key points to writing a literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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 April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

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.

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

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

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

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

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

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

Write a Literature Review

Writing support on campus, need more help.

Photo Credit: UO Libraries

Some points to remember

• Include only the most important points from each source -- you want to digest, not quote from, the sources.
• The value of the review for you audience will consist in a clear, well-organized synopsis of what has been found so far on your topic. 
• Avoid plagiarism in your lit review. Consult this UO Libraries tutorial on Academic Integrity if you need some guidance.

If you would like more pointers about how to approach your literature review, this this handout from The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill  suggests several effective strategies.

From UNC-Chapel Hill  and  University of Toronto

Note : Please check the websites below for availability of online or remote services:

• Writing Lab Service Customized academic assistance for all international students
• How to Write a Literature Review (UO Libraries tutorial)
• Exploring Academic Integrity in Your Research

If you have questions related to a field or discipline, consider reaching out to a Subject Librarian by email, phone, or by scheduling an appointment for a free consultation:

• Subject Librarians
• << Previous: 6. Synthesize
• Last Updated: Jan 10, 2024 4:46 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

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

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

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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Africa’s postdoc workforce is on the rise — but at what cost?

Career Feature 02 APR 24

Impact factors are outdated, but new research assessments still fail scientists

World View 02 APR 24

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Allow researchers with caring responsibilities ‘promotion pauses’ to make research more equitable

Will the Gates Foundation’s preprint-centric policy help open access?

News 04 APR 24

The corpse of an exploded star and more — March’s best science images

News 28 MAR 24

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

POSTDOCTORAL Fellow -- DEPARTMENT OF Surgery – BIDMC, Harvard Medical School

The Division of Urologic Surgery in the Department of Surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School invites applicatio...

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Director of Research

Applications are invited for the post of Director of Research at Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu (IN)

Cancer Institute (W.I.A)

Postdoctoral Fellow in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Join Atomic Lab in Boston as a postdoc in human immunology for universal flu vaccine project. Expertise in cytometry, cell sorting, scRNAseq.

Boston University Atomic Lab

Research Associate - Neuroscience and Respiratory Physiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Histology Laboratory Manager

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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. 

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content, word choice problems: how to use the right..., how to avoid plagiarism when using generative ai..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., types of plagiarism and 6 tips to avoid..., how to write an essay introduction (with examples)..., similarity checks: the author’s guide to plagiarism and....

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

How to Write a Literature Review

Start drafting.

It’s time to start drafting your paper. Follow the structure from your outline and start filling in the missing parts. Get out your notes and remind yourself of the sources you plan to talk about. You don’t have to write your paper from beginning to end in order–you can go to the parts that feel the easiest and start there. Here are some places you can start:

Bullet-Point Draft

With a Bullet-Point draft you take the ideas you’ve been outlining and fill them in with more details but only in bullet-point form. The beauty of bullet points is that they keep you from getting caught up in the language and style and allow you to focus simply on your main points. You can smooth out the sentences and transitions later, but for now, just get your ideas on the page.

Write the Introduction

Another way to get started is to write the Introduction. You already have a thesis statement, so now you can start introducing your topic and its importance, setting up your literature review.

Write a Body Paragraph

Or a third place to start is to jump into writing a body paragraph that synthesizes your sources. Use your notes and outline, and choose one set to talk about in paragraph form.

Don’t think too hard about getting things perfect when you’re drafting–that’s what revision is for. Just focus on getting started. If you get stuck, do some brainstorming activities to get your creative juices flowing. Once you have something written, I suggest seeking feedback to make sure you’re going in the right direction. In fact, I recommend getting as much feedback as possible along the way.

As you create a draft, try to incorporate several sources into each paragraph to be sure that you’re synthesizing and not just summarizing or listing without making connections. Your color-coded notes can help you be sure that you’re synthesizing.

Add Metacommentary

Metacommentary is the key to synthesis. Metacommentary (aka metadiscourse) is a type of commentary that guides your reader and helps them interpret the sources and evidence you’re presenting. Think of it as really powerful transitions.

Transition words act like signposts–they guide your reader through your points. They can also glue your ideas together so they feel more cohesive. Beware that transitions can definitely be overdone, but most students in general could use more transitions in their papers rather than fewer.

You might think you can just stop at transition words, but metacommentary is much more than just sprinkling some “therefores” and “howevers” throughout your paper–metacommentary actually takes your synthesis to the next level. What do you comment on? You can either interpret why a source is important, highlight its significance, or connect it with other sources. This is your chance to point out the answers to the four questions you looked for in your note-taking:

What do researchers agree and disagree about?

How are researchers narrowing or changing their focus to create new information?

What are each study’s limitations and strengths?

What’s the next step in research—what should be studied in the future? (The research gap)

You can think of metacommentary as a sandwich with your name on it. If my student’s name were Alisa, here’s what and Alisa sandwich would look like:

ALISA-SOURCE-ALISA

First, Alisa starts with a claim about what’s happening in the field or about a particular subsection or focus of the field. This could serve as a topic sentence for a paragraph, for example.

Second, she sets up the source with guiding language like transitions and references to her past points or sources.

Third, she writes about the source itself and summarizes pertinent information.

Lastly, Alisa comments on the source and/or connects it to her main point or to next source.

This type of sandwich can occur several times in a paragraph as you synthesize your sources. Here’s a sample paragraph from Chris, a Public Health student, who wrote a paper called “The Causes of a Behavioral Pandemic: Screen-time Addiction and Consequent Depression Among Adolescents.” I’ve bolded the metacommentary Chris included to guide his readers and to connect his points.

Even though there have been far fewer studies on adolescents than adults , adolescent studies have consistently shown that those who are more physically active experience less depressive and associated symptoms, as well as a greater overall state of well-being (Kremer, 2014). These studies have also shown that low levels of vigorous exercise in youth can independently cause depressive symptoms. One longitudinal study revealed that over 30% of children who participate in high levels of screen-time use experience moderate to high levels of depressive symptoms (Kremer, 2014). Additionally, another study of children in the United States demonstrated that those who participated on a sports team were less likely to exceed recommended screen-time limits established by the US Department of Health. This study also demonstrated that as the number of total physical activity sessions increased among youth, both during free time and at organized events, children were less likely to exceed recommended screen-time limits (Carlson, 2010). In this study, children who were more physically active consistently showed lower rates of depression and other emotional disorders. Therefore, evidence across multiple studies suggests that participating in screen-time activity may not be the direct cause of depressive symptoms, but rather the sedentary lifestyle and lack physical activity it causes among youth. With this recent evidence, experts are beginning to search for ways to replace screen-time participation of adolescents with physical activities.

Note how the last few sentences of this paragraph consist entirely of metacommentary–points that connect to the bigger picture of Chris’s literature review. Also notice how Chris uses transition words and phrases to glue his points together so it doesn’t come out of the blue when he brings up a new study. Also, Chris discusses more than one study in this paragraph, demonstrating his ability to synthesize and not just summarize. Without the metacommentary, it would be much harder to see the connections between the studies and how they fit into the bigger picture. Finally, Chris indicates the implications of these studies and points to what researchers are doing next . This has a duel purpose of reminding readers why this topic is important as well as indicating where he will go in his next paragraph (about physical activities). Metacommentary is powerful!

Metacommentary takes practice, but you can do it! And it will not only make your points stronger, it will make it easier for your audience to read and understand–which should always be your goal.

If You Get Stuck

Literature reviews can be hard. If you get stuck, I have a little trick I tell my students. For your first draft, try starting every sentence with “Researchers . . .” I know this seems formulaic, but if you can keep your focus on what particular researchers did or what they agree or disagree on, you’ll avoid the most common pitfalls of literature reviews: sounding like a typical argumentative research paper. If your focus is always on what researchers are doing or what they’ve found, then at the very least you’ll stay in the realm of the literature review genre. Later you can go back through and change up your sentence structure, but I’ve found that this is an easy way for students to get through a first draft.

A Word on Verb Tense

The Real Last Step: Revise (and Revise and Revise)

Fantastic BYU Family Science professor Julie Haupt offers the following suggestions for doing four purposeful revisions–two global and two local.

GLOBAL REVISION–The Forest

Level 1: structural review (global).

Purpose: The structural review examines the document as a whole to see if all requirements are met and the document’s organization is sound.

Meet Assignment Requirements. Ask yourself if your paper meets all the requirements of the assignment? Look at your structure and make sure you have all necessary sections such as the following:

• Introduction (with Thesis Statement and/or Organizing Statement)

Body with Headings

Conclusion/Discussion

Include a Thesis and an Organizing Statement. Does the current version of the thesis statement match the tone, scope, and organization of the body text? Does an organizing statement after the thesis introduce the major topics and the order they will appear in the body (e.g., “This review will first discuss . . . then . . . and finally . . .)

Use Headings. Is the body text subdivided in a logical way with evidence-based information located in appropriate sections? Are the major sections roughly symmetrical (in terms of length)? Are the headings brief, yet descriptive? If subheadings are used, does the major section contain at least two? Are all levels of headings separated by text?

Level 2 (Global): Paragraph/Logic Review

Purpose: The Paragraph/Logic Review is designed to review each paragraph for cohesion and compliance to the CEC (Claim/Evidence/Commentary) format.

Sequence Paragraphs Effectively. When reading only the first sentence of each paragraph, does the logical pattern of the paper emerge? Do the claims made in these topic sentences coordinate well with the thesis of the paper?

Check Topic Sentences and Cohesion. Does the topic sentence or claim provide an effective overview of the information that is located in the paragraph? Is the claim supported by several points of synthesized evidence, rather than a single study? Does each paragraph seem well directed and cohesive? Do the sentences build one upon another within the paragraph in a logical way?

Evaluate Paragraph Length. Are any paragraphs too long (longer than approximately ½ page)? Are any paragraphs too short (approximately three sentences or less)? Do paragraphs transition well from one to the next and use transitional words to connect ideas?

LOCAL REVISION–The Tree

Level 3 (local): apa formatting review.

Purpose: The APA Formatting Review is designed to make sure all APA conventions are explicitly followed to help the paper reflect a high level of professionalism.

Check Document Formatting. Do the body text and reference page appear in the correct page formatting as required? (Use the APA Manual if you have questions.)

Examine the Reference List Closely. Are all references in the reference list ordered alphabetically? Is the reference list double spaced entirely (with no extra gaps between paragraphs)? Are all references (e.g., journal articles, internet resources, or books) listed in the correct format? Is every reference on the reference list cited at least once in the body and does each in-text citation have a corresponding reference in the reference list?

Make a Final Check of the In-Text Citations. Is all information properly cited with an in-text citation when needed? Do all in-text citations include the year next to the author(s)? When more than one citation is listed within parentheses are they separated by semi-colons and ordered alphabetically by first author’s last name? If included in parentheses, do studies with multiple authors use ampersands (“&” rather than the word “and”) before listing the last author?

Level 4 (Local): Finishing Review

Purpose: The Finishing Review is an opportunity to look closely at sentence construction, language, hedging , and grammar/punctuation.

Review Phrasing with a Read-Aloud Session. Since having to read a sentence twice to get its meaning or “tripping over” phrasing can be an indication of awkward construction, are all sentences easily read aloud? Are any sentences so long that they have become difficult to comprehend, but could be split without changing the meaning?

Use Non-Biased, Non-Absolute Language. Do all references to people comply with the “people first” designation and avoid inappropriate uses of terms for various groups? Are the findings and summary statements in the review properly “ Hedged ”?

Check Punctuation and Grammar. Are all commas, semicolons, colons, hyphens, and other punctuation used correctly throughout the document (including the reference page)? Are common grammar mistakes, such as parallelism, subject-verb agreement, incorrect misuse of pronouns, and other grammatical issues corrected?

*Bonus Video

If you’re still confused or would like more guidance on writing a literature review, here is an optional 25-minute video that thoroughly goes through the entire process of writing a literature review. As an extra bonus, it’s made by Michael Paye from the University of Dublin who has an awesome Irish accent. Enjoy!

Charles, C.C. (2020). How to write a literature review. In C.C. Charles (ed.), Writing in the Social Sciences. Edtech books. https://edtechbooks.org/writing/literature_review_2

Writing and the Sciences: An Anthology Copyright © 2020 by Sara Rufner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

The Sheridan Libraries

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

Not every source you found should be included in your annotated bibliography or lit review. Only include the most relevant and most important sources.

Get Organized

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

Summarize your Sources

Summarize each source: Determine the most important and relevant information from each source, such as the findings, methodology, theories, etc.  Consider using an article summary, or study summary to help you organize and summarize your sources.

Paraphrasing

• Use your own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract
• The library's tutorials about plagiarism are excellent, and will help you with paraphasing correctly

Annotated Bibliographies

     Annotated bibliographies can help you clearly see and understand the research before diving into organizing and writing your literature review.        Although typically part of the "summarize" step of the literature review, annotations should not merely be summaries of each article - instead, they should be critical evaluations of the source, and help determine a source's usefulness for your lit review.  

Definition:

A list of citations on a particular topic followed by an evaluation of the source’s argument and other relevant material including its intended audience, sources of evidence, and methodology

• Explore your topic.
• Appraise issues or factors associated with your professional practice and research topic.
• Help you get started with the literature review.
• Think critically about your topic, and the literature.

Steps to Creating an Annotated Bibliography:

• Find Your Sources
• Read Your Sources
• Identify the Most Relevant Sources
• Cite your Sources
• Write Annotations

Annotated Bibliography Resources

• Purdue Owl Guide
• Cornell Annotated Bibliography Guide
• << Previous: Evaluate
• Next: Synthesize >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• Library Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Writing the Review

Literature Reviews: Writing the Review

Outline of review sections.

Your Literature Review should not be a summary and evaluation of each article, one after the other. Your sources should be integrated together to create a narrative on your topic.

Consider the following ways to organize your review:

• By themes, variables, or issues
• By varying perspectives regarding a topic of controversy
• Chronologically, to show how the topic and research have developed over time

Use an outline to organize your sources and ideas in a logical sequence. Identify main points and subpoints, and consider the flow of your review. Outlines can be revised as your ideas develop. They help guide your readers through your ideas and show the hierarchy of your thoughts. What do your readers need to understand first? Where might certain studies fit most naturally? These are the kinds of questions that an outline can clarify.

An example outline for a Literature Review might look like this:

Introduction

• Background information on the topic & definitions
• Purpose of the literature review
• Scope and limitations of the review (what is included /excluded)
• Historical background 
• Overview of the existing research on the topic
• Principle question being asked
• Organization of the literature into categories or themes
• Evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each study
• Combining the findings from multiple sources to identify patterns and trends
• Insight into the relationship between your central topic and a larger area of study
• Development of a new research question or hypothesis
• Summary of the key points and findings in the literature
• Discussion of gaps in the existing knowledge
• Implications for future research

Strategies for Writing

Annotated bibliography.

An annotated bibliography collects short descriptions of each source in one place. After you have read each source carefully, set aside some time to write a brief summary. Your summary might be simply informative (e.g. identify the main argument/hypothesis, methods, major findings, and/or conclusions), or it might be evaluative (e.g. state why the source is interesting or useful for your review, or why it is not).

This method is more narrative than the Literature Matrix talked about on the Documenting Your Search page.

Taking the time to write short informative and/or evaluative summaries of your sources while you are researching can help you transition into the drafting stage later on. By making a record of your sources’ contents and your reactions to them, you make it less likely that you will need to go back and re-read many sources while drafting, and you might also start to gain a clearer idea of the overarching shape of your review.

READ EXTANT LIT REVIEWS CLOSELY

As you conduct your research, you will likely read many sources that model the same kind of literature review that you are researching and writing. While your original intent in reading those sources is likely to learn from the studies’ content (e.g. their results and discussion), it will benefit you to re-read these articles rhetorically.

Reading rhetorically means paying attention to how a text is written—how it has been structured, how it presents its claims and analyses, how it employs transitional words and phrases to move from one idea to the next. You might also pay attention to an author’s stylistic choices, like the use of first-person pronouns, active and passive voice, or technical terminology.

See  Finding Example Literature Reviews on the Developing a Research Question page for tips on finding reviews relevant to your topic.

MIND-MAPPING

Creating a mind-map is a form of brainstorming that lets you visualize how your ideas function and relate. Draw the diagram freehand or download software that lets you easily manipulate and group text, images, and shapes ( Coggle ,  FreeMind , MindMaple ).

Write down a central idea, then identify associated concepts, features, or questions around that idea. Make lines attaching various ideas, or arrows to signify directional relationships. Use different shapes, sizes, or colors to indicate commonalities, sequences, or relative importance.

This drafting technique allows you to generate ideas while thinking visually about how they function together. As you follow lines of thought, you can see which ideas can be connected, where certain pathways lead, and what the scope of your project might be. By drawing out a mind-map you may be able to see what elements of your review are underdeveloped and will benefit from more focused attention.

USE VISUALIZATION TOOLS

Attribution.

Thanks to Librarian Jamie Niehof at the University of Michigan for providing permission to reuse and remix this Literature Reviews guide.

Avoiding Bias

Reporting bias.

This occurs when you are summarizing the literature in an unbalanced, inconsistent or distorted way . 

Ways to avoid:

• look for literature that supports multiple perspectives, viewpoints or theories 
• ask multiple people to review your writing for bias
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 4:51 PM
• URL: https://info.library.okstate.edu/literaturereviews

Literature Review How To

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

Consider This

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review aims to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory, methodology, policy, quantitative research (e.g. interviews, observations), qualitative research (e.g., studies, surveys, statistics)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents)?
• What discipline am I working in (e.g. Public Health, Nursing, Kinesiology etc.)?
• Has my search for sources been wide enough to ensure that I have found all the relevant material?
• Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material?
• Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper (i.e. if your literature review is part of a larger paper or assignment)?
• Have I critically analyzed the resources I found?
• How will I avoid just listing and summarizing resources? Do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and or useful?

FIRST, ASK YOUR PROFESSOR!

The format of a literature review may vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to assignment. However, a literature review must do these things:

• Be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• Synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• Identify problematic areas or areas of controversy in the literature
• Formulate questions or issues that need further research

Remember! A literature review is not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another.

Try and avoid starting every paragraph with the name of a researcher or the title of the work. Rather, try organizing the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theories. You are not trying to list all the material published on a topic, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.

Consider These For Each Source

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is the problem/issue clearly defined and is its significance (scope, severity, and relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem/issue have been approached more effectively and or from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between #4 and #5?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the topic (i.e. does the author include a literature review and or provide sources that take positions she/he does not agree with)?
• How accurate and valid are the measurements, statistics or data the author has provided?
• Is the analysis of the measurements, statistics or data accurate and relevant to the research question?
• Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• · How does the author structure the argument? Can you retrace the steps he/she takes and analyze the flow of the argument to see if it progresses logically?
• In what ways does this piece contribute to our understanding of the topic, and in what ways is it useful? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to my thesis or research question?
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Synthesizing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 30, 2018 4:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csun.edu/literature-review

Report ADA Problems with Library Services and Resources

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Anticoagulant use in older persons at risk for falls: therapeutic dilemmas—a clinical review

• Open access
• Published: 01 July 2023
• Volume 14 , pages 683–696, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Anneka Mitchell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9222-3185 1 , 2 , 6 ,
• Yasmin Elmasry   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4794-612X 2 ,
• Eveline van Poelgeest   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2021-5602 3 &
• Tomas J. Welsh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2619-5032 1 , 4 , 5  

6373 Accesses

2 Citations

15 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Key summary points

To summarise the existing knowledge on the benefits of anticoagulants, and adverse events associated with falling whilst taking these medications, to assist clinicians in decisions on safe prescribing and deprescribing of anticoagulants.

Anticoagulants may increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage associated with falling, but the absolute risk is relatively low compared to the risk of ischaemic stroke and venous thromboembolism. Addressing modifiable risk factors for falls and bleeding can make anticoagulant therapy safer.

Clinicians often cite falls risk as a reason not to prescribe anticoagulant therapy, but this increases the patient’s risk of stroke/venous thromboembolism.

The aim of this clinical narrative review was to summarise the existing knowledge on the use of anticoagulants and potential adverse events in older people at risk of falls with a history of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The review also offers practical steps prescribers can take when (de-)prescribing anticoagulants to maximise safety.

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Additional articles were identified by searching reference lists.

Anticoagulants are often underused in older people due to concerns about the risk of falls and intracranial haemorrhage. However, evidence suggests that the absolute risk is low and outweighed by the reduction in stroke risk. DOACs are now recommended first line for most patients due to their favourable safety profile. Off-label dose reduction of DOACs is not recommended due to reduced efficacy with limited reduction in bleeding risk. Medication review and falls prevention strategies should be implemented before prescribing anticoagulation. Deprescribing should be considered in severe frailty, limited life expectancy and increased bleeding risk (e.g., cerebral microbleeds).

When considering whether to (de-)prescribe anticoagulants, it is important to consider the risks associated with stopping therapy in addition to potential adverse events. Shared decision-making with the patient and their carers is crucial as patient and prescriber views often differ.

Similar content being viewed by others

Perioperative Guidelines on Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents: 2022 Update

Michael Moster & Daniel Bolliger

Management of Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Resumption of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Multidisciplinary Discussion

Anne-Céline Martin, Robert Benamouzig, … Jeannot Schmidt

Falls in Older Adults are Serious

Raju Vaishya & Abhishek Vaish

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Falls occur frequently in older people and the risk of falls increases with age, half of people aged over 80 years will fall at least once a year [ 1 ]. Falls are a major concern as 5–10% will cause serious injury [ 2 ], they increase mortality [ 3 ], and can reduce confidence and independence [ 1 ]. Falls can enhance functional and cognitive decline and increase reliance on both formal and informal care [ 4 ]. Multiple risk factors for falls have been identified, including sociodemographic factors, mobility impairment, gait or balance difficulties, comorbidities and medications [ 2 ].

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in older people, and the incidence increases substantially with advancing age. The incidence of AF has been estimated as 20.7 per 1000 person-years in those aged 80–84 years compared with 1.1 per 1000 person-years in the 55–59 year age group [ 5 ]. Atrial arrhythmias have been identified as two of the most common cardiovascular causes of falls [ 6 ]. Syncope and falls may also be a sign of AF in those yet to be diagnosed [ 7 ]. In patients who are severely frail, the rate of falls may be up to eight times higher in those with AF than those without [ 8 ]. Furthermore, AF significantly increases the risk of stroke. Strokes associated with AF are often more severe and are associated with a higher rate of disability and mortality than those occurring in people without AF. Effective stroke prevention is therefore a key component of AF management [ 9 , 10 ].

Anticoagulation has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of stroke in AF, particularly in older people who are at greatest risk [ 11 ]. However, anticoagulation has historically been underused in this group [ 12 ]. One of the major reasons cited by physicians for withholding anticoagulation is risk of falls [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Despite falls risk being cited in a number of research studies as a barrier to prescribing of anticoagulants, it is often not discussed with patients. Therefore, patients are not adequately involved, and may feel detached from the decision-making process [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Studies evaluating patient preferences for anticoagulation have demonstrated that their perception of risk and benefit often differ to those of prescribers, and that patients value stroke prevention more highly than other factors such as bleeding risk, but risk tolerance is highly variable [ 19 , 20 ]. Patients may also not receive early anticoagulation because AF can be asymptomatic in 50–87% of cases, and only identified later either incidentally as part of routine care or following a stroke [ 21 ]. There have been a number of initiatives to implement routine screening for AF, particularly for older people, but evidence to support routine screening is limited, and results of ongoing randomised controlled trials are awaited [ 22 ].

The UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) updated their AF guidelines in 2021 to specifically state that anticoagulation should not be withheld solely due to a person’s age or risk of falls [ 23 ]. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines also advise that “a history of falls is not an independent predictor of bleeding on an oral anticoagulant” and an increased risk of falls does not outweigh the benefits of anticoagulation in older patients [ 21 ]. However, previous work by our group has shown that older patients with AF and a history of falls in the UK were 17% less likely to receive anticoagulation than those with no prior falls, and previous fracture reduced anticoagulant prescribing by 12% [ 24 ]. Similar findings have also been reported for older people with dementia who fall [ 25 ] and a substantial proportion of patients included in the ORBIT-AF registry discontinued warfarin due to falls [ 26 ].

Anticoagulation is less likely to be avoided in older patients with a confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the initial phase; however, weighing up the risk of VTE recurrence and the risk of bleeding when considering extended anticoagulant treatment can be difficult in older patients who are at increased risk of both.

The aim of this narrative review is to call attention to the risks of both prescribing and not prescribing anticoagulants to older people at increased risk of falls, and to assist prescribers in appropriate use of these agents in the two most common indications, VTE and AF.

This review was informed by a literature search conducted in August 2022 and updated in January 2023 in Pubmed, Embase and Scopus. Searches were conducted using a combination of keyword, free text, MeSH and Emtree headings for the three key topics: older adults, anticoagulants and falls. Reference lists were searched for further relevant literature.

Medication review and reconciliation

Match anticoagulant use to an appropriate indication.

Medication review is a key component of multifactorial interventions to reduce falls risk and harm from falls [ 27 ]. This review should include the patient/carer and review all medications including those purchased over the counter and herbal or alternative medicines [ 28 ]. Establishing the indication for anticoagulation is important, the two most common indications are AF and VTE, and these are the indications that this review will focus on. Besides AF and VTE, there are a number of other indications for anticoagulation, including venous thrombosis prophylaxis (which may be a prolonged course following some operations e.g., hip replacement or if mobility is likely to be reduced for a substantial period of time) [ 29 ]; life-long following implantation of a mechanical prosthetic heart valve [ 30 ]; for up to 3 months after surgical implantation of a bioprosthetic heart valve [ 30 ].

Anticoagulation is effective in reducing the risk of stroke in people with AF, and is usually required long term (unless the patient has a successful ablation procedure, requiring anticoagulation therapy for only 8 weeks after ablation). One meta-analysis found that the number needed to treat (NNT) with warfarin for 1 year to prevent one stroke was 37 for primary prevention (i.e., those with no history of stroke or TIA) and 12 for secondary prevention [ 31 ]. However, the benefit of anticoagulation is greatest in those with a moderate to high risk of stroke and may be less pronounced in those with a low risk [ 31 ]. The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score is recommended to assess stroke risk and guide whether to treat with anticoagulation [ 21 , 23 ]. Being aged ≥ 75 years with no other risk factors for stroke, gives a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 2 and guidelines recommend anticoagulation be considered in men with a score ≥ 1 or women with a score ≥ 2 [ 21 ] or ≥ 2 in both sexes [ 23 ] meaning that all older patients should be considered for treatment. Stroke risk increases further with certain comorbidities including congestive heart failure, hypertension, previous stroke or thromboembolism and vascular disease, which are also included in the score. The risk of stroke should then be weighed against the risk of bleeding, with guidelines recommending different scores. NICE recommends the ORBIT score as they believe it better discriminates between those at high and low risk of bleeding [ 23 , 32 ], whereas the ESC recommend the HAS-BLED score which has been used to assess major bleeding (defined as fatal bleeding; bleeding into a critical area or organ; a bleed causing a fall of ≥ 20 g L −1 or leading to transfusion of two or more units of whole blood or red cells [ 33 ]) risk in AF for a number of years [ 21 , 34 ]. HAS-BLED has become outdated now that warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are less commonly used (it includes labile international normalised ratio (INR) as a variable); ORBIT can be used for both DOACs and VKAs. There is debate as to which score better identifies those patients who are truly high risk for bleeds [ 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Whichever score is used, the key aim is to identify and address potentially modifiable risk factors for bleeding, such as (uncontrolled) hypertension, other medication and alcohol use, rather than suggesting absolute contraindication to anticoagulant therapy.

Following the first episode of a proximal deep vein thromboembolism (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), anticoagulation is recommended for all patients for a minimum of 3 months and up to 6 months for those with active cancer [ 38 , 39 ]. Where a major transient or reversible risk factor for the venous thromboembolism can be identified and is no longer present after 3–6 months then the anticoagulant should be discontinued [ 38 , 39 ]. Long-term anticoagulation is actively recommended for those with recurrent VTE that is not related to a major transient or reversible risk factor and those with antiphospholipid syndrome [ 39 ]. For patients with no identifiable risk factor, those with a persistent risk factor, and those with first VTE and only minor transient risk factor long-term anticoagulation should be considered, but the risk of recurrence of VTE must be balanced against the risk of bleeding [ 38 , 39 ]. The HAS-BLED score can be used to guide decision-making, with consideration given to stopping anticoagulation in those with a score ≥ 4. However, this should only be considered after addressing modifiable risk factors [ 38 ].

Choice of anticoagulant

Historically, VKAs such as warfarin were the only oral anticoagulants available, but from 2008, a new class of oral anticoagulants was licensed, the DOACs. These DOACs offered important advantages over the VKAs as they have fixed dosing regimens, fewer drug–drug and drug–food interactions, and do not require regular blood tests [ 40 ].

Multiple randomised controlled trials have shown DOACs to be as effective as warfarin for stroke prevention in older people AF [ 41 , 42 , 43 ], they were also associated with a significantly lower risk of intracranial haemorrhage [ 41 , 42 , 43 ], which is an important consideration when prescribing these medications for people at risk of falls. Observational registry data also showed that for older people (aged ≥ 75 years), the net clinical benefit, incorporating both stroke risk reduction and bleeding risk, was greater with DOACs than warfarin [ 44 ]. Meta-analyses of both randomised controlled trial and observational data further confirmed these findings, showing that DOACs were as effective as [ 45 ] or superior to VKAs [ 46 ] for stroke prevention. DOACs were also associated with less [ 46 ] or similar [ 45 ] rates of major bleeding and a significant reduction in the risk of intracranial haemorrhage [ 45 ].

The pivotal trials for the use of DOACs to prevent VTE recurrence showed them to be non-inferior to conventional therapy (subcutaneous enoxaparin followed by warfarin), with lower (apixaban and edoxaban) [ 47 , 48 ] or similar (dabigatran and rivaroxaban) [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] rates of major bleeding. A meta-analysis of phase three trials found similar rates of recurrent VTE, fatal PE and overall mortality with DOACs and conventional therapy [ 53 ]. Risk of major and non-major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage and fatal haemorrhage were significantly lower in the DOAC group overall [ 53 ]. The benefits of DOACs may be even greater for older people, a meta-analysis using data for patients aged ≥ 75 years found that DOACs reduced the risk of VTE recurrence compared with warfarin and were associated with less major bleeding [ 54 ].

To date, there have been no head-to-head trials comparing the DOACs to each other. A large network meta-analysis compared the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the DOACs to one another and found that in AF, apixaban was ranked best for most outcomes. Dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of ischaemic stroke and systemic embolism than edoxaban and rivaroxaban, there was no significant difference between dabigatran and apixaban. The risk of major bleeding was lower with apixaban than either dabigatran or rivaroxaban, and intracranial bleeding was significantly lower with apixaban than all other DOACs [ 55 ]. Because this network meta-analysis did not stratify the analyses by age, it is unclear how well the results would extrapolate to older people.

Anticoagulation with warfarin has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke in patients with dementia [ 56 , 57 ] without increasing the risk of intracranial haemorrhage [ 57 ]. Clinically relevant bleeding appeared to be increased in patients with dementia treated with warfarin compared to those treated with warfarin who did not have dementia. However, due to the small sample size, this was associated with a wide confidence interval [ 56 ]. There is a paucity of evidence on the safety of DOACs for patients with dementia. One study found that DOACs were associated with a similar risk of ischaemic stroke and a reduced risk of intracranial haemorrhage, but they were associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality compared with warfarin in people with dementia [ 58 ].

Recent (inter)national guidelines now recommend DOACs first line for anticoagulation in both AF and VTE [ 21 , 23 , 38 , 39 ], unless there are contraindications such as severe renal impairment, for AF patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or moderate to severe mitral stenosis, or VTE patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, where vitamin K antagonists are still the preferred choice [ 2 , 38 ]. Aspirin is sometimes prescribed as an alternative to anticoagulation as prescribers feel it is safer [ 59 ]; however, antiplatelet agents are no longer recommended for stroke prevention in AF as they are substantially less effective for stroke than anticoagulation, whilst being associated with a similar risk of major bleeding [ 11 , 60 ].

For patients with AF on VKAs in whom a DOAC would be suitable, UK guidance recommends that the option of proactive switching is discussed at a routine appointment, particularly in patients with labile INR and low time in therapeutic range [ 23 ]. Switching is only recommended by European guidance where patients are admitted with acute ischaemic stroke despite taking an anticoagulant. In this case, if a VKA is prescribed, it is recommended to optimise time in therapeutic range or to switch to a DOAC. If already taking a DOAC, then adherence and dose should be checked [ 21 ]. The evidence to support switching from VKAs to DOACs is limited. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies found that the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction and gastrointestinal bleeding was increased, but the risk of intracranial bleeding was decreased when switching from a VKA to dabigatran [ 61 ], the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was also increased when switching from a VKA to rivaroxaban [ 61 ]. However, the reason for switching may confound observational studies and the results of the multicentre, randomised controlled trial (FRAIL-AF) are awaited to provide a more definitive answer [ 62 ].

Patients with cancer presenting with VTE are at particularly high risk of VTE recurrence whilst also being at an increased risk of bleeding due to both the cancer and the anti-cancer drug treatments. Guidance from the ESC and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are used first line for the first 6 months of treatment in preference to VKAs [ 39 , 63 ]. Edoxaban or rivaroxaban can be considered as alternative options provided the patient does not have gastrointestinal cancer [ 39 , 63 ]. The 2022 International Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer recommend that rivaroxaban, apixaban or edoxaban can be used for patients without a high risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding [ 64 ]. All three DOACs have been shown to be non-inferior to LMWH in preventing recurrent VTE [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding especially in those with gastrointestinal cancer [ 65 , 66 ], a finding not demonstrated with apixaban [ 67 , 68 ]. Patients with AF and cancer are also at increased risk of bleeding, but guidelines still recommend that DOACs are used first-line unless the patient has gastrointestinal cancer, or there are significant drug interactions between the DOAC and the anti-cancer medication [ 69 ].

Anticoagulant dosage

The recommended dosing for each of the DOACs recommended for stroke prevention in AF is shown in Fig.  1 [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. Warfarin should be dosed based on the INR, aiming for a range of 2–3.

Summary of oral anticoagulant doses for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Under dosing of DOACs in older patients who do not meet the criteria listed in Fig.  1 is relatively common, occurring in 20–39% of patients prescribed DOACs for stroke prevention in AF [ 74 , 75 ]. In the ORBIT-AF registry, 57% of patients were prescribed a low-dose DOAC that had their dose reduced inappropriately [ 76 ]. Advancing age, higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score and history of renal impairment have been associated with off-label dose reduction [ 74 ]; however, this is not consistent between all studies and may also be attributable to confusion between the differing dose reduction criteria between DOACs [ 76 ]. In clinical practice, we often encounter off-label dose reductions in patients who are at risk of or have experienced one or more falls, or frail patients who are considered to be at particularly high risk of bleeding. Off-label dose reduction has been associated with higher rates of thromboembolism and death [ 75 , 76 ], and no change [ 48 ] or an increase in major bleeding compared with prescription of the licensed dose [ 75 ]; therefore, it cannot be recommended.

Figure  2 summarises the dosing schedules for each anticoagulant for prevention of recurrence of VTE [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. It should be noted that patients must receive 5 days of treatment with a parenteral anticoagulant before commencing dabigatran or edoxaban. This is not required for rivaroxaban or apixaban. Parenteral treatment should be continued alongside warfarin until there are two consecutive INR readings between 2 and 3.

Summary of oral anticoagulant doses for stroke prevention in venous thromboembolism

After the initial 3–6 month dosing period, the decision on whether extended anticoagulant treatment is indicated must be made. The criteria for extended treatment are discussed in the previous sections. The doses for extended treatment differ between the DOACs. The dose of rivaroxaban can be reduced to 10 mg daily, although a higher dose of 20 mg should be considered in patients with complex co-morbidities and high risk of recurrent VTE [ 71 ]. For apixaban, the dose is reduced to 2.5 mg twice daily regardless of risk [ 72 ]. For dabigatran and edoxaban, the dosing regimens for extended treatment are the same as for the initial phase as shown in Fig.  2 [ 70 , 73 ].

Rivaroxaban, apixaban and dabigatran have all been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent VTE with no significant increase in the risk of major bleeding [ 77 , 78 , 79 ]. A recent network meta-analysis confirmed this, showing that all DOACs and vitamin K antagonists were associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent VTE with extended treatment; however, only vitamin K antagonists were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding than aspirin or placebo [ 80 ]. However, the evidence for extended VTE treatment and anticoagulant dosing has largely been derived from randomised controlled trials which under-represented older people, only 15% of those included in the apixaban trial were aged ≥ 75 years [ 79 ], and the average ages of participants in the rivaroxaban and dabigatran trials were 58 and 56 years, respectively [ 77 , 78 ]. None reported outcomes for the subgroup of older people and the risk/benefit ratio may therefore differ in the older population who are known to be at higher risk for VTE but also bleeding.

It is well known that pharmacogenetics plays a substantial role in patients’ response to warfarin, with variations in CYP2CP and vitamin K epoxide reductase complex subunit 1 gene VKORC1 contributing to the wide inter-person variability [ 81 ]. Warfarin dosing algorithms that incorporate genetic information via point of care testing have been shown to improve the time in therapeutic range and reduce the incidence of excessive anticoagulation [ 82 , 83 ]. Elucidating the effects of pharmacogenomics on the DOACs is still in its infancy. There is some evidence that variations in CES1 and ABCB1 may be associated with differences in peak and trough concentrations of dabigatran and also the risk of minor bleeding [ 84 ]; however, there is no strong evidence at present that pharmacogenomics would improve the safety or efficacy of any of the other DOACs [ 84 ].

Risk of falls in patients on anticoagulants

Anticoagulants are not commonly associated with increasing the risk of falls; however, there are differences in the adverse effects between the different medications that may influence falls risk. Rivaroxaban and edoxaban have dizziness listed as a common side effect [ 71 , 73 ]. Hypotension is listed as a common side effect of rivaroxaban and an uncommon side effect of apixaban [ 71 , 72 ]. Syncope and decreased strength and energy are also listed as common side effects of rivaroxaban [ 71 ].

The mechanism of these adverse effects is not yet known; however, animal models suggest that both apixaban and rivaroxaban may have vasodilatory effects which if extrapolated to humans could explain the dizziness, hypotension and syncope experienced by some patients [ 85 , 86 ].

Risks associated with anticoagulant use in persons falling

Prescribers often cite increased falls risk as a reason not to prescribe anticoagulation to older people [ 13 , 14 , 15 ] due to the adverse events potentially associated with being anticoagulated at the time of a fall. The following paragraphs summarise the evidence for adverse outcomes following a fall and aim to put this into context with the risk of harm from omitting anticoagulant therapy.

Vitamin K is involved in bone metabolism, so it has been hypothesised that vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) would increase the risk of fracture. Various studies have evaluated fracture risk with long-term VKA therapy but have found inconsistent results with some studies finding an increased risk [ 87 , 88 , 89 ] and others finding no difference [ 90 , 91 ]. A meta-analysis found that VKAs were not associated with an increase in fracture risk when compared to either controls or DOAC users [ 92 ]. More recently, a large observational study found that DOAC use was associated with a reduced risk of fracture compared with warfarin, there was no difference in fracture risk when the DOACs were compared with each other [ 93 ].

Intracranial haemorrhage

Intracranial haemorrhage is one of the most feared complications of anticoagulant therapy as it is a serious condition associated with a substantial increase in mortality [ 94 ]. The risk of both traumatic and non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) is substantially increased in people at high risk of falls. One study found the incidence of traumatic and non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage more than doubled in AF patients defined as having a high falls risk when compared with lower risk patients regardless of whether they were taking an anticoagulant or not [ 95 ].

Several studies have assessed the risk of traumatic ICH (tICH) following ground-level falls in patients taking anticoagulants. However, they are often small and conducted in single trauma centres or emergency departments [ 96 , 97 , 98 ]. These studies found no increase in the risk of tICH compared with people not on anticoagulant therapy or those taking antiplatelet agents [ 96 , 98 ].

The risk of ICH has commonly been cited as a reason to avoid warfarin therapy in people at risk of falls; however, evidence is conflicting as to whether warfarin increases the risk of ICH occurrence [ 95 , 99 , 100 ]. There is also debate on whether warfarin increases the risk of mortality from ICH [ 95 , 97 , 100 , 101 ] or not [ 99 ], although the majority of studies suggest it does. All four of the pivotal DOAC randomised controlled trials in patients with AF demonstrated that DOACs were associated with significantly lower risk of ICH than warfarin [ 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 ], a result also seen in a meta-analysis of observational studies of older people with AF [ 45 ], so these agents may be preferable to warfarin in people at risk of falls. A retrospective single-centre study of 1453 elderly patients admitted with tICH found comparable rates of injury severity score, mortality and rehabilitation between patients admitted on DOACs prior to injury compared with to those who were not on anticoagulants [ 97 ]. Conversely, warfarin use increased the risk of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice care [ 97 ]. Interestingly, patients on DOACs had better outcomes despite being less likely to receive reversal agents (idarucizumab and andexanet alfa) and being more likely to require surgical intervention compared to patients on a VKA [ 97 ].

Subgroup analyses of the apixaban (ARISTOTLE) and edoxaban (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) trials found that patients with a history of falling had higher rates of ICH and death than those who had never fallen [ 106 , 107 ], but there was no difference between apixaban and warfarin on these outcomes [ 106 ]. The absolute risk reduction of ICH in patients treated with edoxaban compared with warfarin was greater in those assessed as being at high risk of falls [ 107 ]. A recent meta-analysis that included subgroup analyses of randomised controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies comparing outcomes in patient at high of falls suggested that the risk of ICH was approximately 50% lower with DOACs than VKA [ 108 ].

A large observational study using Medicare data from the USA found that DOAC use was associated with a 43% reduction in the risk of ICH compared with warfarin in people at high risk of falls (predicted two-year fall risk of ≥ 15%) [ 109 ].

Debate is ongoing regarding the utility and cost-effectiveness of performing a CT scan on all patients who sustain a mild head injury who are taking an anticoagulant. UK NICE guidance currently recommends that anyone taking an anticoagulant who suffers a head injury should have a CT head scan within 8 h of the injury [ 110 ], but this has been downgraded in the draft guideline, currently under consultation, to just considering a CT head scan where there are no other indications to do one [ 111 ]. Patients presenting to hospital alert and with no associated symptoms are at low risk of adverse outcomes [ 112 , 113 ], so it can be argued that CT head scans may be of little value in this patient group and that an individualised approach is required as opposed to routine scanning. The risk of radiographic head injury in hospital in-patients who fall is likely to be lower still than those presenting to the emergency department following a fall in the community, but patients taking anticoagulants frequently undergo CT head scans [ 114 ]. There is a need for more detailed guidance on when people taking anticoagulants require a CT head scan, but further research is needed [ 114 ].

Cerebral microbleeds are known to significantly increase the risk of ICH; however, they may also increase the risk of ischaemic stroke [ 115 ]. Cerebral microbleeds may be identified on magnetic resonance imaging post stroke, but in older adults, they may also be identified incidentally during cognitive screening which presents a therapeutic dilemma on whether to start or continue anticoagulation. Studies have suggested that increasing numbers of cerebral microbleeds may confer an increased risk of ICH [ 116 , 117 ], with one systematic review suggesting that the presence of ≥ 5 cerebral microbleeds could identify patients with AF who are at high risk of ICH from anticoagulation [ 116 ]. The location of the microbleeds may also an important consideration, lobar microbleeds suggestive of cerebral amyloid angiopathy have been associated with an increased risk of ICH but not ischaemic stroke, whereas microbleeds in other locations have been associated with both an increased risk of ischaemic stroke and ICH [ 118 ]. However, pooled analyses have refuted this, suggesting that the location or distribution of the microbleeds does not influence the risk of ischaemic stroke or ICH [ 119 ]. When prescribing anticoagulation for patients who fall, the increased risk of ICH associated with both falls and cerebral microbleeds must be considered and carefully weighed against the risk of stroke. For patients with cerebral microbleeds, no history of TIA or stroke and a low overall risk, the risk of ICH outweighs the risk of ischaemic stroke. However, for patients with a history of ischaemic stroke or TIA, it is likely that the reduction in risk of recurrent stroke will outweigh the increased risk of ICH as shown by Wilson and colleagues in a very large pooled analysis of cohort data [ 119 ].

Morbidity and mortality

There is debate about whether anticoagulant therapy effects the risk of mortality in older people who fall. Data from the large National Trauma Databank suggest that having a fall whilst taking an anticoagulant is associated with an increase in the likelihood of death of 180% compared to falling whilst not taking an anticoagulant [ 120 ]. It should be noted, however, that the injuries differed substantially between the group taking anticoagulants and those who were not so anticoagulant therapy may not be the sole reason for this increase [ 120 ]. Antithrombotic therapy (including both anticoagulants and antiplatelets) has not been associated with an increase in overall or in-hospital mortality following a fall and traumatic brain injury. However, people taking pre-injury antithrombotic therapy may be more likely to be discharged to a nursing home or rehabilitation facility than those not taking these medications at the time of the fall [ 99 ]. A systematic review comparing pre-injury DOAC use with warfarin in older patients with a traumatic brain injury found no difference in mortality, hospital or intensive care length of stay, or need for surgical intervention [ 121 ].

Risk-to-benefit ratio

A number of studies have sought to estimate the point at which the risks associated with falling whilst taking an anticoagulant outweigh the beneficial effect of stroke risk in AF. An older study that is referenced in most national and international guidelines estimated that someone would have to fall almost daily (295 times in a year) for the risk of intracranial bleeding with warfarin to outweigh the benefits [ 122 ]. A similar study gave a more conservative estimate for warfarin of 35 falls per year as they included a broader range of risks. They also estimated that someone would need to fall 45 times a year for rivaroxaban or 458 times a year for apixaban for the risk to outweigh the benefit [ 123 ]. These studies were both based on Markov models, so the calculations are reliant on the underlying assumptions of baseline and outcome risks extracted from the literature and applied to a theoretical cohort.

For patients that have experienced an intracranial bleed whilst taking an anticoagulant, the risk-to-benefit ratio is likely to shift and requires consideration of both the risk of recurrent intracranial bleeding and the ongoing thromboembolic risk as both are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality.

Following a traumatic intracranial haemorrhage, it is generally accepted that anticoagulation should be restarted as it reduces ischaemic events and mortality without increasing the risk of recurrent intracranial haemorrhage [ 124 , 125 , 126 ]. However, the time to anticoagulant resumption is still a subject of debate with a global survey of clinicians finding that they opted to restart anywhere between 1 week and 3 months post-haemorrhage [ 125 ]. There is some evidence to suggest that anticoagulation should restart sooner. A systematic review found that recurrent haemorrhagic complications were most common in the first 3 days following the index event, whereas thromboembolic complications occurred later. When time to restarting anticoagulation was evaluated, they found that longer delays (5–7 days as opposed to 3 days) significantly increased the risk of thromboembolism. However, the risk of recurrent haemorrhage was attenuated with longer delays [ 127 ]. The current evidence evaluating when to restart anticoagulation looks solely at warfarin treatment and is largely based on non-randomised studies. The ongoing Restart TICrH randomised trial will provide further clarity on the optimal time to restart anticoagulation with DOACs in patients with traumatic intracranial haemorrhage [ 128 ].

Drug–drug interactions

Several different drug–drug interactions need to be considered when evaluating the risks associated with anticoagulant therapy. Warfarin has a narrow therapeutic index and has many drug–drug and drug–food interactions that may increase the risk of bleeding or reduce the effectiveness of the medication [ 129 ]. Warfarin therefore requires regular monitoring of the international normalised ratio (INR), particularly if concomitant therapy or diet changes.

The DOACs have fewer drug–drug interactions, but there are some significant interactions that must be considered when prescribing. Dabigatran and edoxaban (to a lesser extent) are substrates for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux transporter, so medications that inhibit P-gp (e.g., ketoconazole, dronedarone) would be expected to increase the concentrations of dabigatran and edoxaban and increase the risk of bleeding, whereas P-gp inducers (e.g., rifampicin, carbamazepine) may reduce their effectiveness [ 70 , 73 ]. Rivaroxaban and apixaban are metabolised by both CYP3A4 and P-gp; therefore, strong inhibitors of either pathway may increase the risk of bleeding [ 71 , 72 ]. The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) or other reputable source, such as Stockley’s drug interactions, Medscape or UpToDate interaction checker, should be used to guide dose adjustment and contraindications due to these interactions. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation also provides a useful summary table of the relevant drug–drug interactions which can be used to select the DOAC with the least potential for drug–drug interactions and guide a personalised approach to prescribing [ 130 ].

Other drug interactions that are likely to increase the risk of harm from falling while on anticoagulants are those that are also known to increase the risk of bleeding. There are only limited situations in which antiplatelets are recommended to be used alongside anticoagulants, for example following acute coronary syndrome. Unless patients are at particularly high risk from coronary artery disease and have a low risk of bleeding, it is recommended that triple therapy (anticoagulant plus two antiplatelets) is limited to 1 month, double therapy (anticoagulant plus a single antiplatelet) for up to 1 year, then the anticoagulant should be continued alone [ 131 ]. Other medications that can increase the risk of bleeding include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), so the need for these medications should be carefully considered when used in addition to anticoagulation.

Reducing the risk of anticoagulants by (de)prescribing

Considerations when deciding whether to prescribe anticoagulants.

There are a number of factors that can reduce the risk of bleeding when prescribing anticoagulants to people at risk of falls:

Medication review should be undertaken as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment before commencing anticoagulants and where new medications are being considered for patients already prescribed anticoagulants.

Falls risk increasing drugs should be discontinued where clinically appropriate or switched to a lower risk alternative. One example of this in the context of AF, could be switching digoxin to a beta-blocker. A meta-analysis found that digoxin can double the risk of falling, conversely beta-blockers (also used for rate control) may reduce the risk of falls [ 132 ]. A large observational study in Denmark found that digoxin monotherapy increased the risk of fall-related injury [ 133 ].

Interacting, contraindicated or unnecessary medication should be stopped or switched.

Fall prevention measures should be implemented including physical training to improve strength, balance and gait; provision of walking aids; environmental hazards should be identified and addressed; footwear optimised; visual impairments evaluated and treated

Any decision to prescribe anticoagulation should be driven by patient goals and wishes. The discussion should be informed by the use of risk calculators and facilitated using shared decision making tools. Using shared decision making tools can ensure that patients are fully informed of the risks and benefits of a treatment and also help to ensure that their treatment values are recognised. A number of tools have been created on different platforms to assist shared decision making in the context of anticoagulation for AF, these are summarised and evaluated by Torres Roldan and colleagues [ 134 ]. It should be noted that shared decision making tools often present average risks and benefits and additional information may need to be provided to higher risk patients, such as those at risk of falls.

Anticoagulant choice should be based on both the evidence base and patient preference. DOACs have a similar efficacy profile but improved safety compared to vitamin K antagonists and are preferred for most patients. To date, evidence suggests that apixaban is associated with the lowest risk of bleeding and is likely to be the preferred option [ 106 , 108 , 135 ]. If a once daily DOAC is required, edoxaban has a favourable safety profile compared with rivaroxaban [ 107 , 135 ].

Considerations when deciding to deprescribe anticoagulants

The comprehensive geriatric assessment should be used to guide decisions on deprescribing anticoagulants:

End of life care/severe frailty—where a focus on symptom control and a comfort-orientated approach may be more appropriate, consideration to deprescribing anticoagulation should be given. Granziera and colleagues suggest that anticoagulation should be stopped in those with ≤ 6 months life expectancy [ 136 ]; however, it should be noted that the evidence to support this recommendation is limited. In-depth chart review for patients hospitalised in the last three months of life showed that de-prescribing of anti-thrombotics is often reactive and in response to bleeding or sudden deterioration [ 137 ]. There is a need for clear clinical guidance to help clinicians when making these difficult decisions and to help them explain the relative thrombotic and bleeding risks as patients approach the end of their life.

Significant risk factors for major bleeding—this might include problems such as recent peptic ulceration, recent intracranial haemorrhage or known oesophageal varices. A risk calculator such as ORBIT [ 32 ] or HAS-BLED [ 34 ] should be used to help quantify the risk of adverse effects and guide such decisions.

Cerebral microbleeds—the risk of bleeding must be weighed against the risk of stroke for the individual patient. Where patients have a low stroke risk, the risk of ICH with anticoagulants is likely to outweigh the benefits, but if the patient has a high stroke risk, then anticoagulation is beneficial.

Conclusions

AF and VTE are common in older people as the risk increases with advancing age. Anticoagulants are an effective treatment for stroke prevention in AF and prevention of VTE recurrence, but they are often underused due to concerns about the adverse effects of falling whilst taking these medications. Whilst there is some evidence to suggest that falling whilst taking an anticoagulant may increase the risk of ICH and death, most of the work suggests that the absolute risk of these outcomes is low and outweighed by the reduction in stroke/VTE risk.

To minimise the risk associated with these medications, particularly in the case of frequent and recurrent falling, prescribers should conduct a multifactorial falls assessment and address modifiable risk factors such as concomitant medication which may no longer be required, mobility or balance issues and home hazards. When starting an anticoagulant for VTE, the duration of therapy should be clearly specified, and the ongoing risk reviewed at regular intervals. Off-label dose reduction of DOACs and lower INR targets have been used in an attempt to mitigate the bleeding risk associated with these agents; however, this is not recommended as it reduces their efficacy with little effect on bleeding risk. AF risk calculators should be used to help identify those at high risk of bleeding where anticoagulation should be avoided. Patient preferences and goals should inform decision-making particularly in frailer groups or in those approaching end of life where the benefits of anticoagulation may be attenuated.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013) CG161: Falls in older people: assessing risk and prevention. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg161 . Accessed 12 Nov 2022

Deandrea S, Lucenteforte E, Bravi F, Foschi R, La Vecchia C, Negri E (2010) Risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology 21(5):658–668

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

James SL, Lucchesi LR, Bisignano C, Castle CD, Dingels ZV, Fox JT et al (2020) The global burden of falls: global, regional and national estimates of morbidity and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Inj Prev 26(Supp 1):i3–i11

Terroso M, Rosa N, Torres Marques A, Simoes R (2013) Physical consequences of falls in the elderly: a literature review from 1995 to 2010. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 11(1):51–59

Article   Google Scholar  

Heeringa J, van der Kuip DA, Hofman A, Kors JA, van Herpen G, Stricker BH et al (2006) Prevalence, incidence and lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation: the Rotterdam study. Eur Heart J 27(8):949–953

Montero-Odasso M, van der Velde N, Martin FC, Petrovic M, Tan MP, Ryg J et al (2022) World guidelines for falls prevention and management for older adults: a global initiative. Age Ageing 51(9):afac205

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jansen S, Frewen J, Finucane C, de Rooij SE, van der Velde N, Kenny RA (2015) AF is associated with self-reported syncope and falls in a general population cohort. Age Ageing 44(4):598–603

Wilkinson C, Clegg A, Todd O, Rockwood K, Yadegarfar ME, Gale CP et al (2021) Atrial fibrillation and oral anticoagulation in older people with frailty: a nationwide primary care electronic health records cohort study. Age Ageing 50(3):772–779

Lamassa M, Di Carlo A, Pracucci G, Basile AM, Trefoloni G, Vanni P et al (2001) Characteristics, outcome, and care of stroke associated with atrial fibrillation in Europe: data from a multicenter multinational hospital-based registry (The European Community Stroke Project). Stroke 32(2):392–398

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ali AN, Abdelhafiz A (2016) Clinical and economic implications of AF related stroke. J Atr Fibrillation 8(5):1279

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K, Roalfe A, Fitzmaurice D, Lip GY et al (2007) Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 370(9586):493–503

Ogilvie IM, Newton N, Welner SA, Cowell W, Lip GY (2010) Underuse of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Am J Med 123(7):638–645

Monette J, Gurwitz JH, Rochon PA, Avorn J (1997) Physician attitudes concerning warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of a survey of long-term care practitioners. J Am Geriatr Soc 45(9):1060–1065

Pugh D, Mead GE, Pugh J (2011) Attitudes of physicians regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Int J Stroke 6:42

Google Scholar  

Vasishta S, Toor F, Johansen A, Hasan M (2001) Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: physicians’ attitudes to anticoagulation in older people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 33(3):219–226

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2009) CG76: Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg76 . Accessed 12 Nov 2022

Mas Dalmau G, Sant Arderiu E, Enfedaque Montes MB, Solà I, Pequeño Saco S, Alonso CP (2017) Patients’ and physicians’ perceptions and attitudes about oral anticoagulation and atrial fibrillation: a qualitative systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 18(1):3

Pokorney SD, Bloom D, Granger CB, Thomas KL, Al-Khatib SM, Roettig ML et al (2019) Exploring patient–provider decision-making for use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the INFORM-AF study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 18(4):280–288

LaHaye S, Regpala S, Lacombe S, Sharma M, Gibbens S, Ball D et al (2014) Evaluation of patients’ attitudes towards stroke prevention and bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 111(3):465–473

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Loewen PS, Ji AT, Kapanen A, McClean A (2017) Patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 117(6):1007–1022

Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C et al (2021) 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 42(5):373–498

Williams K, Modi RN, Dymond A, Hoare S, Powell A, Burt J et al (2022) Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial. BMJ Open 12(9):e065066

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2021) NG196: Atrial fibrillation: diagnosis and management. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng196 . Accessed 12 Nov 2022

Mitchell A, Snowball J, Welsh TJ, Watson MC, McGrogan A (2021) Prescribing of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin to older people with atrial fibrillation in UK general practice: a cohort study. BMC Med. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02067-5

Mongkhon P, Alwafi H, Fanning L, Lau WCY, Wei L, Kongkaew C et al (2021) Patterns and factors influencing oral anticoagulant prescription in people with atrial fibrillation and dementia: results from UK primary care. Br J Clin Pharmacol 87(3):1056–1068

O’Brien EC, Simon DN, Allen LA, Singer DE, Fonarow GC, Kowey PR et al (2014) Reasons for warfarin discontinuation in the outcomes registry for better informed treatment of atrial fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). Am Heart J 168(4):487–494

Hopewell S, Adedire O, Copsey BJ, Boniface GJ, Sherrington C, Clemson L et al (2018) Multifactorial and multiple component interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7(7):CD012221

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Reeve E, Thompson W, Farrell B (2017) Deprescribing: a narrative review of the evidence and practical recommendations for recognizing opportunities and taking action. Eur J Intern Med 38:3–11

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2018) NG89: venous thromboembolism in over 16s: reducing the risk of hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng89 . Accessed 30 Nov 2022

Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J et al (2021) 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: developed by the task force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 43(7):561–632

Hart RG, Benavente O, McBride R, Pearce LA (1999) Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 131(7):492–501

O’Brien EC, Simon DN, Thomas LE, Hylek EM, Gersh BJ, Ansell JE et al (2015) The ORBIT bleeding score: a simple bedside score to assess bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 36(46):3258–3264

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kaatz S, Ahmad D, Spyropoulos AC, Schulman S (2015) Definition of clinically relevant non-major bleeding in studies of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease in non-surgical patients: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 13(11):2119–2126

Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJ, Lip GY (2010) A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest 138(5):1093–1100

Senoo K, Proietti M, Lane DA, Lip GY (2016) Evaluation of the HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and ORBIT bleeding risk scores in patients with atrial fibrillation taking warfarin. Am J Med 129(6):600–607

Esteve-Pastor MA, García-Fernández A, Macías M, Sogorb F, Valdés M, Roldán V et al (2016) Is the ORBIT bleeding risk score superior to the HAS-BLED score in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients? Circ J 80(10):2102–2108

Wang C, Yu Y, Zhu W, Yu J, Lip GYH, Hong K (2017) Comparing the ORBIT and HAS-BLED bleeding risk scores in anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8(65):109703–109711

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2020) Venous thromboembolic diseases: diagnosis, management and thrombophilia testing. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng158/resources/venous-thromboembolic-diseases-diagnosis-management-and-thrombophilia-testing-pdf-66141847001797 . Accessed 12 Nov 2022

Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, Bueno H, Geersing GJ, Harjola VP et al (2020) 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J 41(4):543–603

Eikelboom JW, Weitz JI (2010) New anticoagulants. Circulation 121(13):1523–1532

Eikelboom JW, Wallentin L, Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz M, Healey JS, Oldgren J et al (2011) Risk of bleeding with 2 doses of dabigatran compared with warfarin in older and younger patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 123(21):2363–2372

Halvorsen S, Atar D, Yang H, De Caterina R, Erol C, Garcia D et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin according to age for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: observations from the ARISTOTLE trial. Eur Heart J 35(28):1864–1872

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Halperin JL, Hankey GJ, Wojdyla DM, Piccini JP, Lokhnygina Y, Patel MR et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin among elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the rivaroxaban once daily, oral, direct factor xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial. Circulation 130:138–146

Patti G, Pecen L, Lucerna M, Huber K, Rohla M, Renda G et al (2019) Net clinical benefit of non-vitamin K antagonist vs vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Med 132(6):749–757

Mitchell A, Watson MC, Welsh T, McGrogan A (2019) Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for people aged 75 years and over with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analyses of observational studies. J Clin Med 8(4):554

Bai Y, Guo SD, Deng H, Shantsila A, Fauchier L, Ma CS et al (2018) Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in older patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Age Ageing 47(1):9–17

Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, Curto M, Gallus AS, Johnson M et al (2013) Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 369(9):799–808

The Hokusai-VTE Investigators (2013) Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 369(15):1406–1415

The EINSTEIN Investigators (2010) Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 363(26):2499–2510

The EINSTEIN-PE Investigators (2012) Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 366(14):1287–1297

Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, Mismetti P, Schellong S, Eriksson H et al (2009) Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 361(24):2342–2352

Schulman S, Kakkar AK, Goldhaber SZ, Schellong S, Eriksson H, Mismetti P et al (2014) Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis. Circulation 129(7):764–772

van der Hulle T, Kooiman J, den Exter PL, Dekkers OM, Klok FA, Huisman MV (2014) Effectiveness and safety of novel oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 12(3):320–328

Geldhof V, Vandenbriele C, Verhamme P, Vanassche T (2014) Venous thromboembolism in the elderly: efficacy and safety of non-VKA oral anticoagulants. Thromb J 12(1):21

López-López JA, Sterne JAC, Thom HHZ, Higgins JPT, Hingorani AD, Okoli GN et al (2017) Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 359:j5058

Fox C, Smith T, Maidment I, Hebding J, Madzima T, Cheater F et al (2014) The importance of detecting and managing comorbidities in people with dementia? Age Ageing 43(6):741–743

van Deelen BAJ, van den Bemt PMLA, Egberts TCG, van’t Hoff A, Maas HAAM (2005) Cognitive impairment as determinant for sub-optimal control of oral anticoagulation treatment in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Drugs Aging 22(4):353–60

Subic A, Cermakova P, Religa D, Han S, von Euler M, Kåreholt I et al (2018) Treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with dementia: a cohort study from the Swedish Dementia Registry. J Alzheimers Dis 61(3):1119–1128

Eckman MH, Lip GYH, Wise RE, Speer B, Sullivan M, Walker N et al (2016) Using an atrial fibrillation decision support tool for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation: effect of sex and age. J Am Geriatr Soc 64(5):1054–1060

Connolly SJ, Eikelboom J, Joyner C, Diener H-C, Hart R, Golitsyn S et al (2011) Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. New Engl J Med 364(9):806–817

Hellfritzsch M, Adelborg K, Damkier P, Paaske Johnsen S, Hallas J, Pottegård A et al (2020) Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients switched from vitamin K antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 126(1):21–31

Joosten LPT, van Doorn S, Hoes AW, Nierman MC, Wiersma NM, Koek HL et al (2019) Safety of switching from vitamin K antagonist to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant in frail elderly with atrial fibrillation: rationale and design of the FRAIL-AF randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 9(12):e032488

Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Bohlke K, Lee AYY, Arcelus JI et al (2020) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 38(5):496–520

Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, Khorana AA, Kakkar A, Ay C et al (2022) International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19. Lancet Oncol 23(7):e334–e347

Raskob GE, van Es N, Verhamme P, Carrier M, Di Nisio M, Garcia D et al (2017) Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 378(7):615–624

Young AM, Marshall A, Thirlwall J, Chapman O, Lokare A, Hill C et al (2018) Comparison of an oral factor xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism: results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol 36(20):2017–2023

McBane RD II, Wysokinski WE, Le-Rademacher JG, Zemla T, Ashrani A, Tafur A et al (2020) Apixaban and dalteparin in active malignancy-associated venous thromboembolism: the ADAM VTE trial. J Thromb Haemost 18(2):411–421

Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G, Muñoz A, Huisman MV, Connors JM et al (2020) Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. N Engl J Med 382(17):1599–1607

Delluc A, Wang T-F, Yap E-S, Ay C, Schaefer J, Carrier M et al (2019) Anticoagulation of cancer patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation receiving chemotherapy: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 17(8):1247–1252

Boehringer Ingelheim Limited (2022) Pradaxa 150 mg hard capsules SmPC. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/4703/smpc#gref . Accessed 2 Oct 2022

Bayer plc (2022) Xarelto 20mg film-coated tablets SmPC. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2793/smpc#gref . Accessed 2 Oct 2022

Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer. Eliquis 5 mg film-coated tablets SmPC. 2022. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2878/smpc#gref . Accessed 2 Oct 2022

Daiichi Sankyo UK Limited (2022) Lixiana 60mg Film-Coated Tablets SmPC. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/6905/smpc#gref . Accessed 2 Oct 2022

Sanghai S, Wong C, Wang Z, Clive P, Tran W, Waring M et al (2020) Rates of potentially inappropriate dosing of direct-acting oral anticoagulants and associations with geriatric conditions among older patients with atrial fibrillation: the SAGE-AF study. J Am Heart Assoc 9(6):e014108

Arbel R, Sergienko R, Hammerman A, Greenberg-Dotan S, Batat E, Avnery O et al (2019) Effectiveness and safety of off-label dose-reduced direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. Am J Med 132(7):847–855

Steinberg BA, Shrader P, Pieper K, Thomas L, Allen LA, Ansell J et al (2018) Frequency and outcomes of reduced dose non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants: results from ORBIT-AF II (the outcomes registry for better informed treatment of atrial fibrillation II). J Am Heart Assoc 7(4):e007633

Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, Schellong S, Eriksson H, Baanstra D et al (2013) Extended use of dabigatran, warfarin, or placebo in venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 368(8):709–718

Weitz JI, Lensing AWA, Prins MH, Bauersachs R, Beyer-Westendorf J, Bounameaux H et al (2017) Rivaroxaban or aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 376(13):1211–1222

Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, Curto M, Gallus AS, Johnson M et al (2013) Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 368(8):699–708

Wang KL, van Es N, Cameron C, Castellucci LA, Buller HR, Carrier M (2019) Extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Heart 105(7):545–552

Jorgensen AL, FitzGerald RJ, Oyee J, Pirmohamed M, Williamson PR (2012) Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 on patient response to warfarin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7(8):e44064

Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N, Jorgensen AL, Toh CH, Nicholson T et al (2013) A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med 369(24):2294–2303

Jorgensen AL, Prince C, Fitzgerald G, Hanson A, Downing J, Reynolds J et al (2019) Implementation of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin with point-of-care genetic testing in three UK clinics: a matched cohort study. BMC Med 17(1):76

Tseng AS, Patel RD, Quist HE, Kekic A, Maddux JT, Grilli CB et al (2018) Clinical review of the pharmacogenomics of direct oral anticoagulants. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 32(1):121–126

Villari A, Giurdanella G, Bucolo C, Drago F, Salomone S (2017) Apixaban enhances vasodilatation mediated by protease-activated receptor 2 in isolated rat arteries. Front Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00480

Mabley J, Scutt G, Lang KJ, Patel JP, Arya R (2015) Rivaroxaban-mediated vascular relaxation as a potential cause of headaches and dizziness. Blood 126(23):2334

Caraballo PJ, Heit JA, Atkinson EJ, Silverstein MD, O’Fallon WM, Castro MR et al (1999) Long-term use of oral anticoagulants and the risk of fracture. Arch Intern Med 159(15):1750–1756

Gage BF, Birman-Deych E, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, Binder EF (2006) Risk of osteoporotic fracture in elderly patients taking warfarin: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation 2. Arch Intern Med 166(2):241–246

Rejnmark L, Vestergaard P, Mosekilde L (2007) Fracture risk in users of oral anticoagulants: a nationwide case-control study. Int J Cardiol 118(3):338–344

Misra D, Zhang Y, Peloquin C, Choi HK, Kiel DP, Neogi T (2014) Incident long-term warfarin use and risk of osteoporotic fractures: propensity-score matched cohort of elders with new onset atrial fibrillation. Osteoporos Int 25(6):1677–1684

Pilon D, Castilloux AM, Dorais M, LeLorier J (2004) Oral anticoagulants and the risk of osteoporotic fractures among elderly. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13(5):289–294

Fiordellisi W, White K, Schweizer M (2019) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between vitamin K antagonist use and fracture. J Gen Intern Med 34(2):304–311

Lau WCY, Cheung CL, Man KKC, Chan EW, Sing CW, Lip GYH et al (2020) Association between treatment with apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin and risk for osteoporotic fractures among patients with atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med 173(1):1–9

Poon MTC, Fonville AF, Al-Shahi SR (2014) Long-term prognosis after intracerebral haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 85(6):660

Gage BF, Birman-Deych E, Kerzner R, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, Rich MW (2005) Incidence of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation who are prone to fall. Am J Med 118(6):612–617

Vedin T, Lundager Forberg J, Anefjäll E, Lehtinen R, Faisal M, Edelhamre M (2022) Antiplatelet therapy contributes to a higher risk of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage compared to anticoagulation therapy in ground-level falls: a single-center retrospective study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 48:4909–4917

Nederpelt C, Naar L, Meier K, van Wijck S, Krijnen P, Velmahos G et al (2022) Treatment and outcomes of anticoagulated geriatric trauma patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage after falls. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 48(5):4297–4304

Ganetsky M, Lopez G, Coreanu T, Novack V, Horng S, Shapiro NI et al (2017) Risk of intracranial hemorrhage in ground-level fall with antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents. Acad Emerg Med 24(10):1258–1266

Fakhry SM, Morse JL, Garland JM, Wilson NY, Shen Y, Wyse RJ et al (2021) Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents have minimal impact on traumatic brain injury incidence, surgery, and mortality in geriatric ground level falls: a multi-institutional analysis of 33,710 patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 90(2):215–223

Collins CE, Witkowski ER, Flahive JM, Anderson FA, Santry HP (2014) Effect of preinjury warfarin use on outcomes after head trauma in Medicare beneficiaries. Am J Surg 208(4):544–549

Pfeilschifter W, Lindhoff-Last E, Alhashim A, Zydek B, Lindau S, Konstantinides S et al (2022) Intracranial bleeding under vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants: results of the RADOA registry. Neurol Res Pract 4(1):16

Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J, Oldgren J, Parekh A et al (2009) Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 361(12):1139–1151

Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV, Lopes RD, Hylek EM, Hanna M et al (2011) Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. New Engl J Med 365(11):981–992

Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, Pan G, Singer DE, Hacke W et al (2011) Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 365(10):883–891

Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, Halperin JL et al (2013) Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 369(22):2093–2104

Rao MP, Vinereanu D, Wojdyla DM, Alexander JH, Atar D, Hylek EM et al (2018) Clinical outcomes and history of fall in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation: insights from the ARISTOTLE trial. Am J Med 131(3):269–275

Steffel J, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Mercuri M, Choi Y et al (2016) Edoxaban versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients at risk of falling: ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 68(11):1169–1178

Galvain T, Hill R, Donegan S, Lisboa P, Lip GYH, Czanner G (2022) Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and history of falls or risk of falls: a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis. Drug Saf 45(11):1349–1362

Miao B, Alberts MJ, Bunz TJ, Coleman CI (2019) Safety and effectiveness of oral factor Xa inhibitors versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients at high-risk for falls. J Thromb Thrombolysis 48(3):366–372

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2019) CG176: head injury: assessment and early management. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg176 . Accessed 02 May 2023

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2022) Head injury: assessment and early management - draft for consultation. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10164/documents/draft-guideline . Accessed 02 May 2023

Mason S, Kuczawski M, Teare MD, Stevenson M, Goodacre S, Ramlakhan S et al (2017) AHEAD Study: an observational study of the management of anticoagulated patients who suffer head injury. BMJ Open 7(1):e014324

Fuller G, Sabir L, Evans R, Bradbury D, Kuczawski M, Mason SM (2020) Risk of significant traumatic brain injury in adults with minor head injury taking direct oral anticoagulants: a cohort study and updated meta-analysis. Emerg Med J 37(11):666–673

Tokioka F, Okamoto H, Shiotsu A, Hashimoto T (2023) Frequency and clinical features of radiographic head injury caused by inpatient falls: a single-centre retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 13(4):e066426

Wilson D, Werring D (2017) Antithrombotic therapy in patients with cerebral microbleeds. Curr Opin Neurol 30(1):38–47

Charidimou A, Karayiannis C, Song T-J, Orken DN, Thijs V, Lemmens R et al (2017) Brain microbleeds, anticoagulation, and hemorrhage risk. Neurology 89:2317–2326

Karayiannis C, Soufan C, Chandra RV, Phan TG, Wong K, Singhal S et al (2016) Prevalence of brain MRI markers of hemorrhagic risk in patients with stroke and atrial fibrillation. Front Neurol 7:151

Akoudad S, Portegies MLP, Koudstaal PJ, Hofman A, Lugt Avd, Ikram MA et al (2015) Cerebral microbleeds are associated with an increased risk of stroke. Circulation. 132(6):509–16

Wilson D, Ambler G, Lee KJ, Lim JS, Shiozawa M, Koga M et al (2019) Cerebral microbleeds and stroke risk after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies. Lancet Neurol 18(7):653–665

Boltz MM, Podany AB, Hollenbeak CS, Armen SB (2015) Injuries and outcomes associated with traumatic falls in the elderly population on oral anticoagulant therapy. Injury 46(9):1765–1771

Liu YL, Yin L, Gu HM, Zhu XJ, Huang XX (2022) Outcomes of elderly patients with traumatic brain injury associated with the pre-injury antithrombotic prophylaxis type—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 26(12):4380–4391

Man-Son-Hing M, Nichol G, Lau A, Laupacis A (1999) Choosing antithrombotic therapy for elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who are at risk for falls. Arch Intern Med 159(7):677–685

Wei W, Rasu RS, Hernández-Muñoz JJ, Flores RJ, Rianon NJ, Hernández-Vizcarrondo GA et al (2021) Impact of fall risk and direct oral anticoagulant treatment on quality-adjusted life-years in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a Markov decision analysis. Drugs Aging 38(8):713–723

Nielsen PB, Larsen TB, Skjøth F, Lip GYH (2017) Outcomes associated with resuming warfarin treatment after hemorrhagic stroke or traumatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation. JAMA Inten Med 177(4):563–570

Xu Y, Shoamanesh A, Schulman S, Dowlatshahi D, Salman RA-S, Moldovan ID et al (2018) Oral anticoagulant re-initiation following intracerebral hemorrhage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Global survey of the practices of neurologists, neurosurgeons and thrombosis experts. PLoS One 13(1):e0191137

Murthy SB, Gupta A, Merkler AE, Navi BB, Mandava P, Iadecola C et al (2017) Restarting anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage. Stroke 48(6):1594–1600

Hawryluk GWJ, Austin JW, Furlan JC, Lee JB, O’Kelly C, Fehlings MG (2010) Management of anticoagulation following central nervous system hemorrhage in patients with high thromboembolic risk. J Thromb Haemost 8(7):1500–1508

Milling TJ, Warach S, Johnston SC, Gajewski B, Costantini T, Price M et al (2021) Restart TICrH: an adaptive randomized trial of time intervals to restart direct oral anticoagulants after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. J Neurotrauma 38(13):1791–1798

Joint Formulary Committee (2022) British National Formulary (online) London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. Available from: http://www.medicinescomplete.com . Accessed 2 Oct 2022

Steffel J, Verhamme P, Potpara TS, Albaladejo P, Antz M, Desteghe L et al (2018) The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 39(16):1330–1393

Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL et al (2021) 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 42(14):1289–1367

de Vries M, Seppala LJ, Daams JG, van de Glind EMM, Masud T, van der Velde N et al (2018) Fall-risk-increasing drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis: I. Cardiovascular drugs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 19(4):371.e1-e8

Dalgaard F, Pallisgaard JL, Numé A-K, Lindhardt TB, Gislason GH, Torp-Pedersen C et al (2019) Rate or rhythm control in older atrial fibrillation patients: risk of fall-related injuries and syncope. J Am Geriatr Soc 67(10):2023–2030

Torres Roldan VD, Brand-McCarthy SR, Ponce OJ, Belluzzo T, Urtecho M, Espinoza Suarez NR et al (2021) Shared decision making tools for people facing stroke prevention strategies in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and environmental scan. Med Decis Making 41(5):540–549

Grymonprez M, Petrovic M, De Backer TL, Steurbaut S, Lahousse L (2023) Clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and a history of falls using non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: a nationwide cohort study. IJC Heart Vasc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2023.101223

Granziera S, Cohen AT, Nante G, Manzato E, Sergi G (2015) Thromboembolic prevention in frail elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: a practical algorithm. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16(5):358–364

Huisman BAA, Geijteman ECT, Arevalo JJ, Dees MK, van Zuylen L, Szadek KM et al (2021) Use of antithrombotics at the end of life: an in-depth chart review study. BMC Palliat Care 20(1):110

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Institute for the Care of Older People (RICE), Bath, UK

Anneka Mitchell & Tomas J. Welsh

Pharmacy Department, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK

Anneka Mitchell & Yasmin Elmasry

Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Eveline van Poelgeest

Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Tomas J. Welsh

Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK

Life Sciences Department, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Anneka Mitchell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AM and YE performed the literature search, screening, data analysis and drafted the work for publication. EvP and TW reviewed and critically revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anneka Mitchell .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. No funding was received for conducting this study.

Ethical approval

This study does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not required for this type of study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mitchell, A., Elmasry, Y., van Poelgeest, E. et al. Anticoagulant use in older persons at risk for falls: therapeutic dilemmas—a clinical review. Eur Geriatr Med 14 , 683–696 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-023-00811-z

Download citation

Received : 23 January 2023

Accepted : 02 June 2023

Published : 01 July 2023

Issue Date : August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-023-00811-z

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

• Anticoagulants
• Deprescribing
• Atrial fibrillation
• Venous thrombosis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research