Pooling the Results Using Fixed Effects

eFigure 7. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials, Pooling the Results Using Random Effects – HKSJ Method

eFigure 8. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials Stratified to Blinding

eFigure 9. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials Stratified to Intervention Type

eFigure 10. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials Stratified to Specialty

eFigure 11. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials Stratified to Heterogeneity

eFigure 12. Agreement Between Trials With More Than 30,000 Participants and Smaller Trial for the Primary Outcome

eFigure 13. Agreement Between Mega-Trials When More Than One Was Present in a Meta-Analysis–Primary Outcome

eReferences.

Data Sharing Statement

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

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

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

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Kastrati L , Raeisi-Dehkordi H , Llanaj E, et al. Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials : A Systematic Review and Meta-Research Analysis . JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(9):e2432296. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32296

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials : A Systematic Review and Meta-Research Analysis

• 1 Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California
• 2 Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
• 3 Graduate School for Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
• 4 Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
• 5 Department of Global Public Health and Bioethics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
• 6 Epistudia, Bern, Switzerland
• 7 Department of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Nuthetal, Germany
• 8 German Centre for Diabetes Research (DZD), München-Neuherberg, Germany
• 9 Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
• 10 Community Medicine Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
• 11 Department of Internal Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
• 12 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
• 13 Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
• 14 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
• 15 Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
• 16 Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California

Question   Are the results of mega-trials with 10 000 participants or more similar to meta-analysis of trials with smaller sample sizes for the primary outcome and/or all-cause mortality?

Findings   In this meta-research analysis of 82 mega-trials, meta-analyses of smaller studies showed overall comparable results with mega-trials, but smaller trials published before the mega-trials gave more favorable results than mega-trials. There were very low rates of significant results for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality for mega-trials.

Meaning   The findings of this study suggest that mega-trials need to be performed more often, given the relative low number of mega-trials found, their low significant rates, and the fact that smaller trials published prior to mega-trial reported more beneficial results than mega-trials and subsequent smaller trials.

Importance   Mega-trials can provide large-scale evidence on important questions.

Objective   To explore how the results of mega-trials compare with the meta-analysis results of trials with smaller sample sizes.

Data Sources   ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for mega-trials until January 2023. PubMed was searched until June 2023 for meta-analyses incorporating the results of the eligible mega-trials.

Study Selection   Mega-trials were eligible if they were noncluster nonvaccine randomized clinical trials, had a sample size over 10 000, and had a peer-reviewed meta-analysis publication presenting results for the primary outcome of the mega-trials and/or all-cause mortality.

Data Extraction and Synthesis   For each selected meta-analysis, we extracted results of smaller trials and mega-trials included in the summary effect estimate and combined them separately using random effects. These estimates were used to calculate the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) between mega-trials and smaller trials in each meta-analysis. Next, the RORs were combined using random effects. Risk of bias was extracted for each trial included in our analyses (or when not available, assessed only for mega-trials). Data analysis was conducted from January to June 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures   The main outcomes were the summary ROR for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality between mega-trials and smaller trials. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to the year of publication, masking, weight, type of intervention, and specialty.

Results   Of 120 mega-trials identified, 41 showed a significant result for the primary outcome and 22 showed a significant result for all-cause mortality. In 35 comparisons of primary outcomes (including 85 point estimates from 69 unique mega-trials and 272 point estimates from smaller trials) and 26 comparisons of all-cause mortality (including 70 point estimates from 65 unique mega-trials and 267 point estimates from smaller trials), no difference existed between the outcomes of the mega-trials and smaller trials for primary outcome (ROR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04) nor for all-cause mortality (ROR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04). For the primary outcomes, smaller trials published before the mega-trials had more favorable results than the mega-trials (ROR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10) and subsequent smaller trials published after the mega-trials (ROR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18).

Conclusions and Relevance   In this meta-research analysis, meta-analyses of smaller studies showed overall comparable results with mega-trials, but smaller trials published before the mega-trials gave more favorable results than mega-trials. These findings suggest that mega-trials need to be performed more often given the relative low number of mega-trials found, their low significant rates, and the fact that smaller trials published prior to mega-trial report more beneficial results than mega-trials and subsequent smaller trials.

Most randomized comparisons of interventions in medicine use small to modest sample sizes. The call for more mega-trials (ie, large sample trials) with over 10 000 participants has been longstanding. 1 , 2 Mega-trials have been rare, but there has been a renewed interest recently. Several mega-trials have found that certain interventions, like vitamin D supplementation, may not be as effective as previously thought. 3 , 4 Conversely, other mega-trials, such as the Second International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-2) Collaborative Group trial on streptokinase and aspirin after myocardial infarction 5 found favorable results with major clinical impact. Conducting mega-trials may be facilitated by the growth of interest in pragmatic (ie, practical) research, 6 , 7 new platforms for recruitment of participants, 8 and wider recognition of the limitations of small trials. Therefore, it is important to understand and compare the results of mega-trials with those of smaller trials.

Meta-analyses rarely include large trials, and small trials have traditionally been considered more susceptible to biases, including more prominent selective reporting. 9 , 10 Previous literature comparing results of meta-analyses of small trials with subsequent large trials has shown heterogeneous results. 11 - 16 Furthermore, different methods have been proposed to analyze the agreement. 17 Different event rates in the control group of the considered trials (baseline risk), differences in trial quality, and variable susceptibility to bias of the health outcomes under investigation may also generate heterogeneity. 11 Moreover, mega-trials and smaller trials may have topic- and question-specific biases that are different in the 2 groups. In previous work, there was also no clear consensus on what constitutes a large trial. Some 18 have considered the amount of evidence in each trial (inverse of variance or sample size) as a continuum, while others tried to separate trials with sufficient power (eg, 80%) to detect plausible effects, 19 and yet others used arbitrary sample size thresholds, (eg, 1000 participants). 12 , 14 To our knowledge, no comprehensive empirical examination has systematically compared the results of mega-trials with sample sizes exceeding 10 000 participants versus smaller trials.

Here, we aimed to systematically identify such mega-trials, identify which ones have been included in meta-analyses for their primary outcomes and/or for mortality outcomes, compare the results of these mega-trials against the combined results of smaller trials, and identify potential factors associated with discrepancies.

This meta-analysis was a meta-research project; because this study is not a typical meta-analysis, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses ( PRISMA ) reporting guideline where applicable. 18 The original protocol was registered in Open Science Framework Because the information we used consisted of publicly available results of RCTs, and not patient-specific data, there was no need for ethical review. We analyzed meta-analyses of clinical trials that have included mega-trial results in their analysis for calculations of a summary effect size for the primary end point of the mega-trial. Additionally, we considered data on all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome because it is the most severe and objective outcome.

Mega-trials were considered for analysis if they were noncluster, nonvaccine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regardless of masking; had a sample size of more than 10 000 participants; had a peer-reviewed publication presenting the results of the primary end point; and were included in a meta-analysis for their primary outcome and/or all-cause mortality. We excluded cluster trials because the effective sample size is much smaller than the number of participants. We excluded vaccine trials because very large vaccine trials usually have different considerations and types of outcomes than mega-trials of other interventions.

For a meta-analysis to be included in the analysis, it had to have a systematic review design and include the results of the mega-trial along with any number of other trials in obtaining summary effect size estimates with the effect size and variance data available (or possible to calculate) for each trial from presented information.

We searched for mega-trials in ClinicalTrials.gov (last updated January 2023) and then performed PubMed searches (until June 2023) to identify the most recent meta-analyses that included the results of these mega-trials for the primary outcome of the mega-trial and for all-cause mortality. Details on the search process are in eAppendix 1 in Supplement 1 .

For each selected meta-analysis, we extracted the results of RCTs included in the summary effect size estimate that incorporated the effect size estimate of the mega-trial. We also extracted information, whenever available, on the risk of bias assessments for each included trial based on Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools (original, revised, and version 2). All data extractions (except mega-trial identification) were performed by 2 reviewers (L.K. and H.R.D.; L.K. and H.G.Q.P.; L.K. and E.L.L.; L.K. and N.S.A.; L.K. and F.K.; L.K. and R.M.; and L.K. and A.L.L.), and differences were settled by discussion. For any unsettled discrepancies, a third senior reviewer (T.M.) was invited to arbitrate. Details on data extraction appear in eAppendix 2 in Supplement 1 .

Some of the eligible meta-analyses contained results from other mega-trials that had not been detected by our search. Therefore, we described these extra identified trials and included them in our analyses. We extracted information for all mega-trials based on whether they found statistically significant or nonsignificant results and whether they were designed to show noninferiority. In several meta-analyses, some trials did not pass the 10 000-participant threshold but were substantially large enough to blur the effects. Therefore, in a sensitivity analysis, we compared the results of mega-trials vs only the smaller trials that weighted less than one-fifth of the least weighted mega-trial; in another sensitivity analysis, we compared the results of mega-trials vs smaller trials that weighted less than one-tenth of the least weighted mega-trial. We then further restricted these trials to those published only before or up to the first trial. We also explored the agreement on different thresholds, setting the threshold at a sample size of 30 000. In addition, we also compared the agreement between the mega-trials, when more than one was included in a meta-analysis. Finally, we also assessed the risk of bias for the mega-trials that had not been assessed (or had been assessed using various non-Cochrane tools [eg, Jadad scale]) using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. 25

In each eligible meta-analysis, we combined the results from non–mega-trials using random effects (and fixed effects as sensitivity analysis) and compared them against the results of the mega-trial. In meta-analyses where several mega-trials were available, the results of the mega trials were combined using random effects first before being compared against the results of smaller trials. Any cluster trials were considered to be non–mega-trials. 20

The odds ratio (OR) was the metric of choice. All the analyzed outcomes were dichotomous. Between-trial heterogeneity assessments used τ 2 between-study variance estimator, Q test, and I 2 statistics. 21

We obtained the log ratio of ORs (ROR) and its variance (the sum of the variances of the logOR in the 2 groups) between the mega-trials and the smaller trials for each eligible outcome. Then, the logROR estimates were combined across each outcome using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects calculations. 22 We also performed sensitivity analyses using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method. 23 In all calculations, treatment effects in single trials and meta-analyses thereof were coined consistently so that an ROR less than 1 means a more favorable outcome for the intervention group over the control group.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess whether the results were different when non–mega-trials were included in the calculations only if they were published up until (and including) the year of publication of any mega-trials and comparing them with the results of the mega-trial. This analysis more specifically targets the research question of whether mega-trials corroborate the results of smaller trials that have been performed before them. A separate analysis also compared the results of non–mega-trials published up until the year of publication of the mega-trial vs non–mega-trials published subsequently.

Separate subgroup analyses were performed for the comparison of results in mega-trials vs other trials according to masking (open-label vs masked), intervention type, specialty (eg, cardiovascular), and per heterogeneity (low vs non-low) of the mega-trials. We also performed exploratory meta-regressions considering the same variables (masking, type of outcome, type of intervention, and specialty) and also risk of bias in the mega-trials (high vs other), risk of bias in the other trials (proportion at high risk), median number of participants in non–mega-trials, and total number of participants in non–mega-trials. We also performed exploratory tests for small study effect sizes (Egger test), 24 when there were more than 10 trials.

Analyses were conducted using Stata software version 17 (StataCorp). The threshold for significance was a 2-tailed P < .05. Data analysis occurred from January to June 2024.

A total of 180 registered completed phase 3 or 4 mega-trials that did not involve vaccines and that had 10 000 or more participants were identified through our search ( Figure 1 ). Among these, 91 were randomized, noncluster, nonvaccine mega-trials; but 35 of these 91 trials lacked an appropriate meta-analysis and 2 had no published results, leaving 51 mega-trials with an eligible meta-analysis for either primary outcome and/or all-cause mortality. Three trials registered with more than 10 000 participants and had eligible meta-analyses; however, they randomized less 10 000 participants and were excluded by our analyses. 26 - 28 Results were compared to smaller trials across 58 meta-analyses, including 35 for primary outcome 29 - 75 , 152 and 26 for all-cause mortality. 29 , 32 - 35 , 37 - 47 , 49 - 54 , 56 - 62 , 64 - 70 , 72 - 74 , 76 - 78 In 3 studies, 32 , 41 , 68 all-cause mortality was the mega-trial’s primary outcome ( Table 1 ). For 19 mega-trials that had a composite primary outcome , 30 , 32 , 33 , 39 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 152 no eligible meta-analysis was identified for the complete composite outcome, therefore the meta-analysis of one of the subsets of the composite outcome with the highest number of events was analyzed ( Table 1 and eTable 1, eAppendix 3, and eTable 4 in Supplement 1 ).

The eligible meta-analyses included estimates from another 30 mega-trials 79 - 108 that had randomized, noncluster design and more than 10 000 participants but had not been identified in our searches (eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ). Of these 30 studies, 26 were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 79 - 84 , 86 - 94 , 96 - 101 , 103 - 107 while 2 85 , 108 had no listed location in ClinicalTrials.gov, 1 95 had listed no results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and for 1 study, 102 no reason for missingness was identified. These 30 trials with their estimates for primary outcomes (20 trials) and all-cause mortality (22 trials) were considered in the mega-trials group in all calculations. The meta-analyses included an additional 1 mega-trial that had initially been identified by our search but had no eligible meta-analysis for the primary outcome and/or all-cause mortality but was meta-analyzed for another outcome. 109 In total, 82 mega-trials were included across all meta-analyses for the primary outcome (69 mega-trials 29 - 75 , 79 , 80 , 84 - 87 , 89 - 94 , 97 - 100 , 102 - 104 , 108 , 109 , 152 ) and all-cause mortality (65 mega-trials 29 , 32 - 35 , 37 - 47 , 49 - 54 , 56 - 62 , 64 - 67 , 69 , 70 , 72 - 74 , 76 - 83 , 85 , 87 - 89 , 92 - 96 , 99 , 101 - 107 , 109 , 152 ).

Of the 82 mega-trials 29 - 109 , 152 included in our analyses, 64 30 , 31 , 33 - 40 , 42 - 74 , 76 - 86 , 89 - 94 , 96 - 98 , 100 , 102 - 106 , 108 , 109 investigated cardiovascular outcomes, 17 mega-trials 31 , 38 , 49 , 57 , 65 , 73 , 80 , 88 , 93 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 100 , 101 , 107 - 109 were centered around nutritional interventions, and 1 mega-trial 75 covered various other medical interventions intervention types, such as pharmacological treatment ( Table 1 and eTable 1 and eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ). Moreover, 15 of the mega-trials were open-label, 29 , 37 , 47 , 57 , 68 , 73 , 79 - 81 , 86 , 87 , 90 , 102 , 105 , 106 while the remaining 65 mega-trials were double-blinded, and 2 trials employed varying degrees of masking ( Table 1 ). Of all the mega-trials, 14 29 , 44 , 47 , 52 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 79 , 81 , 87 , 97 , 102 , 106 , 152 were judged at high risk of bias. A total of 32 mega-trials 29 , 30 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 45 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 60 , 64 , 69 , 71 , 73 , 76 , 78 - 80 , 82 , 85 , 87 , 90 , 92 , 96 , 101 , 102 , 105 , 106 had statistically significant results at P  < .05 for the primary outcome (30 favoring the intervention group) and only 17 29 , 33 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 58 , 61 , 69 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 86 , 99 , 101 , 106 had statistically significant results at P  < .05 for all-cause mortality (13 favoring the intervention group) ( Table 1 and eTable 1 and eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ).

A total of 35 comparisons of mega-trials vs other trials were available, 110 - 138 yielding a total of 85 point estimates coming from 69 unique mega-trials. 29 - 62 , 64 - 106 , 109 , 152 These 69 mega-trials yielded a median (IQR) of 15 715 (12 530-20 114) participants ( Table 2 ). The total number of smaller trials across these 35 mega-trials was 272 (median [range], 6 [1-45] smaller trials) ( Table 2 ). There was a median (IQR) of 1639 (297-4128) participants across the 35 studies from the smaller trials. Of the 272 smaller trials, 133 were published before or up to the year of the first mega-trial of the respective topic. In 7 meta-analyses, 110 , 114 , 117 , 121 , 124 , 132 , 137 the cumulative sample size of all the other smaller trials exceeded the cumulative sample size of the mega-trials ( Table 2 ).

Detailed information with forest plots on all of the 35 meta-analyses 110 - 138 appears in eAppendix 4 in Supplement 1 . In the summary analysis, there was no noteworthy discrepancy observed between the results of the mega-trials and those of smaller trials (summary ROR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04; I 2  = 0.0; P for heterogeneity = .48) (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1 ). There were 2 instances when disagreement between the mega-trials and the respective smaller trials was beyond chance; the first 112 was comparing ivabradine with placebo for major adverse cardiovascular event (ROR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00-1.47), and the second 126 was a comparison of new adenosine diphosphate receptor agonist with clopidogrel for myocardial infarction (ROR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95). ,

A total of 26 comparisons of mega-trials vs other trials were available. 112 - 115 , 118 , 119 , 122 , 127 , 128 , 130 , 133 , 134 , 136 , 138 - 145 and 70 estimates coming from 65 unique mega-trials 29 , 32 - 35 , 37 - 47 , 49 - 54 , 56 - 62 , 64 - 67 , 69 , 70 , 72 - 74 , 76 - 83 , 85 , 87 - 89 , 92 - 96 , 99 , 101 - 107 , 109 , 152 were considered in these comparisons ( Table 3 ). The median (IQR) total number of participants in all of the mega-trials was 15 919 (12 524-18 857).

The total number of smaller trials in these 26 meta-analyses was 268 (median [range] per meta-analysis, 6 [1-47] smaller trials). There was a median (IQR) of 1132 (250-4038) participants from smaller trials. Of the 268 smaller trials, 117 were published before or up to the year of the first mega-trial of the respective topic. In 5 meta-analyses, 132 , 139 - 141 , 144 the cumulative number of participants in the other smaller trials exceeded the total number of participants in the mega-trials ( Table 3 ). Comprehensive details and forest plots about the 26 meta-analyses appear in eAppendix 5 in Supplement 1 .

In the summary analysis, no difference existed between the outcomes of the mega-trials and those of the smaller trials (summary ROR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04; I 2  = 0.0%; P for heterogeneity = .60) (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1 ). In one instance testing effects of anti-inflammatory vs placebo in patients with coronary artery diseases, 128 the results differed beyond chance between mega-trials and the other smaller trials (ROR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97), with mega-trial showing no effect but meta-analysis of smaller trials showing an increased risk.

Smaller trials showed significantly larger effects for the primary outcome when compared with mega-trials when they were published before the first megatrial (ROR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10), and similar direction but nonsignificant effect for all-cause mortality (ROR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09) ( Figure 2 , A and B). Results of smaller trials published before the mega-trial showed significantly higher benefits as compared with smaller trials published subsequently for primary outcome (ROR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18) and similar outcomes for all-cause mortality (ROR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15) (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1 ).

No difference was seen when results were pooled using fixed effects, having a threshold of 30 000 participants using HKSJ random effects. Other subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also nonrevealing (eTable 3 and eFigures 4-13 in Supplement 1 ). No small-study effects were found for the meta-analyses for the primary outcome and 1 meta-analysis 140 had a significant small-study effects result for all-cause mortality.

In total, we analyzed and/or described the results from 120 mega-trials. Of the 120, 41 showed a significant result for the primary outcome (33 of which favored intervention over control) and 22 showed a significant result for all-cause mortality ( and 18 of which favored intervention over control). For the 17 studies with noninferiority designs, 15 had reached noninferiority and 2 had significantly better results in the experimental group vs the control group for the primary outcome ( Table 1 and eTable 1 and eTable 2 in Supplement 1 ).

Overall, this meta-analysis of mega-trials found that outcomes from meta-analyses of other smaller clinical trials aligned on average with those of mega-trials in the clinical studies that we examined. This finding could be partly explained by the relatively large sample size of the smaller trials. However, mega-trials tended to have less favorable results than the smaller trials that preceded them timewise, and smaller trials published after the mega-trials tended to have less favorable results than the smaller trials published before the mega-trials and aligned with the mega-trials. Most mega-trials do not show statistically significant benefits for the primary outcome of interest, and statistically significant benefits for mortality are rare. Mega-trials are not available for most medical studies. Given that small trials and their meta-analyses may give unreliable, inflated estimates of benefit, mega-trials, or at least substantially large trials with sufficient power, may need to be considered and performed more frequently.

The diminished benefits in late smaller trials vs early small trials were also consistent with prior meta-research studies 146 that have shown that the reported effects of interventions change over time, with wider oscillations of results in early studies. It has been observed that it is more frequent for treatment effects to decrease rather than increase over time. 147 - 149 In our examined studies, the mega-trials may have corrected some inflated effects seen in the earlier trials that preceded them. Then, the subsequent trials might have been more aligned with what the mega-trials had shown because the mega-trials are likely to have been considered very influential.

Previous meta-research assessments have shown different levels of agreement between the results of meta-analyses of smaller trials and large clinical trials. For example, Cappelleri et al 11 reported compatible results of meta-analysis of smaller studies with the results of large trials, although discrepancies in their results were found in up to 10% of the cases. However, other meta-studies on this topic 13 showed larger differences with a discrepancy rate of up to 39%. These previous studies used a definition of a large trial having enrolled 1000 participants or more. In contrast, we used a sample size of 10 000 participants to define a mega-trial, and therefore had a larger power to detect effects.

This study has limitations. Several early mega-trials are not included in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Nevertheless, we were able to identify several of these trials because they were included in the meta-analyses of other mega-trials, and they were considered in our calculations.

Our comparative results vs smaller trials still did not include all mega-trials, because for some mega-trials retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov, we found no relevant meta-analysis where they had been included. However, we did examine the main conclusions of these mega-trials and they also had low rates of statistically significant results. Therefore, we can conclude that mega-trials in general tend to give negative results for tested interventions.

Mega-trials may have, on average, more pragmatic designs than smaller trials. The different eligibility criteria and different populations of participants enrolled in mega-trials vs smaller trials may create differences in effect sizes. Addressing such differences in case-mix heterogeneity would require individual-level data.

Mega-trials are unlikely to be launched unless there is genuine equipoise. Nevertheless, the low rate of significant benefits, as opposed to the much higher rates of favorable results seen in typical phase 3 trials, is remarkable. 150 Previous research found more favorable results in industry-funded research. 150 , 151 Finally, our analyses depend on the accuracy and quality of data extracted from the included meta-analyses.

In this meta-research analysis, meta-analyses of smaller studies showed, in general, comparable results with mega-trials, but smaller trials published before the mega-trials gave more favorable results than the mega-trials. Mega-trials are done very sparingly to date, but it would be beneficial to add more of these trials to the clinical research armamentarium. 152 , 153

Accepted for Publication: July 12, 2024.

Published: September 6, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32296

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2024 Kastrati L et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd, M/C 5411, Stanford, CA 94305 ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Drs Kastrati and Ioannidis had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Kastrati, Muka, Ioannidis.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kastrati, Quezada-Pinedo, Khatami, Ahanchi, Muka, Ioannidis.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Kastrati, Raeisi-Dehkordi, Llanaj, Quezada-Pinedo, Khatami, Llane, Meçani, Muka, Ioannidis.

Statistical analysis: Kastrati, Llanaj, Quezada-Pinedo, Khatami, Llane, Muka, Ioannidis.

Obtained funding: Ahanchi.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Quezada-Pinedo, Ahanchi.

Supervision: Ioannidis.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Muka reported receiving grants from Merz Aesthetics; personal fees from Merz Aesthetics; and serving as cofounder and CEO at Epistudia GmbH outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by an unrestricted gift from Sue and Bob O’Donnell to Stanford University (to Dr Ioannidis), the Swiss Government (scholarship for excellence to Dr Kastrati), University of Bern, and Insel Spital (funding to Dr Kastrati).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer, according to a major review of 28 years of research

Director Radiation Research and Advice, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Wollongong

Assistant Director, Health Impact Assessment, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and Adjunct Associate Professor (Practice), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Sarah Loughran receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC). She is the Director of Radiation Research and Advice at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), a member of the Scientific Expert Group at the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and a member of the World Health Organisation Task Group on Radiofrequency Fields and Health Risks.

Ken Karipidis is the Assistant Director of Health Impact Assessment at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and he is also the Vice Chair of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

University of Wollongong provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

A systematic review into the potential health effects from radio wave exposure has shown mobile phones are not linked to brain cancer. The review was commissioned by the World Health Organization and is published today in the journal Environment International .

Mobile phones are often held against the head during use. And they emit radio waves, a type of non-ionising radiation . These two factors are largely why the idea mobile phones might cause brain cancer emerged in the first place.

The possibility that mobile phones might cause cancer has been a long-standing concern. Mobile phones – and wireless tech more broadly – are a major part of our daily lives. So it’s been vital for science to address the safety of radio wave exposure from these devices.

Over the years, the scientific consensus has remained strong – there’s no association between mobile phone radio waves and brain cancer, or health more generally.

Radiation as a possible carcinogen

Despite the consensus, occasional research studies have been published that suggested the possibility of harm.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio wave exposure as a possible carcinogen to humans . The meaning of this classification was largely misunderstood and led to some increase in concern.

IARC is part of the World Health Organization. Its classification of radio waves as a possible carcinogen was largely based on limited evidence from human observational studies. Also known as epidemiological studies, they observe the rate of disease and how it may be caused in human populations.

Observational studies are the best tool researchers have to investigate long-term health effects in humans, but the results can often be biased.

The IARC classification relied on previous observational studies where people with brain cancer reported they used a mobile phone more than they actually did. One example of this is known as the INTERPHONE study .

This new systematic review of human observational studies is based on a much larger data set compared to what the IARC examined in 2011.

It includes more recent and more comprehensive studies. This means we can now be more confident that exposure to radio waves from mobile phones or wireless technologies is not associated with an increased risk of brain cancer.

No association

The new review forms part of a series of systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization to look more closely at possible health effects associated with exposure to radio waves.

This systematic review provides the strongest evidence to date that radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health.

It is the most comprehensive review on this topic – it considered more than 5,000 studies, of which 63, published between 1994 and 2022, were included in the final analysis. The main reason studies were excluded was that they were not actually relevant; this is very normal with search results from systematic reviews.

No association between mobile phone use and brain cancer, or any other head or neck cancer, was found.

There was also no association with cancer if a person used a mobile phone for ten or more years (prolonged use). How often they used it – either based on the number of calls or the time spent on the phone – also didn’t make a difference.

Importantly, these findings align with previous research . It shows that, although the use of wireless technologies has massively increased in the past few decades, there has been no rise in the incidence of brain cancers.

A good thing

Overall, the results are very reassuring. They mean that our national and international safety limits are protective. Mobile phones emit low-level radio waves below these safety limits, and there is no evidence exposure to these has an impact on human health.

Despite this, it is important that research continues. Technology is developing at a rapid pace. With this development comes the use of radio waves in different ways using different frequencies. It is therefore essential that science continues to ensure radio wave exposure from these technologies remains safe.

The challenge we now face is making sure this new research counteracts the persistent misconceptions and misinformation out there regarding mobile phones and brain cancer.

There remains no evidence of any established health effects from exposures related to mobile phones, and that is a good thing.

• Wireless technology
• Mobile phones
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• Brain cancer
• Mobile technology
• New research, Australia New Zealand

Service Centre Senior Consultant

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

• Arnold School of Public Health
• Location Location
• Contact Contact
• Colleges and Schools
• Centers, Institutes and More
• Rural and Minority Health Research Center
• Peer Reviewed Publications

Peer Reviewed Publications, Posters and Presentations

Reports and briefs are aimed at community and policy audiences. Listed here are research products we have placed within the scientific literature in the past five years. In addition, presentations and posters from recent conferences are highlighted.

Peer Reviewed Publications 2024

Benavidez G, Zahnd WE, Hung P, Eberth JM. Chronic Disease Prevalence in the US: Sociodemographic and Geographic Variations by Zip Code Tabulation Area. Preventing Chronic Disease Volume 21 E14 February 2024 ; 21:230267. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd21.230267 View Journal Article

Kilpatrick   DJ ,  Hung   P ,  Crouch   E ,  Self   S ,  Cothran   J ,  Porter   DE  &  Eberth   JM  ( 2024 ).  Geographic variations in urban-rural particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations in the United States, 2010–2019 .  GeoHealth ,  8 ,e2023GH000920. View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Hung P, Crouch EL, Ranganathan R, Eberth JM. Health care access barriers among metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations of eight geographically diverse states, 2018 . J Rural Health. 2024;1-10. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2023

Bell N, Hung P, Lòpez-De Fede A, Adams SA. Broadband access within Medically Underserved Areas and its implication for telehealth utilization. Journal of Rural Health. 2023 Jan 4. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12738. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36599620. IF: 5.667 View Journal Article

Boswell, E., Richard, C., Crouch, E., Jones, A., Dugger, R., Cordan, K. (2023). Home Visiting Program Participation and Healthcare Utilization amongst Children Enrolled in South Carolina Medicaid, 2017-2021. Journal of Health Visiting. View Journal Article

Brown, M., Amoatika, D., Addo, P., Kaur, A., Haider, M., Merrell, M., Crouch, E. (2023). Childhood Sexual Trauma and Subjective Cognitive Decline: An Assessment of Racial/Ethnic and Sexual Orientation Disparities. Journal of Applied Gerontology. P. 07334648231175299. View Journal Article

Chang W, Lo Y, Mazzotti VL, Rowe DA, Hung P. Perceptions of parents of youth with disabilities toward school-based parent engagement. Journal of Family Studies. 2023; 4(29): 1847-1867. Doi: 10.1080/13229400.2022.2098805. IF: 2.267 View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Abshire, D., Wirth, M., Hung, P., Benavidez, G. (2023). Rural-Urban Differences in Overweight and obesity, physical activity, and food security among children and adolescents. Preventing Chronic Disease. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Andersen, T., Smith, H. (2023). Adverse Childhood Experiences and Positive Childhood Experiences among United States Children: A National Security Concern. Military Medicine. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Figas, K., Radcliff, E., Hunt, E. (2023). Examining bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, and positive childhood experiences. Journal of School Health. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Hung, P., Benavidez, G., Giannouchos, T., Brown, M. (2023). Rural-Urban Differences in Access to Care among children and adolescents in the United States. The Journal of Rural Health. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Nelson, D., Radcliff, E., Workman, L, Browder, J., McClam, M. (2023). Factors Influencing Home Visiting Client Attrition in a Southern State. Journal of Health Visiting. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Probst, J., Radcliff, E. (2023). Changes in Positive Childhood Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic Pediatrics. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Bennett, K., Brown, M., Hung, P. (2023). Child and Adolescent Health in the United States: the Role of Adverse and Positive Childhood Experiences. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Brown, M., and Hung, M. (2023).  Association between positive childhood experiences and childhood flourishing among US children. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 44(4), e255-e262. 

Elmore, A., Crouch, E. (2023). Anxiety, Depression, and Adverse Childhood Experience: An Update on Risks and Protective Factors Among Children and Youth. Academic Pediatrics. 23 (4), 720-721.  

Figas*, K., Giannouchos, T, Crouch, E. (2023). Child and Adolescent Anxiety and Depression Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 1-11  

Giannouchos TV, Li Z, Hung P, Li X, Olatosi B. Rural-Urban Disparities in Hospital Admissions and Mortality Among Patients with COVID-19: Evidence from South Carolina from 2021 to 2022. J Community Health. 2023 Oct;48(5):824-833. doi: 10.1007/s10900-023-01216-6. Epub 2023 May 3. PMID: 37133745; PMCID: PMC10154180. IF: 3.497 Vew Journal Article

Hung P, Granger M, Boghossian N, Yu J, Harrison S, Liu J, Campbell BA, Cai BO, Liang C, Li X. Dual Barriers: Examining Digital Access and Travel Burdens to Hospital Maternity Care Access in the United States, 2020. Milbank Quarterly. 2023 Dec;101(4):1327-1347. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12668. Epub 2023 Aug 23. PMID: 37614006. IF: 8.964 View Journal Article

Hung P, Probst JC, Shih Y, Ranganathan R, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. Rural-urban disparities in inpatient psychiatric care quality in the United States. Psychiatric Services. 2023 May 1;74(5):446-454. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.20220277. PMID: 36321319. IF: 6.157 View Journal Article

Julceus EF, Olatosi B, Hung P, Zhang J, Li X, Liu J. Racial disparities in adequacy of prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Carolina, 2018-2021. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Sep 23;23(1):686. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05983-x. PMID: 37741980; PMCID: PMC10517534.IF: 3.8 View Journal Article

Li Z, Fu Y, Wang C, Sun H, Hung P. Trends in the availability of community-based psychological counseling services for oldest-old in China, 2005 to 2018. J Affect Disord. 2023 Jun 15;331:405-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.03.035. Epub 2023 Mar 20. PMID: 36940823. IF: 6.533 View Journal Article

Li Z, Ho V, Merrell MA, Hung P. Trends in patient perceptions of care toward rural and urban hospitals in the United States: 2014-2019. Journal of Rural Health. 2023 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12813. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38031505. IF: 5.667 View Journal Article

Li Z, Hung P, Shi K, Fu Y, Qian D. Association of rurality, type of primary caregiver and place of death with end-of-life medical expenditures among the oldest-old population in China. Int J Equity Health. 2023 Jan 3;22(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01813-2. PMID: 36597134; PMCID: PMC9809123. IF: 3.192 View Journal Article

Li Z, Merrell MA, Eberth JM, Wu D, Hung P. Successes and Barriers of Health Information Exchange Participation Across Hospitals in South Carolina From 2014 to 2020: Longitudinal Observational Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2023 Sep 28;11:e40959. doi: 10.2196/40959. PMID: 37768730; PMCID: PMC10570901. IF: 3.2 View Journal Article

Li Z, Xuan M, Gao Y, He R, Qian D, Hung P. Trends in the availability of community-based home visiting services for oldest-old in China, 2005-2018. BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 5;13(4):e070121. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070121. PMID: 37019484; PMCID: PMC10083737. IF:3.007  View Journal Article

Liu J, Hung P, Zhang J, Olatosi B, Campbell B, Liang C, Shih Y, Hikmet N, Li X. Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity in South Carolina during the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Epidemiology. 2023 Dec;88:51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2023.11.005. Epub 2023 Nov 10. PMID: 37952778. IF: 5.6 View Journal Article

Lyu T, Liang C, Liu J, Hung P, Zhang J, Campbell B, Ghumman N, Olatosi B, Hikmet N, Zhang M, Yi H, Li X; National COVID Cohort Collaborative Consortium. Risk for Stillbirth among Pregnant Individuals with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Varied by Gestational Age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb 28:S0002-9378(23)00132-1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.022. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36858096; PMCID: PMC9970919. IF:8.661 View Journal Article

Merrell, M., Crouch, E., Harrison, S., Brown, M., Brown, T., Pearson, W. (2023). Identifying the need for and availability of evidence-based care for sexually transmitted infections in rural primary clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. View Journal Article

Momodu*, O., Horner, R., Liu, J., Crouch, E., Chen, B. (2023). Participation in the Centering Pregnancy Program and Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. View Journal Article

Momodu, O., Horner, R., Liu, J., Crouch, E., Chen, B. (2023). Validation of Gestational Weight Gain Records on South Carolina Birth Certificate Data. Discover Health Systems. View Journal Article

Negaro SND, Hantman RM, Probst JC, Crouch E, Odahowski C, Andrews CM, Hung P. (2023). Geographic Variations in Driving Time to U.S. Mental Health Care, Digital Access to Technology, and Household Crowdedness. Health Affairs Scholar. View Journal Article

Probst, J., Crouch, E., and Hung, P. (2023). Increasing all-cause mortality in US children and adolescents.JAMA. View Journal Article

Shalowitz DI, Hung P, Zahnd WE, Eberth J. Pre-pandemic geographic access to hospital-based telehealth for cancer care in the United States. PLoS One. 2023 Jan 31;18(1):e0281071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281071. PMID: 36719889; PMCID: PMC9888704. IF: 3.752 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Hung P, Shi SK, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Probst JC, Eberth JM. Availability of hospital-based cancer services before and after rural hospital closure, 2008-2017. Journal of Rural Health. 2023 Mar;39(2):416-425. doi: 10.1111/jrh.12716. PMID: 36128753. IF: 5.667  View Journal Article

Zahnd, W., Silverman*, A., Self, S., Hung, P., Natafgi, N., Adams, S, Merrell, M., Owens, O., Crouch, E., Eberth, J. (2023). The COVID-19 Pandemic Effect on Independent and Provider-Based Rural Health Clinics’ Operations and Cancer Prevention and Screening Provision in the United States. The Journal of Rural Health. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2022

Bell N, Hung P, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. Changes in access to community health services among rural areas affected and unaffected by hospital closures between 2006 and 2018: A comparative interrupted timeseries study. J Rural Health. July 2022;1-11  View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Nelson, J., Radcliff, E., Merrell, M., and Martin, A. (2022).  Safe, Supportive Neighborhoods: Are they Associated With Childhood Oral Health? Journal of Public Health Dentistry. View Journal Article

Crouch EL, Probst JC, Shi SK, McLain AC, Eberth JM,Brown MJ, Merrell M, Bennett KJ. Examining the association between rurality and positive childhood experiences among a national sample. J Rural Health, 2022:1-8. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Browder, J., Workman, L., McClam, M. (2022). Assessing Supports Provided to Home Visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Health Visiting. 10(10),428-433. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Kelly, K., Merrell, M., and Bennett, K. (2022). Examining the influence of positive childhood experiences on childhood overweight and obesity using a national sample. Preventive Medicine, 154, 106907. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Merrell, M., Brown, M., and Bennett, K. (2022). A national examination of the association between poverty and interactive caregiving practices among parents of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-9. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Smith, H., Anderson, T. (2022). An examination of caregiver incarceration, positive childhood experiences, and school success. Children and Youth Services Review,133, 106345. View Journal Article

Crouch, E., Srivastav, A., Stafford, A. (2022). Examining Racial/Ethnic Differences in Positive Childhood Experiences among Respondents in a Southern States. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 1-8. View Journal Article

Culp F, Wu Y, Wu D, Ren Y, Raynor P, Hung P, Qiao S, Li X, Eichelberger K. Understanding Alcohol Use Discourse and Stigma Patterns in Perinatal Care on Twitter. Healthcare. 2022 Nov 26;10(12):2375. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10122375. PMID: 36553899. IF: 3.160 View Journal Article

Eberth JM, Hung P, Benavidez GA, Probst JC., Zahnd WE., McNatt MK., Toussaint E, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Oyesode OJ , Yell N. 2022. The Problem Of The Color Line: Spatial Access To Hospital Services For Minoritized Racial And Ethnic Groups: Study examines spatial access to hospital services for minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Health Affairs, 41(2), pp.237-246 View Journal Article

Giannouchos, T., Crouch, E., Merrell, M., Brown, M., Harrison, S., Pearson, W. (2022). Racial, ethnic, and rural/urban disparities in HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections, in South Carolina. Journal of Community Health. 48(1), 152-159. View Journal Article

Hung P,Cramer LD, Pollack CE, Gross CP, Wang SY. Primary care physician continuity, survival, and end-of-life care intensity. Health Serv Res. 2022 Aug;57(4):853-862. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13869. IF: 3.734 View Journal Article

Hung P, Liu J, Norregaard C, Shih Y, Liang C, Zhang J, Olatosi B, Campbell BA, Li X. Analysis of Residential Segregation and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Severe Maternal Morbidity Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Oct 3;5(10):e2237711. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37711. PMID: 36264572; PMCID: PMC9585430. IF: 13.37 View Journal Article

Hung P, Probst JC, Shih Y, Ranganathan R, Brown MJ, Crouch E, Eberth, JM. Rural-Urban Disparities in Quality of Inpatient Psychiatric Care. Psychiatric Services. 2 Nov 2022. View Journal Article

Hung P, Shi K, Probst JC, Zahnd WE, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch E, Eberth JM. Trends in Cancer Treatment Service Availability Across Critical Access Hospitals and Prospective Payment System Hospitals. Med Care. 2022 Mar 1;60(3):196-205. IF: 3.178 View Journal Article

Hung, P., Shih, Y., Ranganathan, R., Probst, J., Brown, M., Crouch, E., Eberth, J. (2022). Rural-urban disparities in inpatient psychiatric care quality. Psychiatric Services. View Journal Article

Liu J, Hung P, Liang C, Zhang J, Qiao S, Campbell BA, Olatosi B, Torres ME, Hikmet N, Li X. Multilevel determinants of racial/ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA: protocol for a concurrent triangulation, mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 10;12(6):e062294. IF: 2.692 View Journal Article

Mi T, Hung P, Li X, McGregor A, He J, Zhou J. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Postpartum Care in the Greater Boston Area During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2216355. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16355. PMID: 35737390; PMCID: PMC9226999. IF: 13.37 View Journal Article

Noochpoung R,Hung P, Hair NL, Putthasri W, Chen BK. Can a high-powered financial incentive programme reduce resignation rates among healthcare providers in rural areas? Evidence from Thailand's 2008 Hardship Allowance programme. Health Policy Plan. 2022 May 12;37(5):624-633. IF: 3.547 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Hung P, Shi SK, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Probst JC, Eberth JM. Availability of Hospital-Based Cancer Services Before and After Rural Hospital Closure, 2008-2017. The Journal of Rural Health. September 21, 2022. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2021

Adams SA, Zahnd WE, Ranganathan R, Hung P, Brown MJ, Truman S, Biesecker C, Kirksey VC, Eberth JM. Rural and racial disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in South Carolina, 1996 – 2016. J Rural Health. 2021;1-6. May 2021 View Journal Article . 

Benavidez GA, Zgodic A, Zahnd WE, Eberth JM. Disparities in Women Being Up to Date With Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Analysis of 2018 BRFSS Data. Annals of Epidemiology. April 2021 View Journal Article

Crouch, E, Radcliff, E, Merrell, MA , Brown, MJ, Ingram, LA, & Probst, J (2021). Racial/ethnic differences in positive childhood experiences across a national sample. Child abuse & neglect, 115, 105012.  View Journal Article

Eberth JM, Zahnd WE, Josey MJ, Schootman M, Hung P, Probst JC. Trends in spatial access to colonoscopy in South Carolina, 2000–2014. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology. 2021 Jun 1;37:100414. View Journal Article

Hung P, Cramer LD, Pollack CE, Gross CP, Wang S-Y. Primary care physician continuity, survival, and end-of-life care intensity. Health Serv Res. 2021; 1-10. View Journal Article

Hung P, Shih Y-W, Brown MJ, Crouch E. Suicide Prevention Programs Across U.S. Outpatient Mental Health Care Settings: Differences by Facility Ownership. Psychiatric Services. 2021; 72:998-1005. View Journal Article

Hung P, Shi K, Probst JC, Zahnd WE, Zgodic A, Merrell MA, Crouch E, Eberth JM. Trends in Cancer Treatment Service Availability Across Critical Access Hospitals and Prospective Payment System Hospitals. Med Care. 2022 Mar 1;60(3):196-205. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001635. PMID: 34432764. View Journal Article

Li Z, Harrison SE, Li X, Hung P. Telepsychiatry adoption across hospitals in the United States: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. (2021) 21:182. View Journal Article

Liu J, Hung P, Alberg AJ, Hair NL, Whitaker KM, Simons J, Taylor SK. Mental health among pregnant women with COVID-19-related stressors and worries in the United States. Wiley Periodicals LLC. 2021; 48:470-479. View Journal Article

McGregor AJ, Hung P, Garman D, Amutah-Onukagha N, Cooper JA. Obstetrical unit closures and racial and ethnic differences in severe maternal morbidity in the state of New Jersey. AM J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021; 3:100480. View Journal Article

Merrell MA, Betley C, Crouch E, Hung P, Stockwell I, Middleton A, Pearson WS. Screening and Treatment of Sexually Transmitted Infections among Medicaid Populations-A Two-State Analysis. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Jan 2021. View Journal Article

Merrell MA, Crouch E, Browder J, Workman L, Wilson M, Malbouf A, Silverman A. Home visiting caregiver satisfaction and engagement in South Carolina. Journal of Health Visiting, 9(6), 253-259. June 2021 View Journal Article

Mitchell J, Probst JC, Li X. The Association between Hospital Care Transition Planning and Timely Primary Care Follow Up.          J Rural Health, epub 10 Jun 2021;1–6Mitchell J, Probst JC, Li X. The Association between Hospital Care Transition Planning and Timely Primary Care Follow Up. J Rural Health, epub 10 Jun 2021;1–6  View Journal Article

Probst JC, Crouch EL, Eberth JM.  COVID-19 risk mitigation behaviors among rural and urban community-dwelling older adults in summer, 2020. J Rural Health, 2021; 37: 473-478 View Journal Article

Purser J, Harrison S, Hung P. Going the distance: Associations between adverse birth outcomes and obstetric provider distances for adolescent pregnancies in South Carolina. Journal of Rural Health. 2021; 1-9. View Journal Article

Shi K, Hung P, Wang S-Y. Associations Among Health Literacy, End-of-Life Care Expenditures, and Rurality.  The Journal of Rural Health.  37(2021) 517-525. View Journal Article

White AL, Merrell MA. Exploring contraceptive care practices at Rural Health Clinics in the southern United States. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare Volume 29, September 2021, 100629, ISSN 1877-5756, View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Bell N, Larson AE. Geographic, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic  inequities in broadband access.  The Journal of Rural Health  November 18, 2021. View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Murphy C, Knoll M, Benavidez GA, Day KR, Ranganathan R, Luke P, Zgodic A, Shi K, Merrell MA, Crouch EL, Brandt HM, Eberth JM. The Intersection of Rural Residence and Minority Race/Ethnicity in Cancer Disparities in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(4):1384. View Journal Article

Zgodic A, Eberth JM, Breneman C, Wende ME, Kaczynski AT, Liese AD, McLain AC. Estimates of Childhood Overweight and Obesity at the Region, State, and County Levels: A Multilevel Small Area Estimation Approach. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 16:kwab176. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwab176. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34132329. View Journal Article

Zgodic A. Eberth JM, Smith BD, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, McKinley BP, Horner RD, O'Rourke MA, Blackhurst DW, Hudson MF. Multilevel predictors of guideline concordant needle biopsy use for non-metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. August 2021. View Journal Article

Peer Reviewed Publications 2020

Biesecker C, Zahnd WE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Eberth JM. A Bivariate Mapping Tutorial for Cancer Control Resource Allocation Decisions and Interventions. Preventing Chronic Disease.  January 2020  View Journal Article .

Crouch, E., Radcliff, E., Merrell, M. A., & Bennett, K. J. (2020). Rural‐urban differences in positive childhood experiences across a national sample. The Journal of Rural Health, 37(3), 495-503. View Journal Article

Haynes E, Crouch E, Probst  J, Radcliff E, Bennett K, & Glover S. (2020). Exploring the association between a parent’s exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and outcomes of depression and anxiety among their children. Children and Youth Services Review, 105013. June 2020  View Journal Article

Hung P, Zahnd WE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Wang S, Eberth JM. Cervical cancer treatment initiation and survival: The role of residential proximity to cancer care. Gynecologic Oncology.  October 2020  View Journal Article

Kaczynski AT, Eberth JM, Stowe EW, Wende ME, Liese AD, McLain AC, Breneman CB, Josey MJ. Development of a national childhood obesogenic environment index in the United States: differences by region and rurality. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity .  July 2020  View Journal Article .

Merrell MA, Probst JC, Crouch E,  Abshire DA, McKinney SH, Haynes EE.  A National Survey of RN-to-BSN Programs: Are They Reaching Rural Students? Journal of Nursing Education. October 2020  View Journal Article

 Odahowski CL, Crouch EL, Zahnd WE, Probst JC, McKinney SH, Abshire DA. Rural-urban differences in educational attainment among registered nurses: Implications for achieving an 80% BSN workforce. Journal of Professional Nursing. May 2020   View Journal Article

Ranganathan R, Zahnd WE, Harrison SE, Brandt HM, Adams SA, Eberth JM. Spatial Access to Vaccines for Children Providers in South Carolina: Implications for HPV Vaccination. Preventing Chronic Disease December 2020;17:200300. View Journal Article

Wende ME, Stowe EW, Eberth JM, McLain AC, Liese AD, Breneman CB, Josey MJ, Hughey SM, Kaczynski AT. Spatial clustering patterns and regional variations for food and physical activity environments across the United States. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. January 2020   View Journal Article

Zahnd, WE, Gomez, SL; Steck, SE; Brown, MJ; Ganai, S; Zhang, J; Adams, SA; Berger, FG; Eberth JM. Rural Urban and Racial/Ethnic Trends and Disparities in Early-Onset and Average-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Cancer. October 2020  View Journal Article  

Zahnd, WE, Josey, MJ, Schootman, M, Eberth, JM. Spatial accessibility to colonoscopy and its role in predicting late‐stage colorectal cancer. Health Serv Res. 2020; 00: 1– 11.  View Journal Article

Zahnd WE, Harrison SE, Stephens HC, Messersmith AR, Brandt HM, Hastings TJ, Eberth JM. Expanding access to HPV vaccination in South Carolina through community pharmacies: A geospatial analysis. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. June 2020  View Journal Article  

Zahnd WE, Crouch EL, Probst JC, Hunt McKinney S, Abshire DA, Eberth JM.  Factors Associated With Perceived Job Preparedness Among RNs, JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration. May 2020 View Journal Article

Zahnd WE.  Appropriate considerations of "rural" in National Cancer Data Base analyses, Cancer. April  2020  View Letter to the Editor

Peer Reviewed Publications 2019

Breneman C*, Probst JC, Crouch E, Eberth JM. (2019) Assessing change in physician practice organization profile in South Carolina: a longitudinal study. Journal of Rural Health. Epub ahead of print on April 15, 2019. DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12367

Crouch E, Nelson J, Radcliff E, Martin A (2019) Exploring associations between adverse childhood experiences and oral health among children and adolescents.  The Journal of Public Health Dentistry  2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12341. [Epub ahead of print]

Crouch E, Probst JC, Radcliff E, Bennett KJ, McKinney SH (2019) Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among US children. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2019 Jun;92:209-218. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.010. Epub 2019 Apr 16.

Crouch E, Radcliff E, Hung P, Bennett KJ (2019) Challenges to School Success and the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences. Academic Pediatrics. 2019 19(8):899-907

Hung P, Deng S*, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, Olatosi B, Crouch EL, Eberth JM. Geographic disparities in residential proximity to colorectal and cervical cancer care providers. Cancer. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32594. [Epub ahead of print]PMID: 31702829 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Hung P, Wang S, Hsu SH. Associations between end-of-life expenditures and hospice stay length vary by clinical condition and expenditure duration. Value in Health (2019). In Press

Hung P, Wang S, Killelea BK, Mougalian SS, Evans SB, Sedghi T, and Gross CP. Long term outcomes of sentinel lymph node biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 3, no 4 (2019). View Journal Article

Eberth JM, Crouch E, Josey MJ*, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, Stiles B, Schootman M. (2019) Rural-urban differences in access to thoracic surgery in the United States, 2010-2014. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. June 22, 2019. pii: S0003-4975(19)30879-3. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.113. [Epub ahead of print]

Liese AD, Ma X, Reid L, Sutherland M, Bell BA, Eberth JM, Probst JC, Turley CB, Mayer-Davis EJ. (2019) Health Care Access and Glycemic Control in Youth and Young Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in South Carolina. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019 Jan 22. doi: 10.1111/pedi.12822. [Epub ahead of print]

Odahowski CL, Zahnd WE, Eberth JM. (2019) Challenges and Opportunities for Lung Cancer Screening in Rural America. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2019-04-01, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 590-595

Odahowski CL, Zahnd WE, Zgodic A*, Edward JS, Hill LN, Davis MM, Perry CK, Shannon J, Wheeler SB, Vanderpool RC, Eberth JM. Financial hardship among rural cancer survivors: An analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Preventive Medicine.  2019 Nov 11:105881. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105881. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 31727380 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Probst J, Zahnd W, Breneman C. Declines in pediatric mortality fall short for rural US children. Health Affairs, 2019 November. 10-1377.

Probst J, Eberth JM, Crouch E. Structural Urbanism Contributes To Poorer Health Outcomes For Rural America. Health Affairs, 2019 Dec 38(12), 1976-1984.

Radcliff E, Crouch E, Strompolis M, Srivastav A. (2019) Homelessness in Childhood and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2019 Jun;23(6):811-820. doi: 10.1007/s10995-018-02698-w

Spencer, J.C., Rotter, J.S., Eberth, J.M., Zahnd, W.E., Vanderpool, R.C., Ko, L.K., Davis, M.M., Troester, M.A., Olshan, A.F. and Wheeler, S.B., Employment changes following breast cancer diagnosis: the effects of race and place. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2019 Oct. 

Srivastav A, Spencer M, Thrasher JF, Strompolis M, Crouch E, Davis RE. Addressing Health and Well-Being Through State Policy: Understanding Barriers and Opportunities for Policy-Making to Prevent Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in South Carolina. American Journal of Health Promotion.  2019 Oct 9:890117119878068. doi: 10.1177/0890117119878068. [Epub ahead of print]

Zahnd WE, Askelson N, Vanderpool RC, Stradtman L, Edward J, Farris PE,... & Eberth, J. M. (2019). Challenges of using nationally representative, population-based surveys to assess rural cancer disparities. Preventive medicine, 105812.

Zahnd WE*, David MM, Rotter JS, Vanderpool RC, Perry CK, Shannon J, Ko LK, Wheeler SB, Odahowski C*, Farris PE, Eberth JM+. (2019) Rural-urban differences in financial burden among cancer survivors: an analysis of a nationally representative survey. Supportive Care in Cancer. (2019) 27: 4779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04742-z

Zahnd WE*, Eberth JM+. (2019) Lung cancer screening utilization with low-dose computed tomography: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2017. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Epub ahead of print on June 24, 2019

Zahnd WE, McLafferty SL, Eberth JM (2019). Multilevel analysis in rural cancer control: A conceptual framework and methodological implications. Preventive medicine, 105835.

Posters 2022

COVID-19's Impact on Telehealth Usage in Rural Health Clinics Across the United States (April 2022)

Disparities in Chronic Disease Burden: Understanding Community Context (April 2022)

Examining the Influence of Positive Childhood Experiences on Childhood Overweight and Obesity (April 2022)

Rural-Urban Differences in Access to Mental Health Care Facilities in the United States (April 2022)

Rural-Urban and Racial Disparities in HIV and STIs in South Carolina from 2019 to 2021 (April 2022)

Posters 2021

Application of Spatial Methods to Examine Spatial Access to Vaccine for Children Providers in South Carolina - Big Data Health Science Center Conference

Home Visiting Client Satisfaction and Engagement: Findings from a South Carolina MIECHV Evaluation

Job Satisfaction Among Nurses and Healthcare Quality (October 2021)

Post-Stratification in Contexts where Strata Population Counts are Unavailable - American Statistical Association Conference on Statistical Practice

Posters 2020

Disparities in cancer screening among women in the United States [PDF] - ACE Annual Meeting

Impact of Patient Metropolitan Status and Facility Region on Disparities in Needle Biopsy Receipt for Breast Cancer Diagnosis [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Rural and Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality in South Carolina, 1996-2016 [PDF] - ACE Annual Meeting

Posters 2019

The Association of a Rural Hospital Closure with 30-Day Post Hospital Discharge Mortality from Selected Conditions [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Development of a County-Level Childhood Obesogenic Environment Index across the United States [PDF] - International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity Annual Meeting

Educational Gaps a Barrier to Rural Nursing Practice [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Financial Hardship among Rural Cancer Survivors in the United States [PDF] - Annual ASPO Conference

Financial Problems among Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Geographic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening in the U.S. [PDF] - Annual APSO Conference

Home & Guns: Rural-Urban Differences in Firearm Storage [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Mapping Cervical Cancer Access and Prevention in SC [PDF] - NRHA Health Equity Conference

Temporal Trends in Spatial Access to Colonoscopy in South Carolina [On-line Only] - Annual ASPO Conference

Urban-Rural Disparities in Residential Access to Colorectal and Cervical Cancer Care Specialists [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Presentations

Presentations 2022.

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Reversing 20 years of rural mortality improvement (April 2022)

Geographic and Ethnic Disparities Among U.S. - Mexico Border Residents (April 2022)

A Quality Improvement Initiative Addressing STI Services Provided in Rural South Carolina Primary Care Clinics (October 2022)

Roles of Race and Residence on the Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Infections in South Carolina Improving STD Prevention and Care Through Partnerships (December 2022)

Rural Cancer Prevention and Control Activities in S.C. (April 2022)

Rural-Urban Differences in Adverse and Positive Childhood Experiences (March 2022)

Rural Urban Disparities in Inpatient Psychiatric Care Quality (April and June 2022)

Presentations 2021

Access to Vaccine for Children Providers and HPV Vaccination in Rural Children and Adolescents (June 2021)

Everyday Discrimination: Residential Displacement and Mental Health (October 2021)

Examining Racial and Ethnic Group Composition and Availability of Grocery Store Outlets by Geography in South Carolina (April 2021)  

Impact Data System FAQs and MIECHV Performance Measure Tips - Virtual Performance Measures Workshop for MIECHV

Midlands Healthy Start Program: Assisting At-Risk and Diverse Pregnant and Postpartum Women, Infants, and Fathers

Multilevel Influences of Cancer Inequities at the Intersection of Rurality and Race/Ethnicity

Nutrition Symposium Presentation (April 2021)

Practice Based Experience: Looking at How Grocery Store Locations Impact Food Insecurity (April 2021)  

Responding To Addiction In Rural Communities (August 2021)

The Role of Rural Health Clinics in Cancer Care across the Continuum (December 2021)  

Understanding the South Carolina Home Visiting Needs Assessment (April 2021)

Presentations 2020

Cancer Surveillance and Access to Care in Rural America [PDF]

Disproportionate Burden of Cervical Cancer Survival By Race and Rurality in South Carolina, 2001 - 2016 [PDF] - AACR Virtual Conference

Factors Associated With Lung Cancer Screening In Urban Vs. Rural Individuals At Risk For Lung Cancer [PDF] - NRHA Annual Conference

Rural urban and racial disparities in colorectal cancer survival among the residents of South Carolina, 2001 - 2016 [PDF] - AACR Virtual Conference  

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.