Library Homepage

Research Methods and Design

  • Action Research
  • Case Study Design

Literature Review

  • Quantitative Research Methods
  • Qualitative Research Methods
  • Mixed Methods Study
  • Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
  • Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
  • Research Ethics and Quality
  • Data Literacy
  • Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

Cover Art

  • Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
  • UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
  • Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

  • Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

literature review on research design

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

  • Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

  • Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
  • Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • << Previous: Case Study Design
  • Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 9:20 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

Creative Commons License

  • Privacy Policy
  • SignUp/Login

Research Method

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
  • Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
  • Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
  • Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
  • Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
  • Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
  • Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
  • Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
  • Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
  • State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
  • Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
  • Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
  • Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
  • Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
  • Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

  • Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
  • Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
  • Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
  • Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
  • Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
  • Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
  • Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

  • Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
  • Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
  • Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
  • Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
  • Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
  • Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
  • Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

  • Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
  • Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
  • Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
  • Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

  • Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
  • Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
  • Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
  • Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
  • Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

  • To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
  • To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
  • To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
  • To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
  • To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
  • Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
  • Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
  • Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
  • I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
  • Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

  • Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
  • Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
  • Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
  • Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
  • Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
  • Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
  • Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
  • Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
  • Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
  • Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
  • Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
  • Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
  • Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Report

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

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

Search form

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

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

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

You identify:

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

It Also Helps You:

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

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

Cover Art

  • Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
  • Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 10:11 AM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview
  • 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: Feb 8, 2024 1:57 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Duke University Libraries

Literature Reviews

  • Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

  • Types of reviews
  • 1. Define your research question
  • 2. Plan your search
  • 3. Search the literature
  • 4. Organize your results
  • 5. Synthesize your findings
  • 6. Write the review
  • Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
  • Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

literature review on research design

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

literature review on research design

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

literature review on research design

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

literature review on research design

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

literature review on research design

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

literature review on research design

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

literature review on research design

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

literature review on research design

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

literature review on research design

The literature review: Six steps to success

literature review on research design

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

literature review on research design

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

  • Next: Types of reviews >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:45 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/lit-reviews

Duke University Libraries

Services for...

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

Twitter

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

Creative Commons License

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

  • Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

  • Formulate a research question
  • Develop a protocol
  • Search for all relevant studies
  • Apply the selection criteria
  • Extract the data
  • Synthesize the data
  • Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

  • A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
  • If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
  • Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
  • Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
  • Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

  • They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
  • Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
  • They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
  • They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

  • They’re time-consuming .
  • They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

  • Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
  • Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

  • Population(s) or problem(s)
  • Intervention(s)
  • Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

  • What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

  • Type of study design(s)
  • The population of patients with eczema
  • The intervention of probiotics
  • In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
  • The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
  • Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

  • What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

  • Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
  • Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
  • Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
  • Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
  • Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

  • Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
  • Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
  • Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
  • Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

  • Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
  • Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
  • Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
  • Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

  • Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
  • Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

  • Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
  • Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

  • Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
  • Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

  • Abstract : A summary of the review
  • Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
  • Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
  • Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
  • Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
  • Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

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

  • Student’s  t -distribution
  • Normal distribution
  • Null and Alternative Hypotheses
  • Chi square tests
  • Confidence interval
  • Quartiles & Quantiles
  • Cluster sampling
  • Stratified sampling
  • Data cleansing
  • Reproducibility vs Replicability
  • Peer review
  • Prospective cohort study

Research bias

  • Implicit bias
  • Cognitive bias
  • Placebo effect
  • Hawthorne effect
  • Hindsight bias
  • Affect heuristic
  • Social desirability 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.

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 .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

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.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

  • Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Literature review and research design : a guide to effective research practice

Available online, at the library.

literature review on research design

Education Library (Cubberley)

The Education Library is closed for construction. Request items for pickup at another library.

More options

  • Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
  • Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

  • Introduction
  • Acknowledgements
  • Part One: On Research
  • Chapter 1. Research Philosophy
  • Chapter 2. Research Practice
  • Part Two: Reading Literature
  • Chapter 3. Attitude
  • Chapter 4. Managing the Literature
  • Chapter 5. Deep Reading
  • Part Three: Writing About Literature
  • Chapter 6. Writing with Literature
  • Chapter 7. Writing a Literature Review
  • Select References, Annotated.
  • (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

Stanford University

  • Stanford Home
  • Maps & Directions
  • Search Stanford
  • Emergency Info
  • Terms of Use
  • Non-Discrimination
  • Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Literature Reviews

  • Getting Started
  • Choosing a Type of Review
  • Developing a Research Question
  • Searching the Literature
  • Searching Tips
  • ChatGPT [beta]
  • Documenting your Search
  • Using Citation Managers
  • Concept Mapping
  • Concept Map Definition

MindMeister

  • Writing the Review
  • Further Resources

Additional Tools

Google slides.

GSlides can create concept maps using their Diagram feature. Insert > Diagram > Hierarchy will give you some editable templates to use.

Tutorial on diagrams in GSlides .

MICROSOFT WORD

MS Word can create concept maps using Insert > SmartArt Graphic. Select Process, Cycle, Hierarchy, or Relationship to see templates.

NVivo  is software for qualitative analysis that has a concept map feature. Zotero libraries can be uploaded using ris files. NVivo Concept Map information.

A concept map or mind map is a visual representation of knowledge that illustrates relationships between concepts or ideas. It is a tool for organizing and representing information in a hierarchical and interconnected manner. At its core, a concept map consists of nodes, which represent individual concepts or ideas, and links, which depict the relationships between these concepts .

Below is a non-exhaustive list of tools that can facilitate the creation of concept maps.

literature review on research design

www.canva.com

Canva is a user-friendly graphic design platform that enables individuals to create visual content quickly and easily. It offers a diverse array of customizable templates, design elements, and tools, making it accessible to users with varying levels of design experience. 

Pros: comes with many pre-made concept map templates to get you started

Cons : not all features are available in the free version

Explore Canva concept map templates here .

Note: Although Canva advertises an "education" option, this is for K-12 only and does not apply to university users.

literature review on research design

www.lucidchart.com

Lucid has two tools that can create mind maps (what they're called inside Lucid): Lucidchart is the place to build, document, and diagram, and Lucidspark is the place to ideate, connect, and plan.

Lucidchart is a collaborative online diagramming and visualization tool that allows users to create a wide range of diagrams, including flowcharts, org charts, wireframes, and mind maps. Its mind-mapping feature provides a structured framework for brainstorming ideas, organizing thoughts, and visualizing relationships between concepts. 

Lucidspark , works as a virtual whiteboard. Here, you can add sticky notes, develop ideas through freehand drawing, and collaborate with your teammates. Has only one template for mind mapping.

Explore Lucid mind map creation here .

How to create mind maps using LucidSpark: 

Note: U-M students have access to Lucid through ITS. [ info here ] Choose the "Login w Google" option, use your @umich.edu account, and access should happen automatically.

literature review on research design

www.figma.com

Figma is a cloud-based design tool that enables collaborative interface design and prototyping. It's widely used by UI/UX designers to create, prototype, and iterate on digital designs. Figma is the main design tool, and FigJam is their virtual whiteboard:

Figma  is a comprehensive design tool that enables designers to create and prototype high-fidelity designs

FigJam focuses on collaboration and brainstorming, providing a virtual whiteboard-like experience, best for concept maps

Explore FigJam concept maps here .

literature review on research design

Note: There is a " Figma for Education " version for students that will provide access. Choose the "Login w Google" option, use your @umich.edu account, and access should happen automatically.

literature review on research design

www.mindmeister.com

MindMeister  is an online mind mapping tool that allows users to visually organize their thoughts, ideas, and information in a structured and hierarchical format. It provides a digital canvas where users can create and manipulate nodes representing concepts or topics, and connect them with lines to show relationships and associations.

Features : collaborative, permits multiple co-authors, and multiple export formats. The free version allows up to 3 mind maps.

Explore  MindMeister templates here .

  • << Previous: Using Citation Managers
  • Next: Writing the Review >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:47 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Perspect Clin Res
  • v.11(2); Apr-Jun 2020

Study designs: Part 7 – Systematic reviews

Priya ranganathan.

Department of Anaesthesiology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Rakesh Aggarwal

1 Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India

In this series on research study designs, we have so far looked at different types of primary research designs which attempt to answer a specific question. In this segment, we discuss systematic review, which is a study design used to summarize the results of several primary research studies. Systematic reviews often also use meta-analysis, which is a statistical tool to mathematically collate the results of various research studies to obtain a pooled estimate of treatment effect; this will be discussed in the next article.

In the previous six articles in this series on study designs, we have looked at different types of primary research study designs which are used to answer research questions. In this article, we describe the systematic review, a type of secondary research design that is used to summarize the results of prior primary research studies. Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence for a particular research question.[ 1 ]

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

As defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , “Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol.”[ 2 ]

NARRATIVE VERSUS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

Review of available data has been done since times immemorial. However, the traditional narrative reviews (“expert reviews”) do not involve a systematic search of the literature. Instead, the author of the review, usually an expert on the subject, used informal methods to identify (what he or she thinks are) the key studies on the topic. The final review thus is a summary of these “selected” studies. Since studies are chosen at will (haphazardly!) and without clearly defined criteria, such reviews preferentially include those studies that favor the author's views, leading to a potential for subjectivity or selection bias.

In contrast, systematic reviews involve a formal prespecified protocol with explicit, transparent criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of studies, thereby ensuring completeness of coverage of the available evidence, and providing a more objective, replicable, and comprehensive overview it.

META-ANALYSIS

Many systematic reviews use an additional tool, known as meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique for combining the results of multiple studies in a systematic review in a mathematically appropriate way, to create a single (pooled) and more precise estimate of treatment effect. The feasibility of performing a meta-analysis in a systematic review depends on the number of studies included in the final review and the degree of heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria as well as the results between the included studies. Meta-analysis will be discussed in detail in the next article in this series.

THE PROCESS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

The conduct of a systematic review involves several sequential key steps.[ 3 , 4 ] As in other research study designs, a clearly stated research question and a well-written research protocol are essential before commencing a systematic review.

Step 1: Stating the review question

Systematic reviews can be carried out in any field of medical research, e.g. efficacy or safety of interventions, diagnostics, screening or health economics. In this article, we focus on systematic reviews of studies looking at the efficacy of interventions. As for the other study designs, for a systematic review too, the question is best framed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format.

For example, Safi et al . carried out a systematic review on the effect of beta-blockers on the outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction.[ 5 ] In this review, the Population was patients with suspected or confirmed myocardial infarction, the Intervention was beta-blocker therapy, the Comparator was either placebo or no intervention, and the Outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. The review question was “ In patients with suspected or confirmed myocardial infarction, does the use of beta-blockers affect mortality or major adverse cardiovascular outcomes? ”

Step 2: Listing the eligibility criteria for studies to be included

It is essential to explicitly define a priori the criteria for selection of studies which will be included in the review. Besides the PICO components, some additional criteria used frequently for this purpose include language of publication (English versus non-English), publication status (published as full paper versus unpublished), study design (randomized versus quasi-experimental), age group (adults versus children), and publication year (e.g. in the last 5 years, or since a particular date). The PICO criteria used may not be very specific, e.g. it is possible to include studies that use one or the other drug belonging to the same group. For instance, the systematic review by Safi et al . included all randomized clinical trials, irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, or language, and reported outcomes, that had used any beta-blocker and in a broad range of doses.[ 5 ]

Step 3: Comprehensive search for studies that meet the eligibility criteria

A thorough literature search is essential to identify all articles related to the research question and to ensure that no relevant article is left out. The search may include one or more electronic databases and trial registries; in addition, it is common to hand-search the cross-references in the articles identified through such searches. One could also plan to reach out to experts in the field to identify unpublished data, and to search the grey literature non-peer-reviewednon-peer-reviewed. This last option is particularly helpful non-pharmacologic (theses, conference abstracts, and non-peer-reviewed journals). These sources are particularly helpful when the intervention is relatively new, since data on these may not yet have been published as full papers and hence are unlikely to be found in literature databases. In the review by Safi et al ., the search strategy included not only several electronic databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, etc.) but also other resources (e.g. Google Scholar, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and reference lists of identified studies).[ 5 ] It is not essential to include all the above databases in one's search. However, it is mandatory to define in advance which of these will be searched.

Step 4: Identifying and selecting relevant studies

Once the search strategy defined in the previous step has been run to identify potentially relevant studies, a two-step process is followed. First, the titles and abstracts of the identified studies are processed to exclude any duplicates and to discard obviously irrelevant studies. In the next step, full-text papers of the remaining articles are retrieved and closely reviewed to identify studies that meet the eligibility criteria. To minimize bias, these selection steps are usually performed independently by at least two reviewers, who also assign a reason for non-selection to each discarded study. Any discrepancies are then resolved either by an independent reviewer or by mutual consensus of the original reviewers. In the Cochrane review on beta-blockers referred to above, two review authors independently screened the titles for inclusion, and then, four review authors independently reviewed the screen-positive studies to identify the trials to be included in the final review.[ 5 ] Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by taking the opinion of a separate reviewer. A summary of this selection process, showing the degree of agreement between reviewers, and a flow diagram that depicts the numbers of screened, included and excluded (with reason for exclusion) studies are often included in the final review.

Step 5: Data extraction

In this step, from each selected study, relevant data are extracted. This should be done by at least two reviewers independently, and the data then compared to identify any errors in extraction. Standard data extraction forms help in objective data extraction. The data extracted usually contain the name of the author, the year of publication, details of intervention and control treatments, and the number of participants and outcome data in each group. In the review by Safi et al ., four review authors independently extracted data and resolved any differences by discussion.[ 5 ]

Handling missing data

Some of the studies included in the review may not report outcomes in accordance with the review methodology. Such missing data can be handled in two ways – by contacting authors of the original study to obtain the necessary data and by using data imputation techniques. Safi et al . used both these approaches – they tried to get data from the trial authors; however, where that failed, they analyzed the primary outcome (mortality) using the best case (i.e. presuming that all the participants in the experimental arm with missing data had survived and those in the control arm with missing mortality data had died – representing the maximum beneficial effect of the intervention) and the worst case (all the participants with missing data in the experimental arm assumed to have died and those in the control arm to have survived – representing the least beneficial effect of the intervention) scenarios.

Evaluating the quality (or risk of bias) in the included studies

The overall quality of a systematic review depends on the quality of each of the included studies. Quality of a study is inversely proportional to the potential for bias in its design. In our previous articles on interventional study design in this series, we discussed various methods to reduce bias – such as randomization, allocation concealment, participant and assessor blinding, using objective endpoints, minimizing missing data, the use of intention-to-treat analysis, and complete reporting of all outcomes.[ 6 , 7 ] These features form the basis of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2), which is a commonly used instrument to assess the risk of bias in the studies included in a systematic review.[ 8 ] Based on this tool, one can classify each study in a review as having low risk of bias, having some concerns regarding bias, or at high risk of bias. Safi et al . used this tool to classify the included studies as having low or high risk of bias and presented these data in both tabular and graphical formats.[ 5 ]

In some reviews, the authors decide to summarize only studies with a low risk of bias and to exclude those with a high risk of bias. Alternatively, some authors undertake a separate analysis of studies with low risk of bias, besides an analysis of all the studies taken together. The conclusions from such analyses of only high-quality studies may be more robust.

Step 6: Synthesis of results

The data extracted from various studies are pooled quantitatively (known as a meta-analysis) or qualitatively (if pooling of results is not considered feasible). For qualitative reviews, data are usually presented in the tabular format, showing the characteristics of each included study, to allow for easier interpretation.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses are used to test the robustness of the results of a systematic review by examining the impact of excluding or including studies with certain characteristics. As referred to above, this can be based on the risk of bias (methodological quality), studies with a specific study design, studies with a certain dosage or schedule, or sample size. If results of these different analyses are more-or-less the same, one can be more certain of the validity of the findings of the review. Furthermore, such analyses can help identify whether the effect of the intervention could vary across different levels of another factor. In the beta-blocker review, sensitivity analysis was performed depending on the risk of bias of included studies.[ 5 ]

IMPORTANT RESOURCES FOR CARRYING OUT SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

Cochrane is an organization that works to produce good-quality, updated systematic reviews related to human healthcare and policy, which are accessible to people across the world.[ 9 ] There are more than 7000 Cochrane reviews on various topics. One of its main resources is the Cochrane Library (available at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/ ), which incorporates several databases with different types of high-quality evidence to inform healthcare decisions, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Clinical Answers.

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

The Cochrane handbook is an official guide, prepared by the Cochrane Collaboration, to the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews.[ 10 ]

Review Manager software

Review Manager (RevMan) is a software developed by Cochrane to support the preparation and maintenance of systematic reviews, including tools for performing meta-analysis.[ 11 ] It is freely available in both online (RevMan Web) and offline (RevMan 5.3) versions.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials.[ 12 ] It can be used both by authors of such studies to improve the completeness of reporting and by reviewers and readers to critically appraise a systematic review. There are several extensions to the PRISMA statement for specific types of reviews. An update is currently underway.

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement

The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement summarizes the recommendations for reporting of meta-analyses in epidemiology.[ 13 ]

PROSPERO is an international database for prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews in healthcare.[ 14 ] It aims to avoid duplication of and to improve transparency in reporting of results of such reviews.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Book cover

Research Design in Business and Management pp 235–251 Cite as

Literature Review Research Design

  • Stefan Hunziker 3 &
  • Michael Blankenagel 3  
  • First Online: 10 November 2021

2866 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter addresses the peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies of literature review research design. Conducting and writing poor literature reviews is one of many ways to lower the value of an academic work. State-of-the-art literature reviews are valuable and publishable scholarly documents. Too many new scholars think that empirical research is the only proper research. In this chapter, researchers find relevant information on how to write a literature review research design paper and learn about typical methodologies used for this research design. The chapter closes with referring to related research designs.

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

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Behringer, S., Ulrich, P., & Unruh, A. (2019). Compliance management in family firms: A systematic literature analysis. Corporate Ownership & Control, 17 (1), 140–157.

Article   Google Scholar  

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3–15.

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78 , 367–409.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 , 77–101.

Carrillat, F. A., Legoux, R., & Hadida, A. L. (2018). Debates and assumptions about motion picture performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 , 273–299.

Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. Springerplus, 3 , 511.

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7 , 177–188.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5 , 3–8.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82 , 581–629.

Hart, C. (1999). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination . SAGE.

Google Scholar  

Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 2–7.

LeCompte, M. D., Klingner, J. K., Campbell, S. A., & Menk, D. W. (2003). Editors’ introduction. Review of Educational Research, 73 (2), 123–124.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151 , W-65.

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75 , 136–154.

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 , 1–5.

Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14 , (13).

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104 , 333–339. (Quelle noch einfügen im Text bei LeComplte Abschnitt).

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4 , 356–367.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 , 207–222.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26 , 3.

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 , 546–553.

Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Medicine, 11 , 20.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland

Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Literature Review Research Design. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_13

Published : 10 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34356-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34357-6

eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)

Computer Science > Software Engineering

Title: systematic mapping protocol -- ux design role in software development process.

Abstract: A systematic mapping protocol is a method for conducting a literature review in a rigorous and transparent way. It aims to provide an overview of the current state of research on a specific topic, identify gaps and opportunities, and guide future work. In this document, we present a systematic mapping protocol for investigating the role of the UX designer in the software development process. We define the research questions, scope, sources, search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction, and analysis methods that we will use to conduct the mapping study. Our goal is to understand how the UX designers collaborate with other stakeholders, what methods and tools they use, what challenges they face, and what outcomes they achieve in different contexts and domains.

Submission history

Access paper:.

  • Download PDF

license icon

References & Citations

  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

BibSonomy logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

  • Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

'ZDNET Recommends': What exactly does it mean?

ZDNET's recommendations are based on many hours of testing, research, and comparison shopping. We gather data from the best available sources, including vendor and retailer listings as well as other relevant and independent reviews sites. And we pore over customer reviews to find out what matters to real people who already own and use the products and services we’re assessing.

When you click through from our site to a retailer and buy a product or service, we may earn affiliate commissions. This helps support our work, but does not affect what we cover or how, and it does not affect the price you pay. Neither ZDNET nor the author are compensated for these independent reviews. Indeed, we follow strict guidelines that ensure our editorial content is never influenced by advertisers.

ZDNET's editorial team writes on behalf of you, our reader. Our goal is to deliver the most accurate information and the most knowledgeable advice possible in order to help you make smarter buying decisions on tech gear and a wide array of products and services. Our editors thoroughly review and fact-check every article to ensure that our content meets the highest standards. If we have made an error or published misleading information, we will correct or clarify the article. If you see inaccuracies in our content, please report the mistake via this form .

How to use Copilot Pro to write, edit, and analyze your Word documents

lance-31.png

Microsoft's Copilot Pro AI offers a few benefits for $20 per month. But the most helpful one is the AI-powered integration with the different Microsoft 365 apps. For those of you who use Microsoft Word, for instance, Copilot Pro can help you write and revise your text, provide summaries of your documents, and answer questions about any document.

First, you'll need a subscription to either Microsoft 365 Personal or Family . Priced at $70 per year, the Personal edition is geared for one individual signed into as many as five devices. At $100 per year, the Family edition is aimed at up to six people on as many as five devices. The core apps in the suite include Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and OneNote.

Also: Microsoft Copilot vs. Copilot Pro: Is the subscription fee worth it?

Second, you'll need the subscription to Copilot Pro if you don't already have one. To sign up, head to the Copilot Pro website . Click the Get Copilot Pro button. Confirm the subscription and the payment. The next time you use Copilot on the website, in Windows, or with the mobile apps, the Pro version will be in effect.

How to use Copilot Pro in Word

1. open word.

Launch Microsoft Word and open a blank document. Let's say you need help writing a particular type of document and want Copilot to create a draft. 

Also: Microsoft Copilot Pro vs. OpenAI's ChatGPT Plus: Which is worth your $20 a month?

A small "Draft with Copilot" window appears on the screen. If you don't see it, click the tiny "Draft with Copilot icon in the left margin."

 width=

2. Submit your request

At the text field in the window, type a description of the text you need and click the "Generate" button.

 width=

Submit your request.

3. Review the response and your options

Copilot generates and displays its response. After reading the response, you're presented with a few different options.

 width=

Review the response and your options.

4. Keep, regenerate, or remove the draft

If you like the draft, click "Keep it." The draft is then inserted into your document where you can work with it. If you don't like the draft, click the "Regenerate" button, and a new draft is created. 

Also: What is Copilot (formerly Bing Chat)? Here's everything you need to know

If you'd prefer to throw out the entire draft and start from scratch, click the trash can icon.

 width=

Keep, regenerate, or remove the draft.

5. Alter the draft

Alternatively, you can try to modify the draft by typing a specific request in the text field, such as "Make it more formal," "Make it shorter," or "Make it more casual."

 width=

Alter the draft.

6. Review the different versions

If you opt to regenerate the draft, you can switch between the different versions by clicking the left or right arrow next to the number. You can then choose to keep the draft you prefer.

 width=

7. Revise existing text

Copilot will also help you fine-tune existing text. Select the text you want to revise. Click the Copilot icon in the left margin and select "Rewrite with Copilot."

 width=

Revise existing text.

8. Review the different versions

Copilot creates a few different versions of the text. Click the arrow keys to view each version.

 width=

Review the different versions.

9. Replace or Insert

If you find one you like, click "Replace" to replace the text you selected. 

Also: ChatGPT vs. Microsoft Copilot vs. Gemini: Which is the best AI chatbot?

Click "Insert below" to insert the new draft below the existing words so you can compare the two.

 width=

Replace or Insert.

10. Adjust the tone

Click "Regenerate" to ask Copilot to try again. Click the "Adjust Tone" button and select a different tone to generate another draft.

 width=

Adjust the tone.

11. Turn text into a table

Sometimes you have text that would look and work better as a table. Copilot can help. Select the text you wish to turn into a table. Click the Copilot icon and select "Visualize as a Table."

 width=

Turn text into a table.

12. Respond to the table

In response, click "Keep it" to retain the table. Click "Regenerate" to try again. Click the trash can icon to delete it. Otherwise, type a request in the text field, such as "remove the second row" or "make the last column wider."

 width=

Respond to the table.

13. Summarize a document

Copilot Pro can provide a summary of a document with its key points. To try this, open the document you want to summarize and then click the Copilot icon on the Ribbon. 

Also: The best AI chatbots

The right sidebar displays several prompts you can use to start your question. Click the one for "Summarize this doc."

 width=

Summarize a document.

14. Review the summary

View the generated summary in the sidebar. If you like it as is, click the "Copy" button to copy the summary and paste it elsewhere.

 width=

Review the summary.

15. Revise the summary

Otherwise, choose one of the suggested questions or ask your own question to revise the summary. For example, you could tell Copilot to make the summary longer, shorter, more formal, or less formal. 

Also: The best AI image generators

You could also ask it to expand on one of the points in the summary or provide more details on a certain point. A specific response is then generated based on your request.

 width=

Revise the summary.

16. Ask questions about a document

Next, you can ask specific questions about any of the content in a document. Again, click the Copilot icon to display the sidebar. In the prompt area, type and submit your question. Copilot displays the response in the sidebar. You can then ask follow-up questions as needed.

 width=

Ask questions about a document.

More how-tos

 width=

I've tried Vision Pro and other top XR headsets and here's the one most people should buy

 width=

The best AI image generators to try right now

 width=

The best TVs of 2024: Expert tested

  • Open access
  • Published: 20 February 2024

The burden, risk factors and prevention strategies for drowning in Türkiye: a systematic literature review

  • Ali Işın   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4666-2117 1 &
  • Amy E. Peden 2 , 3  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  528 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

65 Accesses

Metrics details

Introduction

Drowning is a public health problem in Türkiye, as in the rest of the world. This study aims to systematically review the literature on drowning in Türkiye with a focus on data sources, epidemiology, risk factors and prevention strategies. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SPORTSDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, Turk MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Google Akademik (Turkish language). Studies (limited to original research written in English and Turkish) reporting drowning (unintentional and intentional; fatal and non-fatal) of residents and tourists in Türkiye were independently dual screened at the title and abstract and full text stages. Study quality was assessed using JBI checklists and evidence level assessed based on study design. Results: From a total of 917 studies, 49 met the inclusion criteria. Most (51%) focused on unintentional fatal drowning. Included studies were most commonly analytical cross-sectional studies ( n  = 23) and case series ( n  = 20) meaning the evidence level was low or very low for 48 (98%) studies. Fifteen studies examined drowning at the national level, while sub-national studies ( n  = 30) focused on urban areas across three provinces: Antalya ( n  = 6), Istanbul ( n  = 6), Izmir ( n  = 4). There was little consensus on risk factors beyond male drowning risk, and no data reported on implemented or evaluated drowning prevention interventions. Discussion: There is a need for more national-level studies to identify the causes of drowning and to guide intervention implementation and evaluation to inform policy makers and donors. Currently official data is limited in its detail, providing age and gender data only, hampering efforts to identify, and thus address, causal factors for drowning. Practical applications: There is currently very little evidence to inform investment in effective drowning prevention interventions in Türkiye. To improve this, data collection systems on drowning in Türkiye need to be strengthened via the development a national drowning registry.

Trial Registration

#CRD42022382615.

Peer Review reports

Drowning is recognised as a serious public health problem worldwide. In 2019, more than 230,000 people died due to drowning, mostly in low- and middle-income countries, making drowning the third leading cause of unintentional injury death globally (accounting for 7% of all injury-related deaths) [ 1 ]. Studies from several countries identify that such figures likely underreport the true burden of drowning due to the exclusion of water transport and disaster-related drowning [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], as well as intentional drowning [ 5 ]. Drowning can occur in any type of water, such as rivers, lakes, oceans, pools, bathtubs or buckets, and can be classified as fatal or non-fatal depending on whether the outcome of the initial drowning incident [ 6 ].

Türkiye, a Eurasian country with 783,577 km2 of land, is surrounded by four seas (the Mediterranean, the Aegean, the Black Sea, and the Marmara) and has many lakes, streams and rivers [ 7 ]. The country’s total coastline is 8,592 km long and the area of the coastal provinces accounts for 30% of the whole country. Türkiye’s most populous provinces are generally along the coast [ 8 ]. This gives more people access to the sea, thus increasing drowning risk. Moreover, with the rising temperatures in the summer months, more people participate in aquatic activities such as swimming, boating, etc. This leads to fatal and non-fatal drowning incidents in Türkiye [ 9 ]. Although there are lifeguards on all major beaches, people may choose to enter the water in more rural areas. Also, in rural areas, irrigation canals, lakes, dams, rivers and streams are seen as significant risk factors for drowning. It is thought that the number of drownings increases in these areas due to the lack of protective measures (such as warning signs and rescue equipment) [ 10 ].

Drowning is a significant issue across the European region [ 11 ], including in Türkiye, where the prevention of drowning is challenging due to a lack of reliable and comprehensive data on its burden and risk factors [ 7 ]. The number of drowning deaths and crude mortality rate in Türkiye is uncertain due to different data sources (media data, clinic reports and autopsy records) which use different definitions thus affect the accuracy of estimates of drowning mortality in Türkiye. Further, the exclusion of flood-related drowning deaths and water transportation-related drownings [ 10 ] also risks underrepresenting the true burden. Further, there is no total population level data capture on non-fatal drowning in Türkiye. Therefore, more comprehensive and consistent data on drowning in Türkiye are needed to inform prevention strategies and policies [ 7 ].

Given of the lack of consolidated information on drowning in Türkiye, this systematic literature review aimed to identify and synthesise the published literature on drowning burden, data sources, risk factors and prevention strategies in Türkiye, with the aim of informing next steps for drowning prevention in the country.

Materials and methods

The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42022382615) and conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [ 12 ].

Literature search

Searches were conducted using PubMed, SPORTSDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Turk MEDLINE from inception to 9th December 2022. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table  1 . Search terms included drown*, immers*, submers*, swim*, a variety of aquatic locations (i.e., river, lake, sea, beach, pool) and Turk*. Full search strategies can be found in Table S 1 . These were tailored to suit each journal and based on consultations with a specialist librarian and a previous literature review of drowning [ 13 ]. Search strings were also devised in such a way as to capture more relevant information, for example, cases classified as drowning not just deaths or incidents in water, and swimming as it pertains to drowning prevention and not competitive swimming or the biomechanics of swimming.

After database searches were run, additional searches of boğulma* AND Türk were run using Google Akademik (Turkish language by author AI) and drown* AND Turk* in Google Scholar (English language by author AP) to identify any articles not found via database searches. Authors screened results until 10 pages of nil results. As a result of these searches, no new articles were identified. Databases were chosen based on their relevance to drowning from a previous review of drowning in a neighbouring region [ 13 ], in addition to the use of Turk MEDLINE and Google Akademik to capture Turkish literature not indexed in the other databases.

Study selection

Two authors (AI and AP) conducted a dual independent review of the title and abstract followed by full-text screening with conflicts resolved via consensus. One Turkish-speaking author (AI) reviewed Turkish language literature, clarifying any concerns with author (AP). Study screening was performed using Covidence literature screening software [ 14 ].

Data extraction

Data extraction was undertaken by one author (AI) with an independent quality check of 20% of included records undertaken by a second author (AP). Data extraction was undertaken using a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet custom-built for this purpose. Data were extracted on the following aspects: Study characteristics (which included author name, year published, years of study, study population, study design and data source(s)), epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention strategies.

The epidemiology of drowning was reported as numbers, proportions, or rates per 100,000 for each population reported (overall, by age group, by year, by gender, etc.) in the included studies. No inferred rates were calculated. Drowning was described by outcome (fatal, non-fatal, both, not specified), and intent (unintentional, intentional, both, not specified) and examined at a total population level, as well as by age group and gender.

We coded the free text description of data sources, risk/protective factors, and prevention strategies by consensus. Risk/protective factors were those that had a significant association with the risk of drowning or drowning outcome (e.g., chi square tests of significance [ p  < 0.05], odds ratio, relative risk). We extracted prevention strategies that were proposed, implemented and/or evaluated. We classified prevention strategies as being primary (before the drowning occurs), secondary (reduce the impact of a drowning which has already occurred), or tertiary prevention (reduce the ongoing effects of a drowning incident) [ 15 ] and also aligned strategies to the Hierarchy of Control [ 16 ]. We also noted if the prevention strategy involved multi-sectoral action (as recommended by the WHO [ 17 ]) and which sectors were involved.

Quality appraisal

Quality assessment of included studies was performed by two members of the review team using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools based on study type. The first author (X1) assessed all articles and then the other author (X2) randomly assessed 20% of the articles. Disagreements between the two authors were resolved by discussion. Checklists provide a score based on assessment of a range of study design criteria. Study design of the included studies were graded according to the National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) levels of evidence, which range from level I (a systematic review of Level II studies [randomised controlled trial]) to level IV (case studies with either post-test or pre-test/post-test outcomes) (Table S 2 ).

Database searching yielded 917 studies. After removal of 79 duplicates, 838 studies were screened by title and abstract for inclusion. Of these, 735 studies were deemed irrelevant and excluded. The remaining 103 full text studies were screened for eligibility. In total, 54 studies were removed at full text review and data were extracted from the remaining 49 studies which satisfied the inclusion criteria (Fig.  1 ).

figure 1

PRISMA flow chart

Study characteristics

Among the 49 included studies, the publication dates ranged from 2004 to 2022. The included studies were predominately analytical cross-sectional studies ( n  = 23; 47%) and case series ( n  = 20; 41%). The remaining studies comprised four prevalence studies, one qualitative study and one quasi-experimental study. Included studies mostly used autopsy data ( n  = 21; 43%) or medical reports ( n  = 13; 27%), followed by media reports ( n  = 8; 16%). Based on study design, the overall level of evidence was low, with almost all studies ( n  = 48) ranked as low or very low on the NHMRC Levels of Evidence criteria (Table S 2 ). When assessed using JBI checklists based on study type, 23 studies (47%) recorded a score of 7 or above.

Fifteen included studies reported drowning at the national level, while 16 studies reported drowning at the provincial level, most commonly in Antalya ( n  = 6), Istanbul ( n  = 6) and Izmir ( n  = 4) (Fig.  2 ). More than half of the included studies reported data at the sub-national level ( n  = 30; 61%), followed by 16 studies (33%) reporting national data and 3 studies (6%) reporting on foreign visitors to Türkiye. No studies examined drowning among migrants, either once they had arrived in Türkiye or while in transit. Most of the studies (27 out of 49; 55%) reported data from urban areas, while two studies (4%) reported data from rural areas. Some studies (20 out of 49; 41%) reported data from both urban and rural areas. Fatal drownings were the focus of 36 studies, while both fatal and non-fatal drownings were included in 12 studies. While 18 of these studies examined unintentional drownings only, seven examined both intentional and unintentional drownings. The remaining 24 studies did not distinguish between intentional and unintentional drownings (Table  2 ).

figure 2

Heatmap of sub-national studies by location

Burden and risk factors

One of the more commonly reported risk factors for drowning in Türkiye was gender [ 7 , 10 , 27 , 31 , 34 ]. Three studies presented drowning mortality rates per 100,000 people [ 7 , 9 , 34 ]. In these studies, the drowning rates for males were 1.8 (between 2005 and 2017), 0.52 (2015–2019) and 1.44 (2007–2011), respectively, while the corresponding rates for females were 0.48, 0.06 and 0.28 (Table  3 ). Only one study reported a higher proportion of females drowning (60%) than males (40%), though case numbers were small [ 47 ].

Studies showed different rates in different age groups, with different data sources, and focusing on different regions. However, the general trend was that about 70% of drowning cases were male. Işın et al. (2020) reported that the drowning rate for children under 18 years of age was 1.18 per 100,000 for males and 0.48 for females. It also showed that the risk of fatal drowning was almost four times higher for males (relative risk: 3.98) than females [ 7 ].

Few and varied mortality rates were reported in the included studies because of differences in data sets and populations. Turgut and Turgut (2014) found that drowning rate of 0.89 per 100,000 people in Türkiye based on media reports [ 9 ]. A similar study by Işın et al. (2020) found a rate of 1.17 per 100,000 children aged 0–18 years [ 7 ]. Çaylan et al. [ 27 ] found that the rate in children under 5 years of age decreased from 1.1 per 100,000 population in 2014 to 0.7 in 2017. In another study also conducted in children [ 7 ], it was reported that the rate of drowning, which was in an upward trend from 2005 to 2010, decreased every year until 2017 to 0.78 per 100,000 children after peaking in 2010. In a study conducted on the whole population [ 10 ], it was found that the drowning rate has been on a downward trend every year since 2015 (1.24 per 100,000 people) and decreased to 0.64 in 2019 (Table  3 ).

Out of 16 studies that reported number of deaths in age groups, only 10 presented data for the 0–19 years age group. The total number of deaths reported varied from 1 to 1,086. There was no consensus on the age group with the highest burden of drowning; a population-based study showed the 65 + years age group as recording the highest number of drowning cases [ 10 ], while a population-based drowning study showed high drowning numbers in the 10–14 years age group [ 7 ] (Table  4 ). A study focusing on child drowning found that the drowning rate per 100,000 children by age group varied from a low of 0.73 for 0–4 year-olds, increasing with age to a high of 2.11 for adolescents aged 15–17 years [ 7 ]. According to a study of rescue-related drowning, the age group with the highest risk of drowning per 100 000 persons was 15–24 years (1.28), followed by 25–34 years with 0.78 [ 34 ].

Fatal drownings by water location were reported in 16 studies. In Türkiye, the most common environments where fatal drownings occur were Beach/Sea, Stream/River/Creek, and Irrigation channel, respectively. The Beach/Sea was the most common drowning location in 5 studies, followed by Stream/River/Creek in 4 studies and lake in 2 studies. Bucket, Irrigation Channel, Hole/Well and Pool were each the most frequent drowning location in 1 study (Table  5 ). The sea/beach was the most common place for drowning across all age groups, but buckets were the main cause of drowning for children aged 0–4 years, while streams/rivers/creeks and irrigation channels were more prevalent for older children. Among rescuers, lakes/ponds and rivers were frequent drowning sites (Table  6 ).

Beyond gender, age and water location, several other drowning risk and protective factors were identified in the included literature. Results differed with respect to season, with winter found to have statistically significant lower drowning risk than Summer [ 27 ], while in Summer drowning rescues were more likely to be successful when compared to other seasons [ 34 ]. Among fatal and non-fatal drowning of children < 18 years, receipt of CPR and Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) treatment were associated with survival to hospital admission and a shorter stay in hospital respectively, whereas poorer vital signs led to poorer outcomes [ 44 ] (Table  6 ).

Prevention strategies

Identified prevention strategies included supervision for children aged ≤ 18 years, first aid education, data/research, rescue skills education (including throw rescues) and training, and swimming education. All were proposed strategies with no implementation or evaluation reported. All were classified as administrative on the Hierarchy of Control, representing lower order strategies in terms of likely effectiveness. Strategies were reasonably evenly spread across primary (four strategies), secondary (four strategies), and tertiary (three strategies) prevention. Most of the strategies (nine out of 11) involved more than one sector, with education and health being the most commonly co-occurring sectors (Table  7 ).

This study aimed to identify and synthesise the studies that have addressed drowning in Türkiye to date, examining data sources, epidemiology, risk factors and prevention strategies. Despite being a public health concern across Europe [ 11 ], our review identifies limited literature on drowning in Türkiye and low consensus on drowning risk factors. This lack of understanding on causal factors for drowning in Türkiye is thus manifest with no implementation or evaluation of drowning prevention strategies identified in the included literature [ 7 , 64 ].

Little is known about the crude drowning rate in Türkiye. The most important reason for this is that most of the conducted studies in Türkiye were based on autopsy or clinical/medical reports. Studies using these sources are not generalisable as they usually focus on a single centre (hospital, forensic medicine) or a province/region. This was insufficient data presented in many of the included studies to calculate mortality rates. In addition, many population-based studies used media reports of drowning as their source of data. While media reporting can be useful in the absence of routinely collected data, and in Türkiye supplements the meagre detail provided from the national statistics authority [ 10 ], it is not without its limitations. Previous research has indicated a bias towards more newsworthy incidents and incidents which occurred in urban settings [ 65 ]. Therefore, such data must be interpreted with caution and provides further support for the establishment of detailed and timely routine data collection on drowning such as via a national registry [ 66 ].

Where drowning mortality rates were reported, the rates among children were lower than those of neighbouring countries such as Iran, albeit with different data capture methods used [ 13 ].

Studies presenting crude drowning rates of different years and populations in Türkiye showed that drowning in Türkiye has been on a decreasing trend recently. Declining drowning rates in Türkiye appear to mirror those reported globally [ 67 ], as greater effort and funding is directed toward the issue [ 68 ], particularly investment in those interventions known to be effective in young children [ 69 ]. However, there is a need to expand this investment into the adolescent age group who experience high drowning rates with relatively lower investment [ 70 ]. Additionally, there is a need to ensure drowning fatalities across both urban and rural settings are captured [ 10 ], as well as better exploration of the impact of non-fatal drowning, particularly on the Turkish health system.

There was little consensus on risk factors for drowning in Türkiye, within the identified literature, aside from the consensus regarding male drowning risk being greater than female [ 7 , 10 , 34 ]. This is broadly consistent with many other studies globally [ 67 , 71 , 72 , 73 ].Based on the included studies, three possible reasons may account for the higher drowning rates among male in Türkiye; first, being males are more exposed to water than female. Thus, they spend more time in the water doing activities such as fishing, swimming, cooling off, boating, etc. [ 7 , 9 , 38 ]. Another reason could be that males are less likely to wear life jackets than female [ 7 ]. Finally, it is believed that male’s participation in the above activities under the influence of alcohol and drugs increases the risk of drowning in favour of male. Although the data didn’t meet the criteria to be included as a risk factor in our analysis, three studies suggested that alcohol consumption may be a preventable risk factor for drowning in Türkiye [ 37 , 46 , 59 ], particularly among males [ 37 ]. However, studies examining the impact of alcohol on drowning in Türkiye should consider the use of objective measures of alcohol consumption and intoxication such as recording blood alcohol concentration.

Another risk factor was age [ 7 , 10 , 27 , 34 ]. Most of the included studies focused on children and adolescents, but some also evaluated all age groups. The results of these studies showed that children, adolescents, and individuals over 65 years of age had a higher risk of drowning than other ages. Effective drowning prevention interventions for young children are well understood, comprising active supervision, restricting access to water, water familiarisation [ 7 ] and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as a tertiary response [ 44 ]. It may be that greater public education on strategies to reduce child drowning risk are needed within Türkiye [ 51 ], though the baseline knowledge is not currently known. The results of a study on drowning in swimming pools in Türkiye highlight the need to provide safer environments to prevent drowning in swimming pools. It is stated that lack of adequate safety measures and supervision is the cause of a significant proportion of child drownings. It was concluded that there is a need to close the pool edges with safety fences and to raise awareness of public by hanging information and warning signs at the edge of the pool [ 64 ], although such legislation is yet to have been implemented. While such approaches are likely to reduce drowning among young children, globally there is little evidence regarding effective drowning prevention interventions for adolescents and older people [ 70 , 74 ].

Seasons were another risk factor for drownings in Türkiye. Fatal drowning cases increased in summer and decreased in winter [ 7 , 27 , 34 ]. People attended water environments for activities such as cooling off, swimming, fishing, boat trips, etc. [ 7 ]. Especially in the summer months, when the temperatures rose and the schools closed, people visited water environments such as sea, dam, lake, etc. more often [ 9 , 64 ]. This led to more drownings due to a lack of supervision [ 7 ], inability to swim [ 64 ], swimming in areas without lifeguards [ 49 ], etc. Therefore, the authors recommended swimming education as a prevention strategy [ 51 ]. In addition, we recommend increased public education and awareness campaigns regarding drowning risk reduction strategies ahead of high-risk periods such as summer and school holidays.

Aquatic location was also identified as a risk factor for drowning, although there was little consensus in the included studies. Türkiye has many natural water bodies including four seas, numerous lakes, dams, and rivers [ 7 ], leading to natural water bodies being a leading location for all-age drowning. Results of this review show that drownings in areas close to the coastline were mostly in the sea [ 19 , 24 , 31 ], while lake, rivers and irrigation canals were the main drowning places in landlocked or inland areas [ 58 ]. the findings of the current systematic review showed that most studies focused on drownings in a single province or region. This resulted in different locations being the leading sites for drowning cases/deaths for children and adults, based on their geographical location. Drowning prevention interventions in Türkiye must be tailored to the accessible water bodies and practices around interaction with water in the different localities.

Although still facing drowning risk from natural waterbodies where adults drown, such as the sea and rivers, creeks and streams, this review also highlight the drowning risk for children posed by buckets [ 18 ] and irrigation channels [ 7 , 28 ]. Updated research is needed to determine whether water storage practices have changed over time since Asurdizer et al.’s analysis of cases between 1996 and 2000 [ 18 ], including the potential role of water and sanitation hygiene advancements in changing child drowning risk profile. An absence of adult supervision combined with a lack of swimming ability contribute to drowning risk in irrigation channels. Therefore, parental education campaigns on supervision, as well as the provision of basic swimming and water safety education at the primary school level in Türkiye may assist in preventing future drowning incidents [ 50 ].

With respect to the ocean, Işın et al. [ 34 ] analysed the drownings of rescuers and found that rescues were more successful in the sea. The main reason for this is that seas are places where lifeguards are present and are visited by more people than other water environments. This increases the chance of rescue when more professionals intervene to save drowning people. Therefore, Işın et al. [ 34 ] suggested that rescue skill training and education would be an important prevention strategy, especially to prevent multiple drowning deaths.

Finally, lack of official data and limited data are considered as a barrier to the calculation of the burden of drowning in Türkiye [ 7 ]. Failure or limited determination of the burden of drowning and its underlying causes delays the planning of drowning prevention strategies. Previous studies in Türkiye have reported inadequate official records on drowning [ 7 , 9 , 34 , 64 ]. Due to the limited availability of official sources, most studies on drowning in Türkiye have obtained data either from autopsy reports [ 19 , 59 ] or medical reports (patient information form, electronic medical records, medical charts, and nursing records, etc.) [ 24 , 43 , 44 ]. However, such studies investigated drowning by analysing patient records or autopsy data from a region, a province, or one or more hospitals. Therefore, these studies were not successful in providing generalisable data on the total population burden of drowning in Türkiye due to their relatively small samples. Due to the lack of official records or limited information available to analyse the burden of drowning, researchers have analysed drowning in Türkiye from cases obtained from media reports [ 7 , 9 , 34 , 64 ]. Although this type of research has some reported limitations, it has provided important findings because of its generalisable conclusions and its contribution to revealing the main gaps in Türkiye to prevent drowning. Official mortality data, triangulated with police and media reports, are needed to identify causal factors to inform, and in future evaluate, risk reduction initiatives. Although Işın and Peden (2022) obtained data from TurkSTAT, which use the death notification system, only gender and age group were analysed in the study because TurkSTAT provides very limited information [ 10 ]. While this contributes to the epidemiology of drowning in Türkiye, it is insufficient to formulate prevention strategies. As has been proposed in other European countries, a National Drowning Registry needs to be developed in Türkiye in order to collect drowning data efficiently [ 66 ]. The adoption of a non-fatal drowning definition that is consistently applied to capture non-fatal drowning cases in Türkiye in this registry would also be advisable.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the published literature on drowning in Türkiye in terms of data sources, epidemiology, risk factors and prevention strategies. It is bolstered by examining publications in both English and Turkish language, as well as exploring publications from inception. However, it is not without its limitations. Turkish language studies could only be screened by one author due to the native language of the second author, which may have weakened the rigour around article screening and data extraction. Search strategies using different terms or combinations of terms, may have produced different results in terms of literature yielded. This review included primary studies published in peer-reviewed literature only. There may also be relevant information on the issue of drowning and its prevention within Türkiye published in the grey literature. The heterogenous nature of the studies made comparison difficult and a meta-analysis not possible.

This research has highlighted the need for more generalised studies to better understand and estimate the burden of drowning deaths in Türkiye. Most of the studies were autopsy-based and focused on specific regions, or cities, which limited their generalisability. Thus, the burden of drowning in Türkiye was mostly calculated with media reports, which had some limitations and biases. There is a need for more research to support greater consensus on risk factors, to inform prevention interventions. However, the lack of accurate and comprehensive data remains a significant barrier to advancing drowning prevention efforts in Türkiye. We recommend the establishment of a national drowning data registry to capture fatal drowning incidents, before considering the inclusion of non-fatal drowning events. The consistent collection and timely analysis of such data are vital to saving lives from drowning in Türkiye.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary information files).

World Health Organization. Drowning. 2021 [cited 2023 January 27, 2023]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drowning .

Peden AE, et al. Using a retrospective cross-sectional study to analyse unintentional fatal drowning in Australia: ICD-10 coding-based methodologies verses actual deaths. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12): e019407.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lunetta P, Penttilä A, Sajantila A. Drowning in Finland:“external cause” and “injury” codes. Inj Prev. 2002;8(4):342–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Passmore J, Ozanne-Smith J, Clapperton A. True burden of drowning: compiling data to meet the new definition. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2007;14(1):1–3.

Haw C, Hawton K. Suicide and self-harm by drowning: a review of the literature. Arch Suicide Res. 2016;20(2):95–112.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Peden AE, et al. Understanding the full burden of drowning: a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of fatal and non-fatal drowning in Australia. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e024868.

Işın A, Akdağ E, Turgut A. The epidemiology of fatal drowning in children: a 13-year retrospective study in Turkey. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2020;27(4):465–71.

Uzun B, Celik N. Sustainable management of coastal lands: A new approach for Turkish Coasts. Ocean Coast Manag. 2014;95:53–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Turgut A, Turgut T. A population-based study on deaths by drowning incidents in Turkey. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2014;21(1):61–7.

Işın A, Peden AE. Assessing variations in estimates of drowning mortality in Turkey from 2013 to 2019. Archives of public health. 2022;80(1):178.

Peden AE, et al. Closing the gap for drowning prevention across Europe. Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(9):e728–9.

Moher D, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ. 2009;339:2535.

Peden AE, Işın A. Drowning in the Eastern Mediterranean region: a systematic literature review of the epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1477.

Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. 2021 19–09–2021]; Available from: www.covidence.org .

Pless IB, Hagel B. Injury prevention: a glossary of terms. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(3):182.

National Safety Council. The Hierarchy of Controls. 2019 03–02–2019]; Available from: https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/16790-the-hierarchy-of-controls .

World Health Organization, Preventing drowning: an implementation guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.

Aşırdizer M, et al. Infant and adolescent deaths in Istanbul due to home accidents. Turk J Pediatr. 2005;47:141–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Atilgan M, et al. Deadly stays: A 10-year autopsy study of deaths in hotels in Antalya. Turkey Journal of forensic sciences. 2022;67(3):1116–23.

Azmak D. Asphyxial deaths: a retrospective study and review of the literature. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2006;27(2):134–44.

Barlas B, Beji S. Rip current fatalities on the Black Sea beaches of Istanbul and effects of cultural aspects in shaping the incidents. Nat Hazards. 2016;80:811–21.

Başol N, Baydın A, Yardan T. A retrospective evaluation of patients admitted emergency department due to drowning. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicene. 2012;29:121–5.

Beydilli I, et al. Mortality across drowning in the view of the meteorological parameters: Relative humudity and sea wavelength. Biomed Res. 2017;28(1):61–5.

Google Scholar  

Çakmakcı S, et al. Therapeutic Approaches and Mortality in Acute Respiratory Failure due to Drowning. Turkish Thoracic Journal. 2021;22(6):477.

Canturk N, et al. Evaluation of the deaths due to drowning autopsied between 2003 and 2006 in Ankara. TURKIYE KLINIKLERI TIP BILIMLERI DERGISI. 2009;29(5):1198–205.

Canturk N, et al. Medico-legal child deaths in Istanbul: data from the Morgue Department. Pediatr Int. 2007;49(1):88–93.

Çaylan N, et al. Evaluation of injury-related under-five mortality in Turkey between 2014–2017. Turk J Pediatr. 2021;63(1):37–47.

Dirlik M, Bostancıoğlu B. Child drowning deaths in Aydin province, western Turkey, 2002–2012. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2015;41:683–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dogan KH, et al. Dead bodies found in wells. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2010;31(3):208–12.

Esiyok B, Balci Y, Ozbay M. Bodies recovered from wells, sewerage systems and pits: what is the cause of death? Annals-Academy of Medicine Singapore. 2006;35(8):547.

Güzel A, et al. Drowning and near-drowning: experience of a university hospital in the Black Sea region. Turk J Pediatr. 2013;55(6):620.

Hsieh W-H, Wang C-H, Lu T-H. Drowning mortality by intent: a population-based cross-sectional study of 32 OECD countries, 2012–2014. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e021501.

Işik M, Eşitti Ş. Content analysis of printed news media related to drowning incidents in Turkey. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J. 2015;21(4):1050–61.

Işın A, Turgut A, Peden AE. Descriptive epidemiology of Rescue-Related fatal drowning in turkey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12):6613.

Ketenci HÇ, et al. Drowning in submerged cars caused by traffic accidents. Turk J Trauma Emerg Surg/Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2022;28(8):1115–21.

Koca E, et al. Evaluation of fatal diving accidents in Turkey. Undersea Hyperb Med. 2019;45(6):633–8.

Lakadamyalı H, Doğan T. Türkiye’de bir turizm yöresinde suda boğulma olgularının irdelenmesi. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2008;28(2):143–8.

Lapa TY, Turgut A, Turgut T. Deaths by drowning incidents during recreational boating and similar activities. World Appl Sci J. 2012;17(2):233–8.

Lin C-Y, et al. Unintentional drowning mortality, by age and body of water: an analysis of 60 countries. Inj Prev. 2015;21(e1):e43–50.

Mollaoğlu M, Bolayir E. Injuries in patients with epilepsy and some factors associated with injury. Nöro Psikiyatri Arşivi. 2013;50(3):269.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Orhan İ. Sinking or Swimming: The Need for Water Safety and Swimming Education in the 21st Century. International Journal of Applied Exercise Physiology. 2020;9(6):263–9.

Petrucci O, et al. Flood fatalities in Europe, 1980–2018: Variability, features, and lessons to learn. Water. 2019;11(8):1682.

Şık N, et al. Early application of non-invasive ventilation for children with pulmonary edema after drowning. Pediatr Int. 2022;64(1): e14858.

Şık N, et al. A reappraisal of childhood drowning in a pediatric emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;41:90–5.

Şimşek Y, Satar S, Suda Boğulma ve Acil Servis. Turk J Emerg Med. 2013;13(2):81–5.

Söyüncü S, et al. Acil servise suda boğulma veya boğulayazma nedeniyle başvuran hastaların prognozunun belirlenmesinde GKS ve REMS skorlarının değerliliği. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2008;8(2):067–72.

Taskesen M, Pirinççioglu AG, Yaramis A. Drowning and near-drowning in children in the southeast of Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2015;14(1):16.

Tunçez FT, et al. Evaluation of autopsied refugee deaths in Izmir, Turkey. Med Sci Law. 2022;62(3):199–205.

Turgut A. A study on multiple drowning syndromes. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2012;19(1):63–7.

Turgut A, Turgut T. A study on rescuer drowning and multiple drowning incidents. J Safety Res. 2012;43(2):129–32.

Turgut T, Yaman M, Turgut A. Educating children on water safety for drowning prevention. Soc Indic Res. 2016;129:787–801.

Uzun I, et al. Foreigners dying in Istanbul. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(5):1101–4.

Yayci N, et al. The review of autopsy cases of accidental childhood deaths in Istanbul. J Forensic Leg Med. 2011;18(6):253–6.

Balcı Y, et al. Muğla’da Otopsisi Yapılan Gençlik Yaş Grubuna Ait Olguların Değerlendirilmesi. Adli Tıp Bülteni. 2018;23(3):156–61.

Yıldırım A, Polater E, Bütün C. 0–6 Yaşlar Arası Adli Nitelikli Çocuk Çağı Medikolegal Ölümlerinin Retrospektif Olarak Değerlendirilmesi. Adli Tıp Bülteni. 2020;25(2):65–71.

Küçük MP, et al. Yoğun Bakımda İzlenen Boğulma Olgularında Sonlanımı Etkileyen Parametreler: Sekiz Yıllık Retrospektif Hasta Verileri. Turk J Intensive Care. 2020;18(1):13–20.

Cömert SŞ, et al. Suda boğulma nedeniyle hastanede yatan olgularin özellikleri ve prognostik bulgular. İzmir Göğüs Hastanesi Dergisi. 2014;28(3):161–9.

Türkoğlu A, et al. Elazığ’da 2005–2012 yılları arasında meydana gelen suda boğulma olgularının retrospektif değerlendirilmesi. Fırat Tıp Derg. 2014;19(3):145–50.

Beydilli I, et al. Factors affecting drowning-related mortality of elderly foreigners according to autopsy results. Turk J Geriatr/Türk Geriatri Dergisi. 2016;19(2):81–6.

Demir U, et al. Beş yaşın altındaki çocukların kazayla ölümlerinin analizi. J Forensic Med. 2017;31:1.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Tutanç M, et al. Çocuk yoğun bakım ünitesine yatan hastaların değerlendirilmesi. Duzce Medical Journal. 2011;13(3):18–22.

ADS   Google Scholar  

Tutanç M, et al. Çocuk yoğun bakım ünitesinde takip edilen suda boğulma ve boğulayazma olguları. Adli Tıp Dergisi. 2011;25(3):177–82.

Arslan MM, et al. Adana’da 1997–2001 yılları arasında otopsisi yapılan çocukluk çağı ölüm olgularının retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi. Adli Tıp Bülteni. 2004;9(2):37–42.

Turgut A, Işın A, Akdağ E. Yüzme havuzlarındaki suda boğulma vakalarının incelenmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 2018;8(1):69–76.

Peden AE, Franklin RC, Willcox-Pidgeon S. Media reporting of summer drowning: A partial picture, useful for advocacy. Health Promot J Austr. 2020;31(3):491–6.

Queiroga AC, et al. Trends in drowning mortality in Portugal from 1992 to 2019: comparing Global Burden of Disease and national data. Inj Prev. 2022;28(4):318–24.

Franklin RC, et al. The burden of unintentional drowning: global, regional and national estimates of mortality from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 Study. Inj Prev. 2020;26(Supp 1):i83–95.

United Nations. Resolution on Global Drowning Prevention. 2021; Available from: https://www.undocs.org/en/A/75/L.76 . (Date cited: 24-05-2023)

Rahman A, et al. Drowning: Global Burden, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Global Public Health. 2021. Retrieved 18 Feb. 2024 from https://oxfordre.com/publichealth/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.001.0001/acrefore-9780190632366-e-307 .

Peden AE, et al. A systematic review of the evidence for effectiveness of interventions to address transport and other unintentional injuries among adolescents. J Saf Res. 2023;85:21–338.

Peden AE, et al. Adolescent transport and unintentional injuries: a systematic analysis using the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(8):e657–69.

Howland J, et al. Why are most drowning victims men? Sex differences in aquatic skills and behaviors. Am J Public Health. 1996;86(1):93–6.

Koon W, et al. Burden of fatal drowning in California, 2005–2019. Inj Prev. 2023;29:371–7.

Peden AE, Franklin RC, Queiroga AC. Epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for the prevention of global unintentional fatal drowning in people aged 50 years and older: a systematic review. Inj Prev. 2018;24(3):240–7.

Download references

There was no funding associated with this research. Author AP is supported by an [Australian] National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Fellowship (Grant ID: APP2009306).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Coaching Education, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Akdeniz University, 07070, Antalya, Türkiye

School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia

Amy E. Peden

College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AI and AP designed and coordinated of the review. AI and AP screened literature and extracted data. AI led the data visualisation and writing of the study. AP reviewed the data visualisation and manuscript. AI and AP revised the manuscript. Both authors approve the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Işın .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Işın, A., Peden, A.E. The burden, risk factors and prevention strategies for drowning in Türkiye: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health 24 , 528 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18032-9

Download citation

Received : 24 June 2023

Accepted : 07 February 2024

Published : 20 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18032-9

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

  • Injury Prevention
  • Public Health
  • Water Safety

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

literature review on research design

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An overview and

    literature review on research design

  2. Examples Of A Literature Review For A Research Proposal

    literature review on research design

  3. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    literature review on research design

  4. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    literature review on research design

  5. Literature Review For Qualitative Research

    literature review on research design

  6. ️ An example of a literature review. How to Write a Literature Review

    literature review on research design

VIDEO

  1. Write Your Literature Review FAST

  2. Academic Writing Workshop

  3. Literature Review Research Methodology

  4. Literature Review In ONE Day

  5. What is Literature Review?

  6. Review of Literature #research #researchproposal

COMMENTS

  1. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines

    In addition, a literature review is an excellent way of synthesizing research findings to show evidence on a meta-level and to uncover areas in which more research is needed, which is a critical component of creating theoretical frameworks and building conceptual models.

  2. Literature Review and Research Design

    Literature Review and Research Design A Guide to Effective Research Practice By Dave Harris Edition 1st Edition First Published 2019 eBook Published 15 December 2019 Pub. Location London Imprint Routledge DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429285660 Pages 176 eBook ISBN 9780429285660 Subjects Behavioral Sciences, Education, Research Methods Share

  3. Literature Review Research Design

    First Online: 04 January 2024 122 Accesses Abstract This chapter addresses the literature review research design's peculiarities, characteristics, and significant fallacies. Conducting and writing poor literature reviews is one way to lower academic work's value. State-of-the-art literature reviews are valuable and publishable scholarly documents.

  4. Literature Review

    Research Methods and Design Definition Literature Review A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis.

  5. How to Write a Literature Review

    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 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

  6. Literature Review

    Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ...

  7. Conducting a Literature Review: Why Do A Literature Review?

    Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed. You identify: core research in the field. experts in the subject area. methodology you may want to use (or avoid)

  8. Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks

    The first element we discuss is a review of research (literature reviews), which highlights the need for a specific research question, study problem, or topic of investigation. ... Common questions concern determining which literature pertains to the topic of study or the role of the literature review in the design of the study. This section ...

  9. PDF 13 Literature Review Research Design

    13 Learning Objectives When you have finished studying this chapter, you will be able to: understand the purpose of literature review research as part of every research paper (staggered design with literature review as one stage) and stand-alone research design

  10. Literature Review and Research Design A Guide to Effective Research

    1st Edition Literature Review and Research Design A Guide to Effective Research Practice By Dave Harris Copyright 2020 176 Pages by Routledge Description Designing a research project is possibly the most difficult task a dissertation writer faces. It is fraught with uncertainty: what is the best subject? What is the best method?

  11. Literature Review and Research Design

    This book looks at literature review in the process of research design, and how to develop a research practice that will build skills in reading and writing about research literature—skills that remain valuable in both academic and professional careers.

  12. The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education

    The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully.

  13. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews

    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) generat...

  14. Writing a literature review

    Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...

  15. PDF Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design

    The purpose of a review of healthcare literature is primarily to summarise the knowledge around a specific question or topic, or to make recommendations that can support health professionals and organisations make decisions about a specific intervention or care issue.5 In addition, reviews can highlight gaps in knowledge to guide future research.

  16. 5. The Literature Review

    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.

  17. Getting started

    What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ...

  18. Systematic Review

    Pros and cons of systematic reviews Step-by-step example of a systematic review Other interesting articles Frequently asked questions about systematic reviews What is a systematic review? A review is an overview of the research that's already been completed on a topic.

  19. Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

    A literature review is defined as "a critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles." (The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison 2022) A literature review is an integrated analysis, not just a summary of scholarly work on a specific topic.

  20. Literature review and research design : a guide to effective research

    This book looks at literature review in the process of research design, and how to develop a research practice that will build skills in reading and writing about research literature-skills that remain valuable in both academic and professional careers. ... The focus on the practical elements of research design makes this book an invaluable ...

  21. Literature Review and Research Design: A Guide to Effective Research

    He is the author of two books for dissertation writers: _Literature Review and Research Design_ (Routledge, 2019), and _Getting the Best of Your Dissertation_ (Thought Clearing, 2015). With Jean-Pierre Protzen, he is co-author of _The Universe of Design_ (Routledge, 2010), a book on design theory.

  22. Research Guides: Literature Reviews: Concept Mapping

    Literature Reviews. A concept map or mind map is a visual representation of knowledge that illustrates relationships between concepts or ideas. It is a tool for organizing and representing information in a hierarchical and interconnected manner. At its core, a concept map consists of nodes, which represent individual concepts or ideas, and ...

  23. Study designs: Part 7

    In this article, we describe the systematic review, a type of secondary research design that is used to summarize the results of prior primary research studies. Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence for a particular research question. [ 1] Go to: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

  24. Literature Review Research Design

    First Online: 10 November 2021 2786 Accesses 1 Citations Abstract This chapter addresses the peculiarities, characteristics, and major fallacies of literature review research design. Conducting and writing poor literature reviews is one of many ways to lower the value of an academic work.

  25. Multisensory Experience Design: A Literature Review

    This study aims to provide valuable reference material for researchers by summarizing the current state of domestic and international research on multisensory experience design. The research employs literature analysis and case study methods. Initially, the study elucidates the definition of multisensory experience design. Subsequently, it chronicles the development and status of multisensory ...

  26. Using body sensors for evaluating the impact of smart cycling

    This paper therefore presents a systematic literature review and conceptual framework to support the use of body sensors in evaluations of the impact of SCTs on perceptions, emotions, feelings, affect, and more, during outdoor bicycle rides. The literature review (n = 40) showed that there is scarce research on this specific use of body sensors.

  27. Literature Review and Research Design

    Literature Review and Research Design: A Guide to Effective Research Practice Dave Harris Routledge, Dec 11, 2019 - Information resources - 162 pages Designing a research project is possibly...

  28. Systematic Mapping Protocol -- UX Design role in software development

    A systematic mapping protocol is a method for conducting a literature review in a rigorous and transparent way. It aims to provide an overview of the current state of research on a specific topic, identify gaps and opportunities, and guide future work. In this document, we present a systematic mapping protocol for investigating the role of the UX designer in the software development process ...

  29. How to use Copilot Pro to write, edit, and analyze your Word ...

    2. Submit your request. At the text field in the window, type a description of the text you need and click the "Generate" button. Submit your request. Screenshot by Lance Whitney/ZDNET. 3. Review ...

  30. The burden, risk factors and prevention strategies for drowning in

    Drowning is a public health problem in Türkiye, as in the rest of the world. This study aims to systematically review the literature on drowning in Türkiye with a focus on data sources, epidemiology, risk factors and prevention strategies. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SPORTSDiscus, Scopus, Web of Science, Turk MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Google Akademik (Turkish ...