difference between literature review and background of the study

• Privacy Policy

Home » Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Background of The Study

Definition:

Background of the study refers to the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being studied. It provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and the significance of the study.

The background of the study usually includes a discussion of the relevant literature, the gap in knowledge or understanding, and the research questions or hypotheses to be addressed. It also highlights the importance of the research topic and its potential contributions to the field. A well-written background of the study sets the stage for the research and helps the reader to appreciate the need for the study and its potential significance.

How to Write Background of The Study

Here are some steps to help you write the background of the study:

Identify the Research Problem

Start by identifying the research problem you are trying to address. This problem should be significant and relevant to your field of study.

Provide Context

Once you have identified the research problem, provide some context. This could include the historical, social, or political context of the problem.

Review Literature

Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic. This will help you understand what has been studied and what gaps exist in the current research.

Identify Research Gap

Based on your literature review, identify the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research aims to address. This gap will be the focus of your research question or hypothesis.

State Objectives

Clearly state the objectives of your research . These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Discuss Significance

Explain the significance of your research. This could include its potential impact on theory , practice, policy, or society.

Finally, summarize the key points of the background of the study. This will help the reader understand the research problem, its context, and its significance.

How to Write Background of The Study in Proposal

The background of the study is an essential part of any proposal as it sets the stage for the research project and provides the context and justification for why the research is needed. Here are the steps to write a compelling background of the study in your proposal:

• Identify the problem: Clearly state the research problem or gap in the current knowledge that you intend to address through your research.
• Provide context: Provide a brief overview of the research area and highlight its significance in the field.
• Review literature: Summarize the relevant literature related to the research problem and provide a critical evaluation of the current state of knowledge.
• Identify gaps : Identify the gaps or limitations in the existing literature and explain how your research will contribute to filling these gaps.
• Justify the study : Explain why your research is important and what practical or theoretical contributions it can make to the field.
• Highlight objectives: Clearly state the objectives of the study and how they relate to the research problem.
• Discuss methodology: Provide an overview of the methodology you will use to collect and analyze data, and explain why it is appropriate for the research problem.
• Conclude : Summarize the key points of the background of the study and explain how they support your research proposal.

How to Write Background of The Study In Thesis

The background of the study is a critical component of a thesis as it provides context for the research problem, rationale for conducting the study, and the significance of the research. Here are some steps to help you write a strong background of the study:

• Identify the research problem : Start by identifying the research problem that your thesis is addressing. What is the issue that you are trying to solve or explore? Be specific and concise in your problem statement.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the relevant literature on the topic. This should include scholarly articles, books, and other sources that are directly related to your research question.
• I dentify gaps in the literature: After reviewing the literature, identify any gaps in the existing research. What questions remain unanswered? What areas have not been explored? This will help you to establish the need for your research.
• Establish the significance of the research: Clearly state the significance of your research. Why is it important to address this research problem? What are the potential implications of your research? How will it contribute to the field?
• Provide an overview of the research design: Provide an overview of the research design and methodology that you will be using in your study. This should include a brief explanation of the research approach, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• State the research objectives and research questions: Clearly state the research objectives and research questions that your study aims to answer. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
• Summarize the chapter: Summarize the chapter by highlighting the key points and linking them back to the research problem, significance of the study, and research questions.

How to Write Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are the steps to write the background of the study in a research paper:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the research problem that your study aims to address. This can be a particular issue, a gap in the literature, or a need for further investigation.
• Conduct a literature review: Conduct a thorough literature review to gather information on the topic, identify existing studies, and understand the current state of research. This will help you identify the gap in the literature that your study aims to fill.
• Explain the significance of the study: Explain why your study is important and why it is necessary. This can include the potential impact on the field, the importance to society, or the need to address a particular issue.
• Provide context: Provide context for the research problem by discussing the broader social, economic, or political context that the study is situated in. This can help the reader understand the relevance of the study and its potential implications.
• State the research questions and objectives: State the research questions and objectives that your study aims to address. This will help the reader understand the scope of the study and its purpose.
• Summarize the methodology : Briefly summarize the methodology you used to conduct the study, including the data collection and analysis methods. This can help the reader understand how the study was conducted and its reliability.

Examples of Background of The Study

Here are some examples of the background of the study:

Problem : The prevalence of obesity among children in the United States has reached alarming levels, with nearly one in five children classified as obese.

Significance : Obesity in childhood is associated with numerous negative health outcomes, including increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.

Gap in knowledge : Despite efforts to address the obesity epidemic, rates continue to rise. There is a need for effective interventions that target the unique needs of children and their families.

Problem : The use of antibiotics in agriculture has contributed to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses a significant threat to human health.

Significance : Antibiotic-resistant infections are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and are a major public health concern.

Gap in knowledge: While there is a growing body of research on the use of antibiotics in agriculture, there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of resistance and the most effective strategies for reducing antibiotic use.

Edxample 3:

Problem : Many low-income communities lack access to healthy food options, leading to high rates of food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

Significance : Poor nutrition is a major contributor to chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Gap in knowledge : While there have been efforts to address food insecurity, there is a need for more research on the barriers to accessing healthy food in low-income communities and effective strategies for increasing access.

Examples of Background of The Study In Research

Here are some real-life examples of how the background of the study can be written in different fields of study:

Example 1 : “There has been a significant increase in the incidence of diabetes in recent years. This has led to an increased demand for effective diabetes management strategies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new diabetes management program in improving patient outcomes.”

Example 2 : “The use of social media has become increasingly prevalent in modern society. Despite its popularity, little is known about the effects of social media use on mental health. This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health in young adults.”

Example 3: “Despite significant advancements in cancer treatment, the survival rate for patients with pancreatic cancer remains low. The purpose of this study is to identify potential biomarkers that can be used to improve early detection and treatment of pancreatic cancer.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Proposal

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in a proposal:

Example 1 : The prevalence of mental health issues among university students has been increasing over the past decade. This study aims to investigate the causes and impacts of mental health issues on academic performance and wellbeing.

Example 2 : Climate change is a global issue that has significant implications for agriculture in developing countries. This study aims to examine the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change and identify effective strategies to enhance their resilience.

Example 3 : The use of social media in political campaigns has become increasingly common in recent years. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of social media campaigns in mobilizing young voters and influencing their voting behavior.

Example 4 : Employee turnover is a major challenge for organizations, especially in the service sector. This study aims to identify the key factors that influence employee turnover in the hospitality industry and explore effective strategies for reducing turnover rates.

Examples of Background of The Study in Thesis

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in the thesis:

Example 1 : “Women’s participation in the workforce has increased significantly over the past few decades. However, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, particularly in male-dominated industries such as technology. This study aims to examine the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in the technology industry, with a focus on organizational culture and gender bias.”

Example 2 : “Mental health is a critical component of overall health and well-being. Despite increased awareness of the importance of mental health, there are still significant gaps in access to mental health services, particularly in low-income and rural communities. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based mental health intervention in improving mental health outcomes in underserved populations.”

Example 3: “The use of technology in education has become increasingly widespread, with many schools adopting online learning platforms and digital resources. However, there is limited research on the impact of technology on student learning outcomes and engagement. This study aims to explore the relationship between technology use and academic achievement among middle school students, as well as the factors that mediate this relationship.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are some examples of how the background of the study can be written in various fields:

Example 1: The prevalence of obesity has been on the rise globally, with the World Health Organization reporting that approximately 650 million adults were obese in 2016. Obesity is a major risk factor for several chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. In recent years, several interventions have been proposed to address this issue, including lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective intervention for obesity management. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of different interventions for obesity management and identify the most effective one.

Example 2: Antibiotic resistance has become a major public health threat worldwide. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality. The inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the main factors contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance. Despite numerous efforts to promote the rational use of antibiotics, studies have shown that many healthcare providers continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This study aims to explore the factors influencing healthcare providers’ prescribing behavior and identify strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing practices.

Example 3: Social media has become an integral part of modern communication, with millions of people worldwide using platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social media has several advantages, including facilitating communication, connecting people, and disseminating information. However, social media use has also been associated with several negative outcomes, including cyberbullying, addiction, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on mental health and identify the factors that mediate this relationship.

Purpose of Background of The Study

The primary purpose of the background of the study is to help the reader understand the rationale for the research by presenting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem.

More specifically, the background of the study aims to:

• Provide a clear understanding of the research problem and its context.
• Identify the gap in knowledge that the study intends to fill.
• Establish the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field.
• Highlight the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.
• Provide a rationale for the research questions or hypotheses and the research design.
• Identify the limitations and scope of the study.

When to Write Background of The Study

The background of the study should be written early on in the research process, ideally before the research design is finalized and data collection begins. This allows the researcher to clearly articulate the rationale for the study and establish a strong foundation for the research.

The background of the study typically comes after the introduction but before the literature review section. It should provide an overview of the research problem and its context, and also introduce the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.

Writing the background of the study early on in the research process also helps to identify potential gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation, which can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design. By establishing the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field, the background of the study can also help to justify the research and secure funding or support from stakeholders.

Advantage of Background of The Study

The background of the study has several advantages, including:

• Provides context: The background of the study provides context for the research problem by highlighting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem. This allows the reader to understand the research problem in its broader context and appreciate its significance.
• Identifies gaps in knowledge: By reviewing the existing literature related to the research problem, the background of the study can identify gaps in knowledge that the study intends to fill. This helps to establish the novelty and originality of the research and its potential contribution to the field.
• Justifies the research : The background of the study helps to justify the research by demonstrating its significance and potential impact. This can be useful in securing funding or support for the research.
• Guides the research design: The background of the study can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design by identifying key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem. This ensures that the research is grounded in existing knowledge and is designed to address the research problem effectively.
• Establishes credibility: By demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the field and the research problem, the background of the study can establish the researcher’s credibility and expertise, which can enhance the trustworthiness and validity of the research.

Disadvantages of Background of The Study

Some Disadvantages of Background of The Study are as follows:

• Time-consuming : Writing a comprehensive background of the study can be time-consuming, especially if the research problem is complex and multifaceted. This can delay the research process and impact the timeline for completing the study.
• Repetitive: The background of the study can sometimes be repetitive, as it often involves summarizing existing research and theories related to the research problem. This can be tedious for the reader and may make the section less engaging.
• Limitations of existing research: The background of the study can reveal the limitations of existing research related to the problem. This can create challenges for the researcher in developing research questions or hypotheses that address the gaps in knowledge identified in the background of the study.
• Bias : The researcher’s biases and perspectives can influence the content and tone of the background of the study. This can impact the reader’s perception of the research problem and may influence the validity of the research.
• Accessibility: Accessing and reviewing the literature related to the research problem can be challenging, especially if the researcher does not have access to a comprehensive database or if the literature is not available in the researcher’s language. This can limit the depth and scope of the background of the study.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to...

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is the Background of a Study and How to Write It (Examples Included)

Have you ever found yourself struggling to write a background of the study for your research paper? You’re not alone. While the background of a study is an essential element of a research manuscript, it’s also one of the most challenging pieces to write. This is because it requires researchers to provide context and justification for their research, highlight the significance of their study, and situate their work within the existing body of knowledge in the field.  

Despite its challenges, the background of a study is crucial for any research paper. A compelling well-written background of the study can not only promote confidence in the overall quality of your research analysis and findings, but it can also determine whether readers will be interested in knowing more about the rest of the research study.  

In this article, we’ll explore the key elements of the background of a study and provide simple guidelines on how to write one effectively. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a graduate student working on your first research manuscript, this post will explain how to write a background for your study that is compelling and informative.  

Table of Contents

What is the background of a study ?  

Typically placed in the beginning of your research paper, the background of a study serves to convey the central argument of your study and its significance clearly and logically to an uninformed audience. The background of a study in a research paper helps to establish the research problem or gap in knowledge that the study aims to address, sets the stage for the research question and objectives, and highlights the significance of the research. The background of a study also includes a review of relevant literature, which helps researchers understand where the research study is placed in the current body of knowledge in a specific research discipline. It includes the reason for the study, the thesis statement, and a summary of the concept or problem being examined by the researcher. At times, the background of a study can may even examine whether your research supports or contradicts the results of earlier studies or existing knowledge on the subject.  

How is the background of a study different from the introduction?  

It is common to find early career researchers getting confused between the background of a study and the introduction in a research paper. Many incorrectly consider these two vital parts of a research paper the same and use these terms interchangeably. The confusion is understandable, however, it’s important to know that the introduction and the background of the study are distinct elements and serve very different purposes.   

• The basic different between the background of a study and the introduction is kind of information that is shared with the readers . While the introduction provides an overview of the specific research topic and touches upon key parts of the research paper, the background of the study presents a detailed discussion on the existing literature in the field, identifies research gaps, and how the research being done will add to current knowledge.  
• The introduction aims to capture the reader’s attention and interest and to provide a clear and concise summary of the research project. It typically begins with a general statement of the research problem and then narrows down to the specific research question. It may also include an overview of the research design, methodology, and scope. The background of the study outlines the historical, theoretical, and empirical background that led to the research question to highlight its importance. It typically offers an overview of the research field and may include a review of the literature to highlight gaps, controversies, or limitations in the existing knowledge and to justify the need for further research.  
• Both these sections appear at the beginning of a research paper. In some cases the introduction may come before the background of the study , although in most instances the latter is integrated into the introduction itself. The length of the introduction and background of a study can differ based on the journal guidelines and the complexity of a specific research study.  

Learn to convey study relevance, integrate literature reviews, and articulate research gaps in the background section. Get your All Access Pack now!    

To put it simply, the background of the study provides context for the study by explaining how your research fills a research gap in existing knowledge in the field and how it will add to it. The introduction section explains how the research fills this gap by stating the research topic, the objectives of the research and the findings – it sets the context for the rest of the paper.   

Where is the background of a study placed in a research paper?  

T he background of a study is typically placed in the introduction section of a research paper and is positioned after the statement of the problem. Researchers should try and present the background of the study in clear logical structure by dividing it into several sections, such as introduction, literature review, and research gap. This will make it easier for the reader to understand the research problem and the motivation for the study.  

So, when should you write the background of your study ? It’s recommended that researchers write this section after they have conducted a thorough literature review and identified the research problem, research question, and objectives. This way, they can effectively situate their study within the existing body of knowledge in the field and provide a clear rationale for their research.  

Creating an effective background of a study structure  

Given that the purpose of writing the background of your study is to make readers understand the reasons for conducting the research, it is important to create an outline and basic framework to work within. This will make it easier to write the background of the study and will ensure that it is comprehensive and compelling for readers.  

While creating a background of the study structure for research papers, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the essential elements that should be included. Make sure you incorporate the following elements in the background of the study section :   

• Present a general overview of the research topic, its significance, and main aims; this may be like establishing the “importance of the topic” in the introduction.   
• Discuss the existing level of research done on the research topic or on related topics in the field to set context for your research. Be concise and mention only the relevant part of studies, ideally in chronological order to reflect the progress being made.  
• Highlight disputes in the field as well as claims made by scientists, organizations, or key policymakers that need to be investigated. This forms the foundation of your research methodology and solidifies the aims of your study.   
• Describe if and how the methods and techniques used in the research study are different from those used in previous research on similar topics.   

By including these critical elements in the background of your study , you can provide your readers with a comprehensive understanding of your research and its context.  

How to write a background of the study in research papers ?  

Now that you know the essential elements to include, it’s time to discuss how to write the background of the study in a concise and interesting way that engages audiences. The best way to do this is to build a clear narrative around the central theme of your research so that readers can grasp the concept and identify the gaps that the study will address. While the length and detail presented in the background of a study could vary depending on the complexity and novelty of the research topic, it is imperative to avoid wordiness. For research that is interdisciplinary, mentioning how the disciplines are connected and highlighting specific aspects to be studied helps readers understand the research better.   

While there are different styles of writing the background of a study , it always helps to have a clear plan in place. Let us look at how to write a background of study for research papers.    

• Identify the research problem: Begin the background by defining the research topic, and highlighting the main issue or question that the research aims to address. The research problem should be clear, specific, and relevant to the field of study. It should be framed using simple, easy to understand language and must be meaningful to intended audiences.  
• Craft an impactful statement of the research objectives: While writing the background of the study it is critical to highlight the research objectives and specific goals that the study aims to achieve. The research objectives should be closely related to the research problem and must be aligned with the overall purpose of the study.  
• Conduct a review of available literature: When writing the background of the research , provide a summary of relevant literature in the field and related research that has been conducted around the topic. Remember to record the search terms used and keep track of articles that you read so that sources can be cited accurately. Ensure that the literature you include is sourced from credible sources.  
• Address existing controversies and assumptions: It is a good idea to acknowledge and clarify existing claims and controversies regarding the subject of your research. For example, if your research topic involves an issue that has been widely discussed due to ethical or politically considerations, it is best to address them when writing the background of the study .  
• Present the relevance of the study: It is also important to provide a justification for the research. This is where the researcher explains why the study is important and what contributions it will make to existing knowledge on the subject. Highlighting key concepts and theories and explaining terms and ideas that may feel unfamiliar to readers makes the background of the study content more impactful.  
• Proofread to eliminate errors in language, structure, and data shared: Once the first draft is done, it is a good idea to read and re-read the draft a few times to weed out possible grammatical errors or inaccuracies in the information provided. In fact, experts suggest that it is helpful to have your supervisor or peers read and edit the background of the study . Their feedback can help ensure that even inadvertent errors are not overlooked.  

Get exclusive discounts on e xpert-led editing to publication support with Researcher.Life’s All Access Pack. Get yours now!  

How to avoid mistakes in writing the background of a study  

While figuring out how to write the background of a study , it is also important to know the most common mistakes authors make so you can steer clear of these in your research paper.   

• Write the background of a study in a formal academic tone while keeping the language clear and simple. Check for the excessive use of jargon and technical terminology that could confuse your readers.   
• Avoid including unrelated concepts that could distract from the subject of research. Instead, focus your discussion around the key aspects of your study by highlighting gaps in existing literature and knowledge and the novelty and necessity of your study.   
• Provide relevant, reliable evidence to support your claims and citing sources correctly; be sure to follow a consistent referencing format and style throughout the paper.   
• Ensure that the details presented in the background of the study are captured chronologically and organized into sub-sections for easy reading and comprehension.  
• Check the journal guidelines for the recommended length for this section so that you include all the important details in a concise manner. 

By keeping these tips in mind, you can create a clear, concise, and compelling background of the study for your research paper. Take this example of a background of the study on the impact of social media on mental health.  

Social media has become a ubiquitous aspect of modern life, with people of all ages, genders, and backgrounds using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to connect with others, share information, and stay updated on news and events. While social media has many potential benefits, including increased social connectivity and access to information, there is growing concern about its impact on mental health.   Research has suggested that social media use is associated with a range of negative mental health outcomes, including increased rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. This is thought to be due, in part, to the social comparison processes that occur on social media, whereby users compare their lives to the idealized versions of others that are presented online.   Despite these concerns, there is also evidence to suggest that social media can have positive effects on mental health. For example, social media can provide a sense of social support and community, which can be beneficial for individuals who are socially isolated or marginalized.   Given the potential benefits and risks of social media use for mental health, it is important to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying these effects. This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, with a particular focus on the role of social comparison processes. By doing so, we hope to shed light on the potential risks and benefits of social media use for mental health, and to provide insights that can inform interventions and policies aimed at promoting healthy social media use.  

To conclude, the background of a study is a crucial component of a research manuscript and must be planned, structured, and presented in a way that attracts reader attention, compels them to read the manuscript, creates an impact on the minds of readers and sets the stage for future discussions. 

A well-written background of the study not only provides researchers with a clear direction on conducting their research, but it also enables readers to understand and appreciate the relevance of the research work being done.   

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on background of the study

Q: How does the background of the study help the reader understand the research better?

The background of the study plays a crucial role in helping readers understand the research better by providing the necessary context, framing the research problem, and establishing its significance. It helps readers:

• understand the larger framework, historical development, and existing knowledge related to a research topic
• identify gaps, limitations, or unresolved issues in the existing literature or knowledge
• outline potential contributions, practical implications, or theoretical advancements that the research aims to achieve
• and learn the specific context and limitations of the research project

Q: Does the background of the study need citation?

Yes, the background of the study in a research paper should include citations to support and acknowledge the sources of information and ideas presented. When you provide information or make statements in the background section that are based on previous studies, theories, or established knowledge, it is important to cite the relevant sources. This establishes credibility, enables verification, and demonstrates the depth of literature review you’ve done.

Q: What is the difference between background of the study and problem statement?

The background of the study provides context and establishes the research’s foundation while the problem statement clearly states the problem being addressed and the research questions or objectives.

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. 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. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some 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 consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• 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 biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of 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.

Sometimes, though, you might 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. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show 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 review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

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. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

What Is Background in a Research Paper?

So you have carefully written your research paper  and probably ran it through your colleagues ten to fifteen times. While there are many elements to a good research article, one of the most important elements for your readers is the background of your study.

What is Background of the Study in Research

The background of your study will provide context to the information discussed throughout the research paper . Background information may include both important and relevant studies. This is particularly important if a study either supports or refutes your thesis.

Why is Background of the Study Necessary in Research?

The background of the study discusses your problem statement, rationale, and research questions. It links  introduction to your research topic  and ensures a logical flow of ideas.  Thus, it helps readers understand your reasons for conducting the study.

Providing Background Information

The reader should be able to understand your topic and its importance. The length and detail of your background also depend on the degree to which you need to demonstrate your understanding of the topic. Paying close attention to the following questions will help you in writing background information:

• Are there any theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may be unfamiliar to the target audience and will require you to provide any additional explanation?
• Any historical data that need to be shared in order to provide context on why the current issue emerged?
• Are there any concepts that may have been borrowed from other disciplines that may be unfamiliar to the reader and need an explanation?

Related: Ready with the background and searching for more information on journal ranking? Check this infographic on the SCImago Journal Rank today!

Is the research study unique for which additional explanation is needed? For instance, you may have used a completely new method

How to Write a Background of the Study

The structure of a background study in a research paper generally follows a logical sequence to provide context, justification, and an understanding of the research problem. It includes an introduction, general background, literature review , rationale , objectives, scope and limitations , significance of the study and the research hypothesis . Following the structure can provide a comprehensive and well-organized background for your research.

Here are the steps to effectively write a background of the study.

1. Identify Your Audience:

Determine the level of expertise of your target audience. Tailor the depth and complexity of your background information accordingly.

2. Understand the Research Problem:

Define the research problem or question your study aims to address. Identify the significance of the problem within the broader context of the field.

3. Review Existing Literature:

Conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known in the area. Summarize key findings, theories, and concepts relevant to your research.

4. Include Historical Data:

Integrate historical data if relevant to the research, as current issues often trace back to historical events.

5. Identify Controversies and Gaps:

Note any controversies or debates within the existing literature. Identify gaps , limitations, or unanswered questions that your research can address.

6. Select Key Components:

Choose the most critical elements to include in the background based on their relevance to your research problem. Prioritize information that helps build a strong foundation for your study.

7. Craft a Logical Flow:

Organize the background information in a logical sequence. Start with general context, move to specific theories and concepts, and then focus on the specific problem.

8. Highlight the Novelty of Your Research:

Clearly explain the unique aspects or contributions of your study. Emphasize why your research is different from or builds upon existing work.

Here are some extra tips to increase the quality of your research background:

Example of a Research Background

Here is an example of a research background to help you understand better.

The above hypothetical example provides a research background, addresses the gap and highlights the potential outcome of the study; thereby aiding a better understanding of the proposed research.

What Makes the Introduction Different from the Background?

Your introduction is different from your background in a number of ways.

• The introduction contains preliminary data about your topic that  the reader will most likely read , whereas the background clarifies the importance of the paper.
• The background of your study discusses in depth about the topic, whereas the introduction only gives an overview.
• The introduction should end with your research questions, aims, and objectives, whereas your background should not (except in some cases where your background is integrated into your introduction). For instance, the C.A.R.S. ( Creating a Research Space ) model, created by John Swales is based on his analysis of journal articles. This model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction in social sciences.

Points to Note

Your background should begin with defining a topic and audience. It is important that you identify which topic you need to review and what your audience already knows about the topic. You should proceed by searching and researching the relevant literature. In this case, it is advisable to keep track of the search terms you used and the articles that you downloaded. It is helpful to use one of the research paper management systems such as Papers, Mendeley, Evernote, or Sente. Next, it is helpful to take notes while reading. Be careful when copying quotes verbatim and make sure to put them in quotation marks and cite the sources. In addition, you should keep your background focused but balanced enough so that it is relevant to a broader audience. Aside from these, your background should be critical, consistent, and logically structured.

Writing the background of your study should not be an overly daunting task. Many guides that can help you organize your thoughts as you write the background. The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to your research topic and should be done with strong knowledge and thoughtful writing.

The background of a research paper typically ranges from one to two paragraphs, summarizing the relevant literature and context of the study. It should be concise, providing enough information to contextualize the research problem and justify the need for the study. Journal instructions about any word count limits should be kept in mind while deciding on the length of the final content.

The background of a research paper provides the context and relevant literature to understand the research problem, while the introduction also introduces the specific research topic, states the research objectives, and outlines the scope of the study. The background focuses on the broader context, whereas the introduction focuses on the specific research project and its objectives.

When writing the background for a study, start by providing a brief overview of the research topic and its significance in the field. Then, highlight the gaps in existing knowledge or unresolved issues that the study aims to address. Finally, summarize the key findings from relevant literature to establish the context and rationale for conducting the research, emphasizing the need and importance of the study within the broader academic landscape.

The background in a research paper is crucial as it sets the stage for the study by providing essential context and rationale. It helps readers understand the significance of the research problem and its relevance in the broader field. By presenting relevant literature and highlighting gaps, the background justifies the need for the study, building a strong foundation for the research and enhancing its credibility.

The presentation very informative

It is really educative. I love the workshop. It really motivated me into writing my first paper for publication.

an interesting clue here, thanks.

thanks for the answers.

Good and interesting explanation. Thanks

Thank you for good presentation.

Hi Adam, we are glad to know that you found our article beneficial

The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to YOUR research topic.

Awesome. Exactly what i was looking forwards to 😉

Hi Maryam, we are glad to know that you found our resource useful.

my understanding of ‘Background of study’ has been elevated.

Hi Peter, we are glad to know that our article has helped you get a better understanding of the background in a research paper.

thanks to give advanced information

Hi Shimelis, we are glad to know that you found the information in our article beneficial.

When i was studying it is very much hard for me to conduct a research study and know the background because my teacher in practical research is having a research so i make it now so that i will done my research

Very informative……….Thank you.

The confusion i had before, regarding an introduction and background to a research work is now a thing of the past. Thank you so much.

Thanks for your help…

Thanks for your kind information about the background of a research paper.

Thanks for the answer

Very informative. I liked even more when the difference between background and introduction was given. I am looking forward to learning more from this site. I am in Botswana

Hello, I am Benoît from Central African Republic. Right now I am writing down my research paper in order to get my master degree in British Literature. Thank you very much for posting all this information about the background of the study. I really appreciate. Thanks!

The write up is quite good, detailed and informative. Thanks a lot. The article has certainly enhanced my understanding of the topic.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Infographic
• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research
• Trending Now

Can AI Tools Prepare a Research Manuscript From Scratch? — A comprehensive guide

As technology continues to advance, the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) tools can prepare…

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

Ross wants to publish his research. Feeling positive about his research outcomes, he begins to…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

Choosing research methodology Research design and methodology Evidence-based research approach How RAxter can assist researchers

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

Successful research conduction requires proper planning and execution. While there are multiple reasons and aspects…

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Industry News
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Writing Research Background

Research background is a brief outline of the most important studies that have been conducted so far presented in a chronological order. Research background part in introduction chapter can be also headed ‘Background of the Study.” Research background should also include a brief discussion of major theories and models related to the research problem.

Specifically, when writing research background you can discuss major theories and models related to your research problem in a chronological order to outline historical developments in the research area.  When writing research background, you also need to demonstrate how your research relates to what has been done so far in the research area.

Research background is written after the literature review. Therefore, literature review has to be the first and the longest stage in the research process, even before the formulation of research aims and objectives, right after the selection of the research area. Once the research area is selected, the literature review is commenced in order to identify gaps in the research area.

Research aims and objectives need to be closely associated with the elimination of this gap in the literature. The main difference between background of the study and literature review is that the former only provides general information about what has been done so far in the research area, whereas the latter elaborates and critically reviews previous works.

John Dudovskiy

Foundational Research Writing, Background Discussion and Literature Review for CS, IS and CY

• First Online: 25 May 2023

Cite this chapter

• Uche M. Mbanaso 4 ,
• Lucienne Abrahams 5 &
• Kennedy Chinedu Okafor 6  

629 Accesses

This chapter is dedicated to explaining the skills a researcher needs, the types of background information required to support the research enquiry and the literature review that enables the researcher to situate the research in the context of existing research, while addressing the gap in knowledge. It explains how the research problem statement, the heart of the research, is the basis for building the background discussion and literature review. It illustrates the annotated bibliography technique, as a key step in the process of translating reading into academic writing. It explains different forms of background discussion and different forms of literature reviews. It shows how the literature review forms the basis for the analytical framework that will be applied to data analysis and presents an example analytical framework diagram.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological Theory, 26 (2), 173–199. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453103

Article   Google Scholar  

Adom, D., Hussein, E., & Agyem, J. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7 (1), 438–441. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322204158_THEORETICAL_AND_CONCEPTUAL_FRAMEWORK_MANDATORY_INGREDIENTS_OF_A_QUALITY_RESEARCH

Google Scholar  

Babbie, E. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Available as an e-book].

Cohen, J., Coleman, E., & Abrahams, L. (2015). Use and impacts of e-health within community health facilities in developing countries: A systematic literature review. ECIS 2015 completed research papers (Paper 33). http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2015_cr/33

Cryer, P. (2006). The research student’s guide to success (3rd ed.). Open University Press.

Dewey, A., & Drahota, A. (2016). Introduction to systematic reviews: Online learning module. Cochrane Training . https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning/module-1-introduction-conducting-systematic-reviews

Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between conceptual and theoretical frameworks? Journal of Social Science, 38 (2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2015.11893249

Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51 , 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009

Mahmud, K., & Usman, M. (2018). Trust establishment and estimation in cloud services: A systematic literature review. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 27 , 489–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10922-018-9475-y

Mbanaso, U., Abrahams, L., & Apene, O. (2019). Conceptual design of a cybersecurity resilience maturity measurement (CRMM) framework. The African Journal of Information and Communication, 23 , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17159/2077-7213/2019/n23a2

Mensah, S., et al. (2019). 2021 banking sector outlook: Nigerian banks face struggles on many fronts . Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/documents/ratings/research/100049447.pdf

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., & Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178 , 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Rowe, F. (2014). What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 , 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.7

SABRIC. (2019). SABRIC annual crime stats 2019 . https://www.sabric.co.za/media/1265/sabric-annual-crime-stats-2019.pdf

Serianu. (2017). Nigeria cybersecurity report 2017: Demystifying Africa’s cybersecurity poverty line . https://www.serianu.com/annual-reports.html

Serianu. (2018). Africa cybersecurity report – Kenya: Cybersecurity skills gap . https://www.serianu.com/annual-reports.html

Serianu. (2019). SACCO cybersecurity report 2019: Digital transformation and cyber risk within SACCOs . https://www.serianu.com/industry-reports.html

Serianu. (2020a). Africa cybersecurity report Kenya, 2019/2020: Local perspective on data protection and privacy laws: Insights from African SMEs . https://www.serianu.com/annual-reports.html

Serianu. (2020b). Africa cybersecurity report Uganda 2019/2020: Local perspective on data protection and privacy laws: Insights from African SMEs . https://www.serianu.com/annual-reports.html

Swanson, R. (2013). Theory building in applied disciplines . Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Cybersecurity Studies, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria

Uche M. Mbanaso

LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Lucienne Abrahams

Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria

Kennedy Chinedu Okafor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Mbanaso, U.M., Abrahams, L., Okafor, K.C. (2023). Foundational Research Writing, Background Discussion and Literature Review for CS, IS and CY. In: Research Techniques for Computer Science, Information Systems and Cybersecurity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30031-8_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30031-8_5

Published : 25 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-30030-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-30031-8

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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

How to Write Research Background: Key Points and Case Studies

• 4 minute read

Table of Contents

The background section, typically the first section in any manuscript, identifies the specific problems within the field of study that the current manuscript intends to tackle. It emphasizes the need for further investigation by highlighting unanswered questions or areas requiring additional examination. ¹

As the opening chapter of a paper, the research background plays a crucial role in making a strong initial impression on readers. The research background of different papers may vary in length and content, but outstanding research backgrounds often share a common trait: they provide a detailed explanation of the research topic through clear and concise expression, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the subject and sparking the reader’s interest. Key information related to the research topic should be initially introduced in the research background section. ²  

Having understood the purpose of the background section, we’ve summarized four key points 2, ²  ³  for writing a research background, as well as four common mistakes, applicable to researchers from various academic disciplines. Let’s explore how it should be done!

Four Step Guide to Writing a Research Background  

1. Start by stating the problem    

Begin the background by defining the problem that your research will address. Tell the reader why the problem is worth your attention and is also worth theirs.   

2. Summarize the relevant literature   

After defining the research problem, provide a review of the existing research on the subject. The goal of this exercise is not to simply list relevant studies but to analyze them in the light of your research problem. Try to identify any gaps in the literature, problems with methodology or unreliable findings.   

3. Establish the theoretical framework  

Every good research has sound theoretical foundations. In the background section, it is crucial to identify the core theories or theoretical models that your study is based on. Ensure that you describe the core theory or model in simple terms. If your readers understand the theoretical underpinnings of your research, they will be able to better understand and appreciate your findings.  

4. Define Objectives and Significance  

Having set the stage for your study, it is time to unveil the main research questions or hypotheses. Ensure they are well-defined and align neatly with the key problems you’ve described earlier. Then, explain the research findings and summarize their significance, such as their impact on the academic field, other related fields, and real life.  

Once you have touched upon all the above discussed aspects, sum up the background section with a crisp summary before moving on to the next section.   

Now, after having looked at what a background should have, let’s take a look at four common mistakes that you should avoid while writing the background ²   :  

• Ambiguous or overly technical writing

While writing, don’t leave any of the information open to interpretation. Steer clear of any ambiguity. Strike a balance by avoiding overly technical terms or jargons that may confuse readers. Researchers should consider clarifying complex concepts or terms beforehand to help readers accurately grasp the main research topic.  

• Lack of apparent connection with the research problem

The research problem is the anchor for your background section. The expressed purpose of this section is to set the stage for the research question. If you digress and talk about peripheral issues unconnected with the research problem, you will confuse the reader, and the background will not fulfill its purpose. Stay focused on the research problem.  

• Omitting key studies

The background section should provide a detailed explanation of the research topic. Researchers can use the four steps mentioned above to review their work, avoiding content gaps that could impact the credibility of both the researcher and the paper, or make the arguments seem too subjective or insufficiently informed .  

• Failing to cite research correctly

If you are using a theory or concept that is not yours, make sure you mention its creator. If you have modified a theory or concept, explain how and to what degree. You must cite your sources correctly to avoid being accused of plagiarism.

Example of Research Background  

Having listed the dos and don’ts while writing a background section, let’s look at an example of what a good ‘Background’ section looks like ⁴ , notice how historical and technical information is presented from the most general to more specific in this background.  

Needless to say, the background section of your manuscript is essentially the groundwork for the rest of your manuscript. However, crafting a compelling background for your manuscript doesn’t have to be overwhelming. By following the key approaches outlined above, and avoiding common mistakes, you can craft an effective background that sets a compelling narrative for your study, captures the reader’s interest, and encourages them to dive deeper into your research. Remember, a well-crafted, strong background section can keep your audience hooked till the very end of your paper.  

For more insights on crafting a contextually relevant, crisp, and fitting background for your manuscript, consider reaching out to Elsevier Language Services . Our experts are available to assist you with a range of services tailored to meet your needs and enhance your manuscript. Contact us to learn more about how we can support your research journey.

Type in wordcount for Standard Total: USD EUR JPY Follow this link if your manuscript is longer than 12,000 words. Upload

References:   

• How to Write a Background for a Research Paper- A Research Guide for Students (2023). https://www.aresearchguide.com/write-background-research-paper.html    
• Tips for Writing an Effective Background of the Study (2023). https://www.servicescape.com/blog/tips-for-writing-an-effective-background-of-the-study    
• Asiwe, Jerome Ndudi, et al. “Inhibition of Oxido-Inflammatory and Apoptotic Pathway Is Involved in the Protective Effect of Ginkgo Biloba Supplement in Cyclosporine-A Induced Vascular Dysfunction in Wistar Rat.” Pharmacological Research – Modern Chinese Medicine , vol. 7, 1 June 2023, p. 100252, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667142523000386 .   
• Inhibition of oxido-inflammatory and apoptotic pathway is involved in the protective effect of Ginkgo biloba supplement in cyclosporine-A induced vascular dysfunction in Wistar rat.  

How to Use Tables and Figures effectively in Research Papers

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

You may also like.

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

WashU Libraries

Library services for undergraduate research.

• Creating an Abstract
• What is a Literature Review?
• Creating a Poster
• Presenting Your Research
• Share Your Undergraduate Research
• Contact a Subject Librarian This link opens in a new window
• Conducting Research
• College Writing: Citizen Scientist

Literature Review: A Definition

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews /

From The Writing Center - The University of North Carolina

What is a literature review, then.

A literature review discusses and analyses published information in a particular subject area.   Sometimes the information covers a certain time period.

A literature review is more than a summary of the sources, it has an organizational pattern that combines both summary and synthesis. 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. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

  While the main focus of an academic research paper is to support your own argument, the focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others. The academic research paper also covers a range of sources, but it is usually a select number of sources, because the emphasis is on the argument. Likewise, a literature review can also have an "argument," but it is not as important as covering a number of sources. In short, an academic research paper and a literature review contain some of the same elements. In fact, many academic research papers will contain a literature review section. What aspect of the study (either the argument or the sources) that is emphasized determines what type of document

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone.

For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field.

For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation.

Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

• Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’ by Weng M. Lim THE SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL 2022, VOL. 42, NOS. 7–8, 481–513 ABSTRACT: Literature review is part and parcel of scholarly research. Though many literature review guides are available, they remain limited because they do not adequately account for the different types of literature review. Noteworthily, literature reviews can manifest as part of conceptual or empirical studies, or as independent studies, in which the latter may be curated in various ways. Moreover, despite its importance and popularity, literature reviews, particularly as independent studies, continue to attract unfair criticism and remain scarce in service research. To address the aforementioned gaps, this article endeavors to provide an overview and guidelines for writing literature reviews. Specifically, this article explains (1) what a literature review is and is not, (2) why literature reviews are valuable, and (3) how to conduct a literature review, as well as (4) the areas of service research and (5) the innovative ways in which literature reviews can be curated in the future.

Journal Articles on Writing Literature Reviews

• Research Methods for Comprehensive Science Literature Reviews Author: Brown,Barry N. Journal: Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship Date: Spring2009 Issue: 57 Page: 1 more... less... Finding some information on most topics is easy. There are abundant sources of information readily available. However, completing a comprehensive literature review on a particular topic is often difficult, laborious, and time intensive; the project requires organization, persistence, and an understanding of the scholarly communication and publishing process. This paper briefly outlines methods of conducting a comprehensive literature review for science topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR];
• Research: Considerations in Writing a Literature Review Authors: Black,K. Journal: The New Social Worker Date: 01/01; 2007 Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Page: 12 more... less... Literature reviews are ubiquitous in academic journals, scholarly reports, and social work education. Conducting and writing a good literature review is both personally and professionally satisfying. (Journal abstract).
• How to do (or not to do) A Critical Literature Review Authors: Jesson,Jill; Lacey,Fiona Journal: Pharmacy Education Pub Date: 2006 Volume: 6 Issue: 2 Pages:139 - 148 more... less... More and more students are required to perform a critical literature review as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Whilst most of the latest research methods textbooks advise how to do a literature search, very few cover the literature review. This paper covers two types of review: a critical literature review and a systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
• Conducting a Literature Review Authors: Rowley,Jennifer; Slack,Frances Journal: Management Research News Pub Date: 2004 Volume: 27 Issue: 6 Pages:31-39 more... less... Abstract: This article offers support and guidance for students undertaking a literature review as part of their dissertation during an undergraduate or Masters course. A literature review is a summary of a subject field that supports the identification of specific research questions. A literature review needs to draw on and evaluate a range of different types of sources including academic and professional journal articles, books, and web-based resources. The literature search helps in the identification and location of relevant documents and other sources. Search engines can be used to search web resources and bibliographic databases. Conceptual frameworks can be a useful tool in developing an understanding of a subject area. Creating the literature review involves the stages of: scanning, making notes, structuring the literature review, writing the literature review, and building a bibliography.

Some Books from the WU Catalog

• The SAGE handbook of visual research methods [electronic resource] by Edited by Luc Pauwels and Dawn Mannay. ISBN: 9781526417015 Publication Date: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2020.

Helpful Websites

• "How to do a Literature Review" from Ferdinand D. Bluford Library
• "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It." from the University of Toronto
• << Previous: Creating an Abstract
• Next: Creating a Poster >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write an Effective Background of the Study: A Comprehensive Guide

Table of Contents

The background of the study in a research paper offers a clear context, highlighting why the research is essential and the problem it aims to address.

As a researcher, this foundational section is essential for you to chart the course of your study, Moreover, it allows readers to understand the importance and path of your research.

Whether in academic communities or to the general public, a well-articulated background aids in communicating the essence of the research effectively.

While it may seem straightforward, crafting an effective background requires a blend of clarity, precision, and relevance. Therefore, this article aims to be your guide, offering insights into:

• Understanding the concept of the background of the study.
• Learning how to craft a compelling background effectively.
• Identifying and sidestepping common pitfalls in writing the background.
• Exploring practical examples that bring the theory to life.
• Enhancing both your writing and reading of academic papers.

Keeping these compelling insights in mind, let's delve deeper into the details of the empirical background of the study, exploring its definition, distinctions, and the art of writing it effectively.

What is the background of the study?

The background of the study is placed at the beginning of a research paper. It provides the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being explored.

It offers readers a snapshot of the existing knowledge on the topic and the reasons that spurred your current research.

When crafting the background of your study, consider the following questions.

• What's the context of your research?
• Which previous research will you refer to?
• Are there any knowledge gaps in the existing relevant literature?
• How will you justify the need for your current research?
• Have you concisely presented the research question or problem?

In a typical research paper structure, after presenting the background, the introduction section follows. The introduction delves deeper into the specific objectives of the research and often outlines the structure or main points that the paper will cover.

Together, they create a cohesive starting point, ensuring readers are well-equipped to understand the subsequent sections of the research paper.

While the background of the study and the introduction section of the research manuscript may seem similar and sometimes even overlap, each serves a unique purpose in the research narrative.

Difference between background and introduction

A well-written background of the study and introduction are preliminary sections of a research paper and serve distinct purposes.

Here’s a detailed tabular comparison between the two of them.

What is the relevance of the background of the study?

It is necessary for you to provide your readers with the background of your research. Without this, readers may grapple with questions such as: Why was this specific research topic chosen? What led to this decision? Why is this study relevant? Is it worth their time?

Such uncertainties can deter them from fully engaging with your study, leading to the rejection of your research paper. Additionally, this can diminish its impact in the academic community, and reduce its potential for real-world application or policy influence .

To address these concerns and offer clarity, the background section plays a pivotal role in research papers.

The background of the study in research is important as it:

• Provides context: It offers readers a clear picture of the existing knowledge, helping them understand where the current research fits in.
• Highlights relevance: By detailing the reasons for the research, it underscores the study's significance and its potential impact.
• Guides the narrative: The background shapes the narrative flow of the paper, ensuring a logical progression from what's known to what the research aims to uncover.
• Enhances engagement: A well-crafted background piques the reader's interest, encouraging them to delve deeper into the research paper.
• Aids in comprehension: By setting the scenario, it aids readers in better grasping the research objectives, methodologies, and findings.

How to write the background of the study in a research paper?

The journey of presenting a compelling argument begins with the background study. This section holds the power to either captivate or lose the reader's interest.

An effectively written background not only provides context but also sets the tone for the entire research paper. It's the bridge that connects a broad topic to a specific research question, guiding readers through the logic behind the study.

But how does one craft a background of the study that resonates, informs, and engages?

Here, we’ll discuss how to write an impactful background study, ensuring your research stands out and captures the attention it deserves.

Identify the research problem

The first step is to start pinpointing the specific issue or gap you're addressing. This should be a significant and relevant problem in your field.

A well-defined problem is specific, relevant, and significant to your field. It should resonate with both experts and readers.

Here’s more on how to write an effective research problem .

Provide context

Here, you need to provide a broader perspective, illustrating how your research aligns with or contributes to the overarching context or the wider field of study. A comprehensive context is grounded in facts, offers multiple perspectives, and is relatable.

In addition to stating facts, you should weave a story that connects key concepts from the past, present, and potential future research. For instance, consider the following approach.

• Offer a brief history of the topic, highlighting major milestones or turning points that have shaped the current landscape.
• Discuss contemporary developments or current trends that provide relevant information to your research problem. This could include technological advancements, policy changes, or shifts in societal attitudes.
• Highlight the views of different stakeholders. For a topic like sustainable agriculture, this could mean discussing the perspectives of farmers, environmentalists, policymakers, and consumers.
• If relevant, compare and contrast global trends with local conditions and circumstances. This can offer readers a more holistic understanding of the topic.

Literature review

For this step, you’ll deep dive into the existing literature on the same topic. It's where you explore what scholars, researchers, and experts have already discovered or discussed about your topic.

Conducting a thorough literature review isn't just a recap of past works. To elevate its efficacy, it's essential to analyze the methods, outcomes, and intricacies of prior research work, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the existing body of knowledge.

• Instead of merely listing past research study, delve into their methodologies, findings, and limitations. Highlight groundbreaking studies and those that had contrasting results.
• Try to identify patterns. Look for recurring themes or trends in the literature. Are there common conclusions or contentious points?
• The next step would be to connect the dots. Show how different pieces of research relate to each other. This can help in understanding the evolution of thought on the topic.

By showcasing what's already known, you can better highlight the background of the study in research.

Highlight the research gap

This step involves identifying the unexplored areas or unanswered questions in the existing literature. Your research seeks to address these gaps, providing new insights or answers.

A clear research gap shows you've thoroughly engaged with existing literature and found an area that needs further exploration.

How can you efficiently highlight the research gap?

• Find the overlooked areas. Point out topics or angles that haven't been adequately addressed.
• Highlight questions that have emerged due to recent developments or changing circumstances.
• Identify areas where insights from other fields might be beneficial but haven't been explored yet.

State your objectives

Here, it’s all about laying out your game plan — What do you hope to achieve with your research? You need to mention a clear objective that’s specific, actionable, and directly tied to the research gap.

How to state your objectives?

• List the primary questions guiding your research.
• If applicable, state any hypotheses or predictions you aim to test.
• Specify what you hope to achieve, whether it's new insights, solutions, or methodologies.

Discuss the significance

This step describes your 'why'. Why is your research important? What broader implications does it have?

The significance of “why” should be both theoretical (adding to the existing literature) and practical (having real-world implications).

How do we effectively discuss the significance?

• Discuss how your research adds to the existing body of knowledge.
• Highlight how your findings could be applied in real-world scenarios, from policy changes to on-ground practices.
• Point out how your research could pave the way for further studies or open up new areas of exploration.

Summarize your points

A concise summary acts as a bridge, smoothly transitioning readers from the background to the main body of the paper. This step is a brief recap, ensuring that readers have grasped the foundational concepts.

How to summarize your study?

• Revisit the key points discussed, from the research problem to its significance.
• Prepare the reader for the subsequent sections, ensuring they understand the research's direction.

Include examples for better understanding

Research and come up with real-world or hypothetical examples to clarify complex concepts or to illustrate the practical applications of your research. Relevant examples make abstract ideas tangible, aiding comprehension.

How to include an effective example of the background of the study?

• Use past events or scenarios to explain concepts.
• Craft potential scenarios to demonstrate the implications of your findings.
• Use comparisons to simplify complex ideas, making them more relatable.

Crafting a compelling background of the study in research is about striking the right balance between providing essential context, showcasing your comprehensive understanding of the existing literature, and highlighting the unique value of your research .

While writing the background of the study, keep your readers at the forefront of your mind. Every piece of information, every example, and every objective should be geared toward helping them understand and appreciate your research.

How to avoid mistakes in the background of the study in research?

To write a well-crafted background of the study, you should be aware of the following potential research pitfalls .

• Stay away from ambiguity. Always assume that your reader might not be familiar with intricate details about your topic.
• Avoid discussing unrelated themes. Stick to what's directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure your background is well-organized. Information should flow logically, making it easy for readers to follow.
• While it's vital to provide context, avoid overwhelming the reader with excessive details that might not be directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure you've covered the most significant and relevant studies i` n your field. Overlooking key pieces of literature can make your background seem incomplete.
• Aim for a balanced presentation of facts, and avoid showing overt bias or presenting only one side of an argument.
• While academic paper often involves specialized terms, ensure they're adequately explained or use simpler alternatives when possible.
• Every claim or piece of information taken from existing literature should be appropriately cited. Failing to do so can lead to issues of plagiarism.
• Avoid making the background too lengthy. While thoroughness is appreciated, it should not come at the expense of losing the reader's interest. Maybe prefer to keep it to one-two paragraphs long.
• Especially in rapidly evolving fields, it's crucial to ensure that your literature review section is up-to-date and includes the latest research.

Example of an effective background of the study

Let's consider a topic: "The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance." The ideal background of the study section for this topic would be as follows.

In the last decade, the rise of the internet has revolutionized many sectors, including education. Online learning platforms, once a supplementary educational tool, have now become a primary mode of instruction for many institutions worldwide. With the recent global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid shift from traditional classroom learning to online modes, making it imperative to understand its effects on student performance.

Previous studies have explored various facets of online learning, from its accessibility to its flexibility. However, there is a growing need to assess its direct impact on student outcomes. While some educators advocate for its benefits, citing the convenience and vast resources available, others express concerns about potential drawbacks, such as reduced student engagement and the challenges of self-discipline.

This research aims to delve deeper into this debate, evaluating the true impact of online learning on student performance.

Why is this example considered as an effective background section of a research paper?

This background section example effectively sets the context by highlighting the rise of online learning and its increased relevance due to recent global events. It references prior research on the topic, indicating a foundation built on existing knowledge.

By presenting both the potential advantages and concerns of online learning, it establishes a balanced view, leading to the clear purpose of the study: to evaluate the true impact of online learning on student performance.

As we've explored, writing an effective background of the study in research requires clarity, precision, and a keen understanding of both the broader landscape and the specific details of your topic.

From identifying the research problem, providing context, reviewing existing literature to highlighting research gaps and stating objectives, each step is pivotal in shaping the narrative of your research. And while there are best practices to follow, it's equally crucial to be aware of the pitfalls to avoid.

Remember, writing or refining the background of your study is essential to engage your readers, familiarize them with the research context, and set the ground for the insights your research project will unveil.

Drawing from all the important details, insights and guidance shared, you're now in a strong position to craft a background of the study that not only informs but also engages and resonates with your readers.

Now that you've a clear understanding of what the background of the study aims to achieve, the natural progression is to delve into the next crucial component — write an effective introduction section of a research paper. Read here .

Frequently Asked Questions

The background of the study should include a clear context for the research, references to relevant previous studies, identification of knowledge gaps, justification for the current research, a concise overview of the research problem or question, and an indication of the study's significance or potential impact.

The background of the study is written to provide readers with a clear understanding of the context, significance, and rationale behind the research. It offers a snapshot of existing knowledge on the topic, highlights the relevance of the study, and sets the stage for the research questions and objectives. It ensures that readers can grasp the importance of the research and its place within the broader field of study.

The background of the study is a section in a research paper that provides context, circumstances, and history leading to the research problem or topic being explored. It presents existing knowledge on the topic and outlines the reasons that spurred the current research, helping readers understand the research's foundation and its significance in the broader academic landscape.

The number of paragraphs in the background of the study can vary based on the complexity of the topic and the depth of the context required. Typically, it might range from 3 to 5 paragraphs, but in more detailed or complex research papers, it could be longer. The key is to ensure that all relevant information is presented clearly and concisely, without unnecessary repetition.

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — ChatPDF Showdown

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a literature review and a theoretical framework.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

Frequently asked questions: Dissertation

Dissertation word counts vary widely across different fields, institutions, and levels of education:

• An undergraduate dissertation is typically 8,000–15,000 words
• A master’s dissertation is typically 12,000–50,000 words
• A PhD thesis is typically book-length: 70,000–100,000 words

However, none of these are strict guidelines – your word count may be lower or higher than the numbers stated here. Always check the guidelines provided by your university to determine how long your own dissertation should be.

A dissertation prospectus or proposal describes what or who you plan to research for your dissertation. It delves into why, when, where, and how you will do your research, as well as helps you choose a type of research to pursue. You should also determine whether you plan to pursue qualitative or quantitative methods and what your research design will look like.

It should outline all of the decisions you have taken about your project, from your dissertation topic to your hypotheses and research objectives , ready to be approved by your supervisor or committee.

Note that some departments require a defense component, where you present your prospectus to your committee orally.

A thesis is typically written by students finishing up a bachelor’s or Master’s degree. Some educational institutions, particularly in the liberal arts, have mandatory theses, but they are often not mandatory to graduate from bachelor’s degrees. It is more common for a thesis to be a graduation requirement from a Master’s degree.

Even if not mandatory, you may want to consider writing a thesis if you:

• Plan to attend graduate school soon
• Have a particular topic you’d like to study more in-depth
• Are considering a career in research
• Would like a capstone experience to tie up your academic experience

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation shouldn’t take up more than 5–7% of your overall word count.

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A thesis or dissertation outline is one of the most critical first steps in your writing process. It helps you to lay out and organize your ideas and can provide you with a roadmap for deciding what kind of research you’d like to undertake.

Generally, an outline contains information on the different sections included in your thesis or dissertation , such as:

• Your anticipated title
• Your abstract
• Your chapters (sometimes subdivided into further topics like literature review , research methods , avenues for future research, etc.)

When you mention different chapters within your text, it’s considered best to use Roman numerals for most citation styles. However, the most important thing here is to remain consistent whenever using numbers in your dissertation .

In most styles, the title page is used purely to provide information and doesn’t include any images. Ask your supervisor if you are allowed to include an image on the title page before doing so. If you do decide to include one, make sure to check whether you need permission from the creator of the image.

Include a note directly beneath the image acknowledging where it comes from, beginning with the word “ Note .” (italicized and followed by a period). Include a citation and copyright attribution . Don’t title, number, or label the image as a figure , since it doesn’t appear in your main text.

Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge , meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited. This guidance can apply to your thesis or dissertation glossary as well.

However, if you’d prefer to cite your sources , you can follow guidance for citing dictionary entries in MLA or APA style for your glossary.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, an index is a list of the contents of your work organized by page number.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation goes first, before all other content or lists that you may choose to include.

The title page of your thesis or dissertation should include your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date.

Glossaries are not mandatory, but if you use a lot of technical or field-specific terms, it may improve readability to add one to your thesis or dissertation. Your educational institution may also require them, so be sure to check their specific guidelines.

A glossary or “glossary of terms” is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. Your glossary only needs to include terms that your reader may not be familiar with, and is intended to enhance their understanding of your work.

A glossary is a collection of words pertaining to a specific topic. In your thesis or dissertation, it’s a list of all terms you used that may not immediately be obvious to your reader. In contrast, dictionaries are more general collections of words.

An abbreviation is a shortened version of an existing word, such as Dr. for Doctor. In contrast, an acronym uses the first letter of each word to create a wholly new word, such as UNESCO (an acronym for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).

As a rule of thumb, write the explanation in full the first time you use an acronym or abbreviation. You can then proceed with the shortened version. However, if the abbreviation is very common (like PC, USA, or DNA), then you can use the abbreviated version from the get-go.

Be sure to add each abbreviation in your list of abbreviations !

If you only used a few abbreviations in your thesis or dissertation , you don’t necessarily need to include a list of abbreviations .

If your abbreviations are numerous, or if you think they won’t be known to your audience, it’s never a bad idea to add one. They can also improve readability, minimizing confusion about abbreviations unfamiliar to your reader.

A list of abbreviations is a list of all the abbreviations that you used in your thesis or dissertation. It should appear at the beginning of your document, with items in alphabetical order, just after your table of contents .

Your list of tables and figures should go directly after your table of contents in your thesis or dissertation.

Lists of figures and tables are often not required, and aren’t particularly common. They specifically aren’t required for APA-Style, though you should be careful to follow their other guidelines for figures and tables .

If you have many figures and tables in your thesis or dissertation, include one may help you stay organized. Your educational institution may require them, so be sure to check their guidelines.

A list of figures and tables compiles all of the figures and tables that you used in your thesis or dissertation and displays them with the page number where they can be found.

The table of contents in a thesis or dissertation always goes between your abstract and your introduction .

You may acknowledge God in your dissertation acknowledgements , but be sure to follow academic convention by also thanking the members of academia, as well as family, colleagues, and friends who helped you.

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 .  

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter of a thesis or dissertation presents your research results concisely and objectively.

In quantitative research , for each question or hypothesis , state:

• The type of analysis used
• Relevant results in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics
• Whether or not the alternative hypothesis was supported

In qualitative research , for each question or theme, describe:

• Recurring patterns
• Significant or representative individual responses
• Relevant quotations from the data

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

To automatically insert a table of contents in Microsoft Word, follow these steps:

• Apply heading styles throughout the document.
• In the references section in the ribbon, locate the Table of Contents group.
• Click the arrow next to the Table of Contents icon and select Custom Table of Contents.
• Select which levels of headings you would like to include in the table of contents.

Make sure to update your table of contents if you move text or change headings. To update, simply right click and select Update Field.

All level 1 and 2 headings should be included in your table of contents . That means the titles of your chapters and the main sections within them.

The contents should also include all appendices and the lists of tables and figures, if applicable, as well as your reference list .

Do not include the acknowledgements or abstract in the table of contents.

The abstract appears on its own page in the thesis or dissertation , after the title page and acknowledgements but before the table of contents .

An abstract for a thesis or dissertation is usually around 200–300 words. There’s often a strict word limit, so make sure to check your university’s requirements.

In a thesis or dissertation, the acknowledgements should usually be no longer than one page. There is no minimum length.

The acknowledgements are generally included at the very beginning of your thesis , directly after the title page and before the abstract .

Yes, it’s important to thank your supervisor(s) in the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation .

Even if you feel your supervisor did not contribute greatly to the final product, you must acknowledge them, if only for a very brief thank you. If you do not include your supervisor, it may be seen as a snub.

In the acknowledgements of your thesis or dissertation, you should first thank those who helped you academically or professionally, such as your supervisor, funders, and other academics.

Then you can include personal thanks to friends, family members, or anyone else who supported you during the process.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

Cruciferous vegetables lower blood pressure in adults with mildly elevated blood pressure in a randomized, controlled, crossover trial: the VEgetableS for vaScular hEaLth (VESSEL) study

• Emma L. Connolly 1 ,
• Alex H. Liu 1 ,
• Simone Radavelli-Bagatini 1 ,
• Armaghan Shafaei 2 ,
• Mary C. Boyce 3 ,
• Lisa G. Wood 4 ,
• Lyn McCahon 1 ,
• Henrietta Koch 5 ,
• Marc Sim 1 , 6 ,
• Caroline R. Hill 1 ,
• Benjamin H. Parmenter 1 ,
• Nicola P. Bondonno 1 , 7 ,
• Amanda Devine 1 ,
• Kevin D. Croft 5 ,
• Richard Mithen 8 ,
• Seng Khee Gan 6 , 9 ,
• Carl J. Schultz 6 , 10 ,
• Richard J. Woodman 11 ,
• Catherine P. Bondonno 1 , 6 ,
• Joshua R. Lewis 1 , 6 , 12 ,
• Jonathan M. Hodgson 1 , 6 &
• Lauren C. Blekkenhorst 1 , 6  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  353 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Higher cruciferous vegetable intake is associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk in observational studies. The pathways involved remain uncertain. We aimed to determine whether cruciferous vegetable intake (active) lowers 24-h brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP; primary outcome) compared to root and squash vegetables (control) in Australian adults with mildly elevated BP (SBP 120–160 mmHg inclusive).

In this randomized, controlled, crossover trial, participants completed two 2-week dietary interventions separated by a 2-week washout. Cruciferous vegetables were compared to root and squash vegetables (~ 300 g/day) consumed with lunch and dinner meals. Participants were blinded to which interventions were the active and control. Adherence was assessed using food diaries and biomarkers (S-methyl cysteine sulfoxide (SMCSO, active) and carotenoids (control)). Twenty-four-hour brachial ambulatory SBP and secondary outcomes were assessed pre- and post each intervention. Differences were tested using linear mixed effects regression.

Eighteen participants were recruited (median (IQR) age: 68 (66–70); female: n  = 16/18; mean ± SD clinic SBP: 135.9 ± 10.0 mmHg). For both interventions, 72% participants had 100% adherence (IQR: 96.4–100%). SMCSO and carotenoids were significantly different between interventions (mean difference active vs. control SMCSO: 22.93 mg/mL, 95%CI 15.62, 30.23, P  < 0.0001; carotenoids: − 0.974 mg/mL, 95%CI − 1.525, − 0.423, P  = 0.001). Twenty-four-hour brachial SBP was significantly reduced following the active vs. control (mean difference − 2.5 mmHg, 95%CI − 4.2, − 0.9, P  = 0.002; active pre: 126.8 ± 12.6 mmHg, post: 124.4 ± 11.8 mmHg; control pre: 125.5 ± 12.1 mmHg, post: 124.8 ± 13.1 mmHg, n  = 17), driven by daytime SBP (mean difference − 3.6 mmHg, 95%CI − 5.4, − 1.7, P  < 0.001). Serum triglycerides were significantly lower following the active vs. control (mean difference − 0.2 mmol/L, 95%CI − 0.4, − 0.0, P  = 0.047).

Conclusions

Increased intake of cruciferous vegetables resulted in reduced SBP compared to root and squash vegetables. Future research is needed to determine whether targeted recommendations for increasing cruciferous vegetable intake benefits population health.

Trial registration

Clinical trial registry ACTRN12619001294145.  https://www.anzctr.org.au

Peer Review reports

Increasing vegetable intake is widely recommended to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Historically researched for their anti-cancer properties, one group of vegetables that have been proposed to have superior benefits on CVD are cruciferous vegetables (e.g., arugula, bok choy, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collard greens, horseradish, kale, radish, turnips, and watercress) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Whilst these vegetables are commonly consumed globally, cruciferous vegetables typically make up a small proportion of total vegetable intake (5–24%) [ 7 ]. Cruciferous vegetable intake was found to be inversely associated with CVD risk in a dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies [ 8 ]. Similar results were observed when objective markers of cruciferous vegetable intake (i.e., urinary thiocyanate) were considered [ 9 ]. More research is required to establish any causal pathways through which cruciferous vegetables benefit cardiovascular health.

Hypertension is the leading risk factor for CVD with its prevalence increasing with age [ 10 ]. Glucosinolates are found almost exclusively in cruciferous vegetables and have been shown to lower blood pressure in animals, but evidence in humans is limited [ 4 ]. These compounds have been proposed to exhibit cardiovascular health benefits, such as reduced glycemic-related complications, improved endothelial function, and reduced formation and progression of atherosclerotic plaques [ 4 ]. Additionally, cruciferous vegetables also contain several other components that likely influence blood pressure, such as nitrate and vitamin K [ 11 , 12 ].

Few intervention studies have been conducted in humans to investigate the effects of cruciferous vegetables on risk factors for CVD, such as elevated blood pressure. As previously described in the published protocol [ 13 ], the primary objective of the VEgetableS for vaScular hEaLth (VESSEL) study was to determine if daily consumption of cruciferous vegetables results in lower 24-h brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) in middle-aged and older adults with mildly elevated blood pressure compared to root and squash vegetables. Our a priori hypothesis was that daily consumption of cruciferous vegetables, in comparison to root and squash vegetables, would result in a greater reduction in ambulatory blood pressure. Secondary objectives were to determine if cruciferous vegetables were superior in improving other brachial and arterial ambulatory blood pressures, arterial stiffness, and circulating biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation and other CVD risk factors.

The Edith Cowan University Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethics approval for the VESSEL Study (2019–00356-BLEKKENHORST) and the trial was registered at www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12619001294145). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Procedures were followed in accordance with institutional guidelines.

Study design

The VESSEL study was a randomized, controlled, crossover trial with two 2-week dietary intervention periods, as previously described in the protocol [ 13 ]. Intervention periods were separated by a 2-week washout (Fig.  1 ). The study was conducted at the Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation, Perth, Australia.

Overview of study design

Participants

Six newspaper advertisements were placed at varying intervals between August 2019 and March 2021 to recruit men and women aged 50 to 75 years with mild to moderately elevated blood pressure (SBP 120–160 mmHg, inclusive, and diastolic (DBP) < 100 mmHg) from the general population of Perth, Australia. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Additional File 1: Table S1 [ 2 , 14 ].

Screening blood pressure was assessed using a CARESCAPE Dinamap v100 Vital Signs Monitor (GE Healthcare, Buckinghamshire, UK). After resting in a supine position for 5 min, five blood pressure and heart rate measurements were taken at 1-min intervals. The first measurement was excluded, and the next four readings were averaged to calculate mean resting blood pressure.

Randomization

Using computer-generated random numbers, eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of two intervention sequence orders (1:1 allocation). The intervention sequence orders were placed in opaque sealed envelopes by a study investigator and opened in consecutive order as participants were enrolled in the study.

Dietary intervention

Participants completed two 2-week dietary interventions in random order, as follows:

Active: four serves (~ 300 g/day) of cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and cabbage) consumed as two soups: one at lunch and one at dinner (~ 600 mL soup/day, ~ 600 kJ/day).

Control: four serves (~ 300 g/day) of root and squash vegetables (potato, sweet potato, carrot, and pumpkin) consumed as two soups: one at lunch and one at dinner (~ 600 mL soup/day, ~ 600 kJ/day).

All soups were prepared at Edith Cowan University, Joondalup Campus, Perth, Australia, using standardized recipes, as detailed in the protocol [ 13 ]. Vegetables were chopped and boiled prior to blending into a soup and were immediately frozen at − 18 °C for storage. Soup was generally consumed within the week, but could be stored for up to 6 weeks at − 18 °C. The active soup contained 40% broccoli, 25% cauliflower, 25% cabbage, and 10% kale, and the control soup contained 40% potato, 30% pumpkin, 20% carrot, and 10% sweet potato. Root and squash vegetables were chosen as the control intervention as these vegetables are commonly consumed in Australia [ 15 ]. The macronutrient content of the soups was closely matched, as previously reported in the protocol [ 13 ]. Participants were instructed not to add salt to their soups and were blinded to which interventions were the active and control.

Standard lunch and dinner meals were provided throughout both interventions to minimize background diet variation amongst participants. These meals provided approximately 1–4 serves (75–450 g) of vegetables per day, excluding the additional vegetable serves provided in the soups. Cruciferous vegetables were avoided when selecting these meals by checking the listed ingredients. Participants were able to select meals based on personal preference and meal orders were duplicated for each intervention to limit variation in the diet between intervention periods. All meals for each participant were ordered and stored at − 18 °C at the beginning of the study period to mitigate potential disruptions to stock availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants were instructed to consume their usual breakfast foods and snacks but were asked to avoid consuming any snacks in the 2-h window after soup was consumed. Participants were required to complete food diaries, including the timing of all meals and snacks. Participant food diaries were checked by a dietitian (ELC) and Foodworks software using the AusBrands 2019 and AusFoods 2019 databases was used for dietary assessment (FoodWorks 10 Professional, v10.0. Brisbane: Xyris Pty Ltd, 2019). Intervention adherence was assessed using self-reported (i.e., food diaries) and objective biomarkers of intake (i.e., serum carotenoids and urinary and plasma S-methyl cysteine sulfoxide (SMCSO)). Percent self-reported adherence was calculated by dividing the number of soups consumed by the number of total soups that should have been consumed (28 soups per intervention) and multiplying that number by 100. Urinary and plasma SMCSO were used as objective markers of adherence to the active intervention as SMCSO is found in higher concentrations in cruciferous vegetables, but not root and squash vegetables [ 16 ]. Conversely, root and squash vegetables contain higher concentrations of carotenoids than cruciferous vegetables; therefore, serum carotenoids were measured as an objective marker of control intervention adherence [ 17 ]. Please see “ Biochemical analyses ” for methodology used for objective measures of adherence.

Baseline dietary assessment

To assess baseline habitual dietary intake, participants completed the Dietary Questionnaire for Epidemiological Studies (DQES v3.2), a validated food frequency questionnaire, under the supervision of a trained dietitian or nutritionist (ELC, CRH, BHP) [ 18 ]. A dietitian (ELC) looked at outliers for implausible energy intakes with respect to factors such as BMI, sex, and age and reviewed for unrealistic energy intakes to support body function and lifestyle. All vegetables (including legumes and potatoes cooked without fat) were included in the analysis of baseline total vegetable intake (g/day). Intake of Asian greens (e.g., bok choy), coleslaw, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and broccoli (i.e., available cruciferous vegetables in the DQES v3.2) were combined to create the cruciferous vegetable (g/day) variable for baseline analysis of cruciferous vegetable intake.

Outcome measurements

Ambulatory blood pressure and arterial stiffness.

Trained study investigators (AHL, ELC) fitted participants with the Oscar 2 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor (ABPM) system (SunTech Medical Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA) to assess 24-h ambulatory blood pressure at pre- and post-intervention visits (i.e., beginning and end of each 2-week period), as previously described [ 13 ]. The ABPM system measured brachial and aortic blood pressure every 20 min during daytime hours (6 am until 10 pm) and every 30 min during nighttime hours (10 pm until 6 am). Participants used the same ABPM for all visits. Participants were instructed to avoid vigorous activity whilst wearing the monitor and to continue with regular daily activities. Participants were excluded if they were missing more than 20% of measurements or if there were more than four hours with no blood pressure measurements. Ambulatory arterial stiffness was assessed using the aortic augmentation index (AIx, %) [ 19 ]. The ambulatory AIx data was obtained using the SphygmoCor component of the Oscar 2 ABPM at pre- and post-intervention visits.

Anthropometry

Body composition (weight, height, body mass index (BMI), waist and hip circumference, body fat mass) was assessed according to standard protocols at each pre- and post-intervention visit [ 13 ].

Online self-administered questionnaires were used to assess lifestyle factors known to influence blood pressure. These factors included physical activity (assessed using the Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) [ 20 ]) and stress (assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) [ 14 ]). CHAMPS and PSS questionnaires were completed pre- and post-intervention to assess any changes in physical activity and stress levels, as these lifestyle factors have been shown to influence blood pressure [ 21 ].

Biochemical analyses

Blood and urine samples were collected at pre- and post-intervention visits. Fasting blood samples were collected by venipuncture into serum-separating tubes (SST) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)-coated vacutainers. SST vacutainers were immediately covered in aluminum foil to protect the tubes from light, due to the light sensitivity of carotenoids [ 17 ], and sat upright for 30 min prior to centrifugation. Whole blood was centrifuged at 4 °C at 3500 rpm for 10 min. All aliquots were stored at − 80 °C until analysis. Twenty-four-hour urine samples were collected in sterilized containers the day before pre- and post-intervention visits. After participants returned their sample to the clinic, samples were weighed and urine aliquots were stored at − 80 °C until analysis.

SMCSO was measured in urine and plasma samples. Sulforaphane, the isothiocyanate of the glucosinolate, glucoraphanin, was also measured in plasma samples. For the urinary SMCSO analysis, urine samples were thawed on ice and 50 µL of samples were diluted with liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS) grade water (1:2 dilution). The diluted samples (50 µL) were transferred to a 1.5 mL centrifuge tube. The acetonitrile (ACN) solution (150 µL) containing 2 µg/mL internal standards (SMCSO-d3) was added, and the samples were vortexed for 2 min and centrifuged at 14,000 rpm and 4 °C for 10 min. A 100 μL aliquot of supernatant was transferred to a 2 mL high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) vial for analysis using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Chromatographic separation was performed on an UltiMate 3000 Liquid Chromatograph (Thermo Scientific, CA, USA) coupled to a Thermo Scientific TSQ Quantiva Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer equipped with an electrospray ionization (ESI) source. The optimal separation was achieved on ACQUITY UPLC BEH Amide column (100 mm × 2.1 mm ID; Waters) with 1.7 μm particles and a mobile phase of water and ACN containing 10 mM ammonium formate and 50 nM formic acid at pH 3. The flow rate was 0.5 mL/min and the column temperature was maintained at 35 °C with an injection volume of 4 µL. The detection was performed in positive mode (3500 V) and the spectra were acquired in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Argon gas was selected as the collision gas and nitrogen as the nebulizer and heater gas.

For the plasma SMCSO and sulforaphane analysis, plasma samples were thawed on ice and 50 µL of samples were transferred to a 1.5 mL centrifuge tube. The methanol solution (150 μL) containing 0.75 µg/mL internal standards (SMCSO-d3 and SFN-d8) was added, and the samples were vortexed for 2 min and centrifuged at 4000 rpm and 4 °C for 10 min. An 80 μL aliquot of supernatant was transferred to a 2 mL HPLC vial for analysis using the LC–MS/MS. The optimal separation was achieved on XBridge C18 column (100 × 3.0 mm packed with 3.5µm particles; Waters) and using a mobile phase of water and ACN both containing 0.1% formic acid. The flow rate was 0.4 mL/min and the column temperature was maintained at 35 °C with an injection volume of 6 µL. As with the urine analysis, the detection was performed in positive mode (3500 V) and the spectra were acquired in MRM mode. Argon gas was selected as the collision gas and nitrogen as the nebulizer and heater gas.

Serum carotenoids were measured using HPLC, as previously described [ 22 ]. Briefly, ethanol, ethyl acetate, and hexane were used to extract carotenoids, with canthaxanthin as an internal standard. Dichloromethane:methanol (1:2 vol) was used to reconstitute the dried extract after evaporation of the solvents. Using a Hypersil ODS column (100 mm × 2.1 mm × 5 μm) (Thermo Scientific, CA, USA), chromatography was performed on an Agilent 1200 HPLC system (Agilent Technologies, CA, USA). A mobile phase of ACN:dichloromethane:methanol 0.05% ammonium acetate (85:10:5 vol:vol) at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min with the use of a diode array detector (450 nm) was used to analyze carotenoids [ 22 ].

Plasma F 2 -isoprostanes, a biomarker of oxidative lipid damage, were measured using electron-capture negative-ion gas chromatography–mass spectrometry as total (free plus esterified) F 2 -isoprostanes, as previously described [ 23 ]. Serum high sensitivity interleukin-6 (hsIL-6), a marker of inflammation, was analyzed using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (R&D Systems, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). Urinary concentrations of creatinine, sodium, and potassium (markers of sodium and potassium intakes) and serum concentrations of triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, glucose, creatinine, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), sodium, and potassium were analyzed by PathWest Laboratories (Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia).

Statistical analysis

Sample size.

Based on 24-h ambulatory SBP as the primary outcome, a desired sample size of 25 participants was calculated. This sample size was calculated to provide > 90% power to detect a 2.5 mmHg difference in mean 24-h ambulatory SBP, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 14 mmHg for SBP, a within-period correlation between SBP measurements of 0.6, a between period correlation of mean SBP of 0.6, and a minimum of 40 blood pressure measurements over each 24-h period [ 24 ], as described in the published protocol [ 13 ]. The estimated change of 2.5 mmHg was based on plausible values for changes in SBP following a nutritional intervention, such as those described previously from the ingestion of black tea [ 24 ], as well as also constituting a clinically meaningful change.

Statistical methods

All data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and STATA, version 15.1 (Statacorp, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical significance was set at a two-sided type 1 error rate of P  < 0.05. The Shapiro–Wilk normality test was used to assess the normality of distributions of continuous variables. Descriptive statistics of normally distributed variables are expressed as mean ± SD, non-normally distributed continuous variables as median and interquartile range (IQR), and categorical variables as number and proportion (%). Paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare pre- and post-intervention measurements within the intervention groups for normally and non-normally distributed variables, respectively.

The primary analyses were conducted according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol, including all participants for which pre-intervention visit data for both interventions were obtained. Secondary per-protocol analyses were conducted on participants who completed the study and had complete data. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were the same for all outcomes except for hsCRP (extreme outlier removed) and ambulatory aortic blood pressure and arterial stiffness (> 10% missing data). Differences between treatments for ambulatory brachial and aortic blood pressure and arterial stiffness were tested using linear mixed effects regression with fixed effects for treatment, pre vs. post treatment, hour, intervention order, and a treatment X pre-post interaction. In this analysis, “hour” referred to the blood pressure readings aggregated for each hour over the 24-h period. Participant ID was included as a random intercept with a random slope for treatment and pre- vs. post treatment. Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to determine the best model fit. For all other outcomes, differences between treatments were tested using the same model without a time variable (hour). Due to ABPM error, there was > 10% missing data for aortic blood pressure (11% missing data) and arterial stiffness (13% missing data), and therefore, multiple imputation was utilized as per the published protocol [ 13 ]. Ten imputations were generated using a chained regression equation including the following variables in the imputation model: visit, hour, daytime/nighttime hours, treatment, intervention order, age, sex, weight, height, and screening blood pressure. ELC and LCB had full access to all data in the study and took responsibility for its integrity and the data analysis.

Recruitment

A total of 76 individuals underwent physical screening to be assessed for eligibility. Of these, 21 participants were randomly assigned. Three participants withdrew after randomization: two withdrew due to scheduling difficulties before pre-intervention visit data was collected and one withdrew as they were unwilling to follow study requirements. The CONSORT flow diagram for participant recruitment is shown in Fig.  2 . Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions put in place in Western Australia, recruitment was paused in March 2020 and later recommenced in October 2020 in a limited capacity.

CONSORT diagram

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics

Participants were aged 56 to 72 years and had a BMI range of 21.2 to 35.1 kg/m 2 (Table 1 ). Most participants were Caucasian (94%). At screening, participants presented with mean ± SD brachial SBP of 135.9 ± 10.0 mmHg and a DBP of 76.4 ± 7.9 mmHg. Two participants used blood pressure-lowering medication, which remained unaltered throughout the trial. Median (IQR) baseline habitual daily intake of cruciferous vegetable was 26.0 g (18.5–52.9 g) and most people consumed at least 3.5 servings of vegetables per day (Additional File 1: Table S2).

For both soups, 72% of participants had 100% soup adherence (median (IQR) adherence: 100% (96.4–100%) for both interventions). No adverse events were reported. Energy, macronutrient, and food group consumption during both intervention periods is presented in Additional File 1: Table S3. Only protein was significantly different between interventions ( P  = 0.001). Median (IQR) intake of total vegetables per day was 481 g (458–526 g) and 493 g (458–503 g) for the control and active interventions, respectively. Median (IQR) intake of cruciferous vegetables was 0 g/day (0–0 g/day) during the control intervention; four participants reported consuming cruciferous vegetables ranging from 0.3–12.3 g/day during their control intervention. During the active intervention, median (IQR) intake of cruciferous vegetables was 300 g/day (293–300 g/day); three participants reported consuming cruciferous vegetables outside of the intervention soups ranging from 2.1 to 10 g/day during their active intervention.

Ambulatory blood pressure

Twenty-four-hour brachial SBP was significantly reduced in the active intervention compared to the control intervention (mean difference active vs. control: − 2.5 mmHg, 95% CI − 4.1, − 0.9, P  = 0.002) (Table  2 ). This result was driven by the daytime period (mean difference active vs. control: − 3.6 mmHg, 95% CI − 5.4, − 1.7, P  < 0.001). No significant difference was seen for nighttime SBP nor 24-h, daytime, and nighttime brachial DBP between interventions (Table  2 ). Figure  3 shows 24-h brachial SBP at the pre- and post-intervention visit for both interventions. No carryover effects were seen for 24-h brachial SBP ( P  = 0.877) or DBP ( P  = 0.556).

24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) aggregated hourly for the control ( A ) and active ( B ) interventions at the pre- and post-intervention visits

Between interventions, 24-h and daytime aortic SBP were significantly reduced in the active intervention compared to the control intervention (mean difference active vs. control: − 2.1 mmHg, 95% CI − 3.7, -0.5, P  = 0.010 and − 3.2 mmHg, 95% CI − 5.0, − 1.4, P  = 0.001, respectively) (Table  3 ). Nighttime aortic DBP was significantly increased in the active compared to the control intervention between interventions (mean difference active vs. control: 2.9 mmHg, 95% CI 0.6, 5.2, P  = 0.014). Ambulatory aortic blood pressure prior to multiple imputations is shown in Additional File 1: Table S4.

Relative to control, there was a significant increase in 24-h and nighttime heart rate for the active intervention (mean difference active vs. control: 2.1 beats/min, 95% CI 1.1, 3.2, P  < 0.001 and 2.0 beats/min, 95% CI 0.6, 3.3, P  = 0.004, respectively; Table  2 ). However, this difference was driven by significant reductions in the control intervention for 24-h ( P  = 0.048) and nighttime heart rate ( P  = 0.004) from pre- to post-intervention visits, which appeared to cause the significant between-group differences.

Arterial stiffness

The mean difference in AIx was not significantly different between interventions for 24-h, daytime, or nighttime measurements (Table  3 ). AIx prior to multiple imputations is shown in Supplementary Table 4. No carryover effects were noted ( P  = 0.645).

Biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation

There was no overall difference in the mean F 2 -isprostanes between interventions (Table  4 ). Plasma F 2 -isoprostanes were significantly lower at the post-intervention visit compared with the pre-intervention visit within the active intervention ( P  = 0.013). However, a similar non-significant drop in F 2 -isprostanes was seen in the control intervention. There was no significant difference in hsCRP and hsIL-6 between interventions (Table  4 ). One participant was excluded from the per-protocol analysis of hsCRP due to an extreme outlier (hsCRP value: 89.6 mg/L; mean difference active vs. control 0.2 mg/L, 95% CI − 0.9, 1.4, P  = 0.708). No carryover effects were seen for either F 2 -isprostanes ( P  = 0.901) or hsCRP ( P  = 0.553).

Markers of adherence and metabolism

Urinary/plasma smcso and plasma sulforaphane.

The mean differences in urinary and plasma SMCSO (mean difference active vs. control: 22.93 mg/mL, 95% CI 15.62, 30.23, P  < 0.0001 and 5.46 mg/mL, 95% CI 4.40, 6.51, P  < 0.0001, respectively) and plasma sulforaphane concentrations were significantly higher following the active intervention compared to the control intervention (mean difference active vs. control: 0.15 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.06, 0.23, P  < 0.001) (Table  5 ). Urinary and plasma SMCSO concentrations, as well as plasma sulforaphane, were significantly higher at the post-intervention visit compared with the pre-intervention visit in the active group ( P  < 0.05 for all) (Table  5 ).

Serum carotenoids

Mean differences in total carotenoids, lutein, lycopene, a-carotene, and b-carotene were significantly higher following the control intervention compared to the active intervention ( P  < 0.05 for all) (Table  6 ). Total and individual carotenoids, excluding b-cryptoxanthin, were significantly higher at the post-intervention visit compared with the pre-intervention visit in the control intervention ( P  < 0.05 for all). In the active intervention, only a-carotene was significantly different at the post-intervention visit compared with the pre-intervention visit.

Serum and urinary sodium, potassium, and creatinine

Between interventions, there were no significant mean differences for serum sodium, potassium, or creatine. Urinary sodium, potassium, and creatinine were also not significantly different between interventions (Table  7 ).

Serum lipids and glucose

Serum triglycerides were significantly lower in the active intervention compared to the control intervention (mean difference active vs. control: − 0.2 mmol/L, 95% CI − 0.4, − 0.0, P  = 0.047) (Table  7 ). No carryover effects were noted ( P  = 0.7897). There were no significant mean differences between interventions for serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or serum glucose. However, serum total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol and serum glucose were significantly decreased at the post-intervention visit compared with the pre-intervention visit for both interventions ( P  < 0.05 for all).

Anthropometry, energy expenditure from physical activity, and stress

There were no significant mean differences between interventions for any anthropometric measures, energy expenditure from physical activity, or perceived stress ( P  > 0.05 for all) (Additional File 1: Table S5). However, weight, BMI, and body fat mass were significantly reduced at the post-intervention visit compared with the pre-intervention visit for both interventions.

In this randomized, controlled, crossover trial, we found that consumption of four serves per day of cruciferous vegetables (active intervention) resulted in a statistically significant reduction in SBP compared with four serves per day of root and squash vegetables (control intervention), supporting our hypothesis. This reduction in SBP is clinically relevant; in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving pharmacological interventions, a reduction in SBP of 5 mmHg was found to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events by ~ 10% [ 25 ]. Therefore, the 2.5 mmHg reduction in SBP resulting from increasing cruciferous vegetable intake could translate to a 5% lower risk of major cardiovascular events.

Weight reduction is an important component of non-pharmacological management of hypertension [ 26 ], with a loss of 1 kg weight associated with approximately 1 mmHg reduction in SBP [ 27 ]. Both interventions resulted in a statistically significant reduction in weight post-intervention (control: 1.9 kg; active: 1.3 kg). However, there was no significant difference seen between interventions. Therefore, the improvements in SBP seen with the cruciferous vegetable intervention are likely independent of weight reduction. In addition, there was no significant difference in urinary sodium or potassium excretion between interventions, indicating that the reduction in SBP was independent of dietary sodium and potassium intake.

This blood pressure result is in alignment with other research investigating the breakdown products of cruciferous vegetables, which include glucosinolates and isothiocyanates [ 28 ]. Research into the cardio-protective properties of these compounds has largely focused on glucoraphanin, a major glucosinolate found in broccoli, and its isothiocyanate, sulforaphane [ 5 ]. Previous studies have investigated the effects of glucosinolates and isothiocyanates on blood pressure in animal models (i.e., rats), with results demonstrating blood pressure-lowering effects [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. However, studies involving humans have been inconsistent. In a study including 40 participants with hypertension (baseline mean blood pressure: control group = 158.6/98; active group = 158.5/96 mmHg), daily ingestion of 10 g dried broccoli sprouts for 4 weeks did not improve blood pressure or endothelial function [ 33 ]. Conversely, a 4-week study including participants with type two diabetes and positive for H. Pylori (baseline mean blood pressure: standard triple therapy group ( n  = 33) 130/80.4; broccoli sprouts powder group ( n  = 28) 125/80.4; combination group ( n  = 25) 136/89.8 mmHg) found that there was a significant reduction in SBP and DBP in participants who received 6 g/day broccoli sprout powder in combination with standard triple therapy for H. Pylori (14 mmHg and 9.4 mmHg reduction in SBP and DBP, respectively) [ 34 ]. In a dose escalation study including 12 pregnant women with preeclampsia, activated broccoli extract equivalent to 32 mg or 64 mg of sulforaphane resulted in a trend towards an approximately 10% decrease in DBP ( P  = 0.05) but not SBP [ 35 ].

Plasma sulforaphane was significantly higher after the active intervention compared with the control, indicating that glucosinolates (i.e., glucoraphanin) were present in the soup and may explain the beneficial effect seen on blood pressure. These compounds have been proposed to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties due to involvement in increasing Nrf2 activity and inhibition of NF-ĸB [ 36 ]. Whilst our findings show that cruciferous vegetable intake did not have a significant effect on our marker of oxidative lipid damage, relative to root and squash vegetables, plasma F 2 -isoprostanes were significantly lower after the active intervention. This highlights the potential efficacy for the antioxidant capabilities of cruciferous vegetables [ 37 ], although our study does not provide evidence that this explains the observed difference in SBP. Evidence for cruciferous vegetables altering oxidative stress and inflammation has been inconsistent [ 38 , 39 , 40 ] and further studies are needed to investigate the anti-inflammatory and antioxidant capacity of cruciferous vegetables when consumed as part of the diet. Although there were no significant differences in oxidative stress and inflammatory biomarkers between interventions in our study, this could be due to similar benefits of other vegetables in the control treatment. The control soup contained carotenoid-rich vegetables, which also have both antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties [ 41 ]. Furthermore, these biomarkers were within normal expected ranges [ 42 , 43 , 44 ], which may also explain this result.

Whilst we report SMCSO as a biomarker of adherence to cruciferous vegetable intake in this study, SMCSO has also been recently identified as a key metabolite associated with the antihypertensive benefits of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet [ 45 ]. SMCSO contributes a greater proportion of sulfur in cruciferous vegetables than glucosinolates, yet whether SMCSO mediates some of the therapeutic benefits of these vegetables in humans remains largely unexplored [ 46 ]. Sulfur-rich vegetables (i.e., cruciferous) are a good source contributing to hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S): the third most important gaseous signaling molecule. As such, this may be a potential mechanism through which these vegetables modulate endothelial function [ 47 ]. The contribution of H 2 S to the anti-hypertensive benefits of sulfur-rich allium vegetables (e.g., onion, garlic) has been recently explored [ 48 ]; however, more research is required. Both SMCSO and glucosinolates may act as H 2 S donors [ 45 , 47 ], and the subsequent vasodilation may be partly responsible for the reduction in blood pressure observed in the active intervention.

We also found that serum triglycerides were significantly lower after the active intervention compared with the control intervention. Although pre-clinical evidence suggests that cruciferous vegetables and their glucosinolates may play a role in the reduction of blood lipids [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], there is limited evidence in humans. Human trials have shown that broccoli sprouts and glucoraphanin-rich broccoli can improve HDL cholesterol [ 53 ] and reduce LDL cholesterol [ 54 ], respectively. There were no significant differences in biomarkers of total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and glucose between interventions in our study. However, this could be due to similar benefits of other vegetables in the control treatment, as there were significant within-group changes in these biomarkers following both interventions.

This study had multiple strengths. First, to our knowledge, our study is the only intervention study in humans to show improvements in blood pressure in middle-aged and older adults with mildly elevated blood pressure after increased short-term consumption of cruciferous vegetables compared to commonly consumed root and squash vegetables. Furthermore, this study is also novel in that the study design included a dietary intervention utilizing a combination of cruciferous vegetables as whole foods (not extracts of cruciferous vegetables or their bioactives). Second, the study had a crossover design which allowed all participants to act as their own control, mitigating potential differences between participants. A 2-week washout period was selected between interventions to avoid potential carryover effects, as this was considered enough time for objective markers of intake to be adequately excreted (i.e., urinary SMCSO in the active intervention and serum carotenoids in the control intervention). This washout period has been used in prior studies, demonstrating that these biomarkers return to normal levels within 2 weeks [ 55 , 56 ]. Third, in addition to self-reported food diaries, objective markers of intake were measured to corroborate adherence to both dietary interventions. Additionally, we carefully controlled the background diet of participants. The provision of lunch and dinner meals throughout the study likely substantially reduced the background variation in vegetable intake and other foods.

This study also has limitations. Although a significant reduction in our primary outcome of 24-h SBP was observed, we did not reach our desired sample size. The reduced sample size resulting from COVID-19-related issues may be relevant for secondary outcomes in this study. As we were unable to recruit the desired sample size of 25 participants (28 to account for participant drop-out) due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this study may be considered a pilot RCT rather than a phase 2 trial. However, despite this, we were still able to demonstrate a statistically significant result for our primary outcome, brachial 24-h ambulatory SBP, thereby eliminating the possibility of making a type-2 error for the primary outcome. We were aiming to have roughly an equal distribution of males and females; however, this was not possible due to limitations resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., logistical and financial) and led to mostly female participants. Most participants were also Caucasian. Therefore, these results may not be as generalizable to males and other ethnicities. Second, participants included in this study had a baseline reported intake of vegetables higher than that of the general population (327 g vs.195 g per day) [ 57 ], which may reduce the generalizability of these results. However, this may also be seen as a strength by reinforcing that the type of vegetable consumed matters. Nonetheless, investigation of cruciferous vegetable intake in individuals with lower baseline intake of vegetables is warranted to determine if there is a more profound effect with a greater increase from baseline habitual intake. Third, given the nature of the dietary interventions, participants were unable to be completely blinded, as the different soups had clear differences in color and taste. However, participants were not informed which soup was the active or control or what vegetables were included in each soup. Lastly, self-reported protein intake was significantly different between interventions (7 g higher in the active group in comparison to the control, P  = 0.001), and increasing protein intake has been shown to influence blood pressure. However, this difference is unlikely to have an effect, based on results of a meta-analysis that indicate amounts of approximately 40 g per day are needed to have a similar effect on blood pressure [ 58 ]. It is important to note that cruciferous vegetables do not contain only glucosinolates and SMCSO at higher concentrations than root and squash vegetables. Cruciferous vegetables also contain higher nitrate and vitamin K levels. In addition, they also provide smaller but higher levels of other nutrients and phytochemicals such as magnesium, flavonoids, vitamin C, and folate, all of which have potential to contribute to benefits on blood pressure [ 11 , 12 ]. As such, we are not able to fully elucidate which specific components are responsible for the beneficial effects that we observed.

Daily consumption of four serves of cruciferous vegetables over a 2-week period resulted in reduced SBP in middle-aged and older adults with mildly elevated blood pressure compared with root and squash vegetables. Increased intake of a variety of different vegetables has many health benefits due to the presence of vitamins, minerals, and many other bioactive compounds. Future research is needed to inform whether targeted recommendations to increase cruciferous vegetable intake within a healthy diet that includes a variety of vegetables can reduce the public health burden of CVD. Furthermore, the study could be implemented in other regions worldwide to obtain multi-ethnic data.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Liu RH. Health-promoting components of fruits and vegetables in the diet. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(3):384s-s392.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2013.

Wallace TC, Bailey RL, Blumberg JB, Burton-Freeman B, Chen CO, Crowe-White KM, et al. Fruits, vegetables, and health: a comprehensive narrative, umbrella review of the science and recommendations for enhanced public policy to improve intake. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60(13):2174–211.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Connolly EL, Sim M, Travica N, Marx W, Beasy G, Lynch GS, et al. Glucosinolates from cruciferous vegetables and their potential role in chronic disease: investigating the preclinical and clinical evidence. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12: 767975.

Mazarakis N, Snibson K, Licciardi PV, Karagiannis TC. The potential use of l-sulforaphane for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases: a review of the clinical evidence. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(3):664–75.

Zurbau A, Au-Yeung F, Blanco Mejia S, Khan TA, Vuksan V, Jovanovski E, et al. Relation of different fruit and vegetable sources with incident cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(19): e017728.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

IARC Working Group of the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies. Cruciferous vegetables, isothiocyanates and indoles. Lyon, France2003.

Aune D, Giovannucci E, Boffetta P, Fadnes LT, Keum N, Norat T, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality-a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(3):1029–56.

Wang Q, King L, Wang P, Jiang G, Huang Y, Dun C, et al. Higher Levels of urinary thiocyanate, a biomarker of cruciferous vegetable intake, were associated with lower risks of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality among non-smoking subjects. Front Nutr. 2022;9.

Oliveros E, Patel H, Kyung S, Fugar S, Goldberg A, Madan N, et al. Hypertension in older adults: assessment, management, and challenges. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43(2):99–107.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ağagündüz D, Şahin T, Yılmaz B, Ekenci KD, Duyar Özer Ş, Capasso R. Cruciferous vegetables and their bioactive metabolites: from prevention to novel therapies of colorectal cancer. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022;2022:1534083.

Blekkenhorst LC, Sim M, Bondonno CP, Bondonno NP, Ward NC, Prince RL, et al. Cardiovascular health benefits of specific vegetable types: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2018;10(5).

Connolly EL, Bondonno CP, Sim M, Radavelli-Bagatini S, Croft KD, Boyce MC, et al. A randomised controlled crossover trial investigating the short-term effects of different types of vegetables on vascular and metabolic function in middle-aged and older adults with mildly elevated blood pressure: the VEgetableS for vaScular hEaLth (VESSEL) study protocol. Nutr J. 2020;19(1):41.

Cohen S. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In: Oskamp SSS, editor. The social psychology of health. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1988. p. 31–67.

Google Scholar  

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Health Survey: consumption of food groups from the Australian Dietary Guidelines, 2011–12. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2016.

Edmands WM, Beckonert OP, Stella C, Campbell A, Lake BG, Lindon JC, et al. Identification of human urinary biomarkers of cruciferous vegetable consumption by metabonomic profiling. J Proteome Res. 2011;10(10):4513–21.

Woodside JV, Draper J, Lloyd A, McKinley MC. Use of biomarkers to assess fruit and vegetable intake. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2017;76(3):308–15.

Hodge A, Patterson AJ, Brown WJ, Ireland P, Giles G. The Anti Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ: relative validity of nutrient intakes compared with weighed food records in young to middle-aged women in a study of iron supplementation. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24(6):576–83.

Safar ME. Pulse pressure, arterial stiffness and wave reflections (augmentation index) as cardiovascular risk factors in hypertension. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;2(1):13–24.

Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, Haskell WL, Gillis D, Ritter PL. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(7):1126–41.

Tomitani N, Kanegae H, Suzuki Y, Kuwabara M, Kario K. Stress-induced blood pressure elevation self-measured by a wearable watch-type device. Am J Hypertens. 2021;34(4):377–82.

Wood LG, Garg ML, Smart JM, Scott HA, Barker D, Gibson PG. Manipulating antioxidant intake in asthma: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(3):534–43.

Tsai IJ, Croft KD, Mori TA, Falck JR, Beilin LJ, Puddey IB, et al. 20-HETE and F2-isoprostanes in the metabolic syndrome: the effect of weight reduction. Free Radic Biol Med. 2009;46(2):263–70.

Hodgson JM, Puddey IB, Woodman RJ, Mulder TP, Fuchs D, Scott K, et al. Effects of black tea on blood pressure: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(2):186–8.

Rahimi K, Bidel Z, Nazarzadeh M, Copland E, Canoy D, Ramakrishnan R, et al. Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2021;397(10285):1625–36.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hall ME, Cohen JB, Ard JD, Egan BM, Hall JE, Lavie CJ, et al. Weight-loss strategies for prevention and treatment of hypertension: a scientific statement From the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2021;78(5):e38–50.

Neter JE, Stam BE, Kok FJ, Grobbee DE, Geleijnse JM. Influence of weight reduction on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hypertension. 2003;42(5):878–84.

Kissen R, Rossiter JT, Bones AM. The ‘mustard oil bomb’: not so easy to assemble?! Localization, expression and distribution of the components of the myrosinase enzyme system. Phytochem Rev. 2009;8(1):69–86.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Salma U, Khan T, Shah AJ. Antihypertensive effect of the methanolic extract from Eruca sativa Mill., (Brassicaceae) in rats: muscarinic receptor-linked vasorelaxant and cardiotonic effects. J Ethnopharmacol. 2018;224:409–20.

Senanayake GV, Banigesh A, Wu L, Lee P, Juurlink BH. The dietary phase 2 protein inducer sulforaphane can normalize the kidney epigenome and improve blood pressure in hypertensive rats. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(2):229–35.

Elbarbry F, Moshirian N. The modulation of arachidonic acid metabolism and blood pressure-lowering effect of honokiol in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Molecules. 2022;27(11).

Prado NJ, Ramirez D, Mazzei L, Parra M, Casarotto M, Calvo JP, et al. Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antihypertensive, and antiarrhythmic effect of indole-3-carbinol, a phytochemical derived from cruciferous vegetables. Heliyon. 2022;8(2): e08989.

Christiansen B, Bellostas Muguerza N, Petersen AM, Kveiborg B, Madsen CR, Thomas H, et al. Ingestion of broccoli sprouts does not improve endothelial function in humans with hypertension. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(8): e12461.

Mirmiran P, Bahadoran Z, Golzarand M, Zojaji H, Azizi F. A comparative study of broccoli sprouts powder and standard triple therapy on cardiovascular risk factors following H.pylori eradication: a randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2014;13:64.

Langston-Cox AG, Anderson D, Creek DJ, Palmer KR, Marshall SA, Wallace EM. Sulforaphane bioavailability and effects on blood pressure in women with pregnancy hypertension. Reprod Sci. 2021;28(5):1489–97.

Esteve M. Mechanisms underlying biological effects of cruciferous glucosinolate-derived isothiocyanates/indoles: a focus on metabolic syndrome. Front Nutr. 2020;7:111.

Griendling KK, Camargo LL, Rios FJ, Alves-Lopes R, Montezano AC, Touyz RM. Oxidative stress and hypertension. Circ Res. 2021;128(7):993–1020.

Fowke JH, Morrow JD, Motley S, Bostick RM, Ness RM. Brassica vegetable consumption reduces urinary F2-isoprostane levels independent of micronutrient intake. Carcinogenesis. 2006;27(10):2096–102.

Navarro SL, Schwarz Y, Song X, Wang CY, Chen C, Trudo SP, et al. Cruciferous vegetables have variable effects on biomarkers of systemic inflammation in a randomized controlled trial in healthy young adults. J Nutr. 2014;144(11):1850–7.

Wirth MD, Murphy EA, Hurley TG, Hébert JR. Effect of cruciferous vegetable intake on oxidative stress biomarkers: differences by breast cancer status. Cancer Invest. 2017;35(4):277–87.

Kaulmann A, Bohn T. Carotenoids, inflammation, and oxidative stress—implications of cellular signaling pathways and relation to chronic disease prevention. Nutr Res. 2014;34(11):907–29.

Camfield DA, Nolidin K, Savage K, Timmer J, Croft K, Tangestani Fard M, et al. Higher plasma levels of F2-isoprostanes are associated with slower psychomotor speed in healthy older adults. Free Radic Res. 2019;53(4):377–86.

Nehring SM, Goyal A, Patel BC. C Reactive Protein. StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023.

Said EA, Al-Reesi I, Al-Shizawi N, Jaju S, Al-Balushi MS, Koh CY, et al. Defining IL-6 levels in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2021;93(6):3915–24.

Chan Q, Wren GM, Lau CE, Ebbels TMD, Gibson R, Loo RL, et al. Blood pressure interactions with the DASH dietary pattern, sodium, and potassium: The International Study of Macro-/Micronutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP). Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;116(1):216–29.

Edmands WMB, Gooderham NJ, Holmes E, Mitchell SC. S-Methyl-l-cysteine sulphoxide: the Cinderella phytochemical? Toxicol Res. 2012;2(1):11–22.

Hill CR, Shafaei A, Balmer L, Lewis JR, Hodgson JM, Millar AH, et al. Sulfur compounds: from plants to humans and their role in chronic disease prevention. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022:1–23.

Ali A, Kouvari M, Riaz S, Naumovski N, Liao L, Khan A, et al. Potential of Allium sativum in blood pressure control involves signaling pathways: A narrative review. Food Front.

Du K, Fan Y, Li D. Sulforaphane ameliorates lipid profile in rodents: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7804.

Huang H, Jiang X, Xiao Z, Yu L, Pham Q, Sun J, et al. Red cabbage microgreens lower circulating low-density lipoprotein (ldl), liver cholesterol, and inflammatory cytokines in mice fed a high-fat diet. J Agric Food Chem. 2016;64(48):9161–71.

Melega S, Canistro D, De Nicola GR, Lazzeri L, Sapone A, Paolini M. Protective effect of Tuscan black cabbage sprout extract against serum lipid increase and perturbations of liver antioxidant and detoxifying enzymes in rats fed a high-fat diet. Br J Nutr. 2013;110(6):988–97.

Thomaz FS, Tan YP, Williams CM, Ward LC, Worrall S, Panchal SK. Wasabi (Eutrema japonicum) reduces obesity and blood pressure in diet-induced metabolic syndrome in rats. Foods. 2022;11(21).

Murashima M, Watanabe S, Zhuo XG, Uehara M, Kurashige A. Phase 1 study of multiple biomarkers for metabolism and oxidative stress after one-week intake of broccoli sprouts. BioFactors. 2004;22(1–4):271–5.

Armah CN, Derdemezis C, Traka MH, Dainty JR, Doleman JF, Saha S, et al. Diet rich in high glucoraphanin broccoli reduces plasma LDL cholesterol: evidence from randomised controlled trials. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2015;59(5):918–26.

Coode-Bate J, Sivapalan T, Melchini A, Saha S, Needs PW, Dainty JR, et al. Accumulation of dietary S-methyl cysteine sulfoxide in human prostate tissue. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2019;63(20): e1900461.

Pezdirc K, Hutchesson MJ, Williams RL, Rollo ME, Burrows TL, Wood LG, et al. Consuming high-carotenoid fruit and vegetables influences skin yellowness and plasma carotenoids in young women: a single-blind randomized crossover trial. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(8):1257–65.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Dietary behaviour Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2020–21 [Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/dietary-behaviour/latest-release .

Rebholz CM, Friedman EE, Powers LJ, Arroyave WD, He J, Kelly TN. Dietary protein intake and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(Suppl 7):S27-43.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kim Luu, a lab technician for Nutrition & Dietetics, for the preparation of the intervention soups.

This research was funded by Edith Cowan University Early Career Researcher Grant 2019 (grant number G1004405) and Department of Health Western Australia Near Miss Merit Awards 2019 (grant number G1004519). Funding sources had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or writing of the manuscript, and there are no restrictions regarding publication. EC is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship at Edith Cowan University. MS is supported by a Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation Fellowship (ID: CAF 130/2020) and an Emerging Leader Fellowship from the Western Australian Future Health Research and Innovation Fund. CPB is supported by a Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation ‘Lawrie Beilin’ Career Advancement Fellowship (ID: CAF 127/2020) and the Western Australian Future Health Research and Innovation Fund (ID: IG2021/5). LCB is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (ID: 1172987) and a National Heart Foundation of Australia Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship (ID: 102498). JRL is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (ID: 102817).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nutrition and Health Innovation Research Institute, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia

Emma L. Connolly, Alex H. Liu, Simone Radavelli-Bagatini, Lyn McCahon, Marc Sim, Caroline R. Hill, Benjamin H. Parmenter, Nicola P. Bondonno, Amanda Devine, Catherine P. Bondonno, Joshua R. Lewis, Jonathan M. Hodgson & Lauren C. Blekkenhorst

Centre for Integrative Metabolomics and Computational Biology, School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

Armaghan Shafaei

School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

Mary C. Boyce

School of Biomedical Science and Pharmacy, New Lambton Heights, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Lisa G. Wood

School of Biomedical Sciences, Royal Perth Hospital Unit, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Henrietta Koch & Kevin D. Croft

Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Marc Sim, Seng Khee Gan, Carl J. Schultz, Catherine P. Bondonno, Joshua R. Lewis, Jonathan M. Hodgson & Lauren C. Blekkenhorst

The Danish Cancer Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

Nicola P. Bondonno

Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Richard Mithen

Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

Seng Khee Gan

Department of Cardiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

Carl J. Schultz

Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Richard J. Woodman

Centre for Kidney Research, Children’s Hospital at Westmead, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Joshua R. Lewis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LCB, RM, and JMH designed the research. ELC conducted the study with assistance from AHL, LM, SRB, AD, MS, CRH, BHP, SKG, CJS, CPB, JRL, JMH, and LCB. AS, MCB, KDC, LGW, LM, and HK conducted the laboratory analysis. ELC performed statistical analysis in consultation with NPB, RJW, JMH, and LCB. ELC wrote the original draft manuscript in consultation and with editing from LCB. ELC and LCB had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors critically revised the manuscript, provided intellectual contribution to the interpretation of results, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ Twitter handles

@LCBlekkenhorst (Lauren C. Blekkenhorst).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren C. Blekkenhorst .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was granted by the Edith Cowan University Human Research Ethics Committee (2019–00356-BLEKKENHORST). All participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

12916_2024_3577_moesm1_esm.docx.

Additional file 1. Table S1 Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table S2 Dietary intakes of study participants at baseline obtained using a food frequency questionnaire. Table S3 Comparison of energy, macronutrients, and food groups consumed during both interventions for all participants who completed the study ( n = 18). Table S4 Ambulatory aortic blood pressure and arterial stiffness by intervention and between intervention differences. Table S5 Anthropometric measurements, energy expenditure from physical activity, and perceived stress by intervention.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Connolly, E.L., Liu, A.H., Radavelli-Bagatini, S. et al. Cruciferous vegetables lower blood pressure in adults with mildly elevated blood pressure in a randomized, controlled, crossover trial: the VEgetableS for vaScular hEaLth (VESSEL) study. BMC Med 22 , 353 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03577-8

Download citation

Received : 30 November 2023

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03577-8

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

• Cruciferous
• Hypertension
• Blood pressure
• Older adults
• Glucosinolates
• Oxidative stress
• Inflammation
• Cardiovascular disease
• Randomized controlled trial

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Comparison of air abrasion and mechanical decontamination for managing inflammatory reactions around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. protocol and eligibility criteria, 2.2. information sources and search strategy, 2.3. study selection and data extraction, 2.4. risk-of-bias assessment, 2.5. data synthesis and analysis, 3.1. study selection and data extraction, 3.2. risk of bias assessment, 3.3. meta-analysis, 3.3.1. probing depth, 3.3.2. bleeding on probing, 3.3.3. alveolar bone level, 3.4. publication bias analysis, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Esposito, M.; Maghaireh, H.; Grusovin, M.G.; Ziounas, I.; Worthington, H.V. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Management of soft tissues for dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012 , 2012 , Cd006697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gaviria, L.; Salcido, J.P.; Guda, T.; Ong, J.L. Current trends in dental implants. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014 , 40 , 50–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• De Jong, T.; Bakker, A.D.; Everts, V.; Smit, T.H. The intricate anatomy of the periodontal ligament and its development: Lessons for periodontal regeneration. J. Periodontal Res. 2017 , 52 , 965–974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marco, F.; Milena, F.; Gianluca, G.; Vittoria, O. Peri-implant osteogenesis in health and osteoporosis. Micron 2005 , 36 , 630–644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ivanovski, S.; Lee, R. Comparison of peri-implant and periodontal marginal soft tissues in health and disease. Periodontology 2000 2018 , 76 , 116–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Araújo, M.F.; Filho, A.F.; da Silva, G.P.; de Melo, M.L.; Napimoga, M.H.; Rodrigues, D.B.; Alves, P.M.; de Lima Pereira, S.A. Evaluation of peri-implant mucosa: Clinical, histopathological and immunological aspects. Arch. Oral Biol. 2014 , 59 , 470–478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aoki, A.; Mizutani, K.; Schwarz, F.; Sculean, A.; Yukna, R.A.; Takasaki, A.A.; Romanos, G.E.; Taniguchi, Y.; Sasaki, K.M.; Zeredo, J.L.; et al. Periodontal and peri-implant wound healing following laser therapy. Periodontology 2000 2015 , 68 , 217–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shah, F.A.; Thomsen, P.; Palmquist, A. Osseointegration and current interpretations of the bone-implant interface. Acta Biomater. 2019 , 84 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Carcuac, O.; Berglundh, T. Composition of human peri-implantitis and periodontitis lesions. J. Dent. Res. 2014 , 93 , 1083–1088. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Figuero, E.; Graziani, F.; Sanz, I.; Herrera, D.; Sanz, M. Management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Periodontology 2000 2014 , 66 , 255–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Araujo, M.G.; Lindhe, J. Peri-implant health. J. Periodontol. 2018 , 89 , S249–S256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pavithra, D.; Doble, M. Biofilm formation, bacterial adhesion and host response on polymeric implants--issues and prevention. Biomed. Mater. 2008 , 3 , 034003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berglundh, T.; Armitage, G.; Araujo, M.G.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Blanco, J.; Camargo, P.M.; Chen, S.; Cochran, D.; Derks, J.; Figuero, E.; et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018 , 45 , S286–S291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dukka, H.; Saleh, M.H.A.; Ravidà, A.; Greenwell, H.; Wang, H.L. Is bleeding on probing a reliable clinical indicator of peri-implant diseases? J. Periodontol. 2021 , 92 , 1669–1674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramanauskaite, A.; Juodzbalys, G. Diagnostic Principles of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Guidelines for Peri-Implantitis Diagnosis Proposal. J. Oral Maxillofac. Res. 2016 , 7 , e8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mordini, L.; Sun, N.; Chang, N.; De Guzman, J.P.; Generali, L.; Consolo, U. Peri-Implantitis Regenerative Therapy: A Review. Biology 2021 , 10 , 773. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Y.; Lu, H.; Yang, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, P.; Li, P.; Waal, Y.C.M.; Visser, A.; Tjakkes, G.E.; Li, A.; et al. Predictive factors for the treatment success of peri-implantitis: A protocol for a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2024 , 14 , e072443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pujarern, P.; Klaophimai, A.; Amornsettachai, P.; Panyayong, W.; Chuenjitkuntaworn, B.; Rokaya, D.; Suphangul, S. Efficacy of Biofilm Removal on the Dental Implant Surface by Sodium Bicarbonate and Erythritol Powder Airflow System. Eur. J. Dent. 2024 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Corsalini, M.; Montagnani, M.; Charitos, I.A.; Bottalico, L.; Barile, G.; Santacroce, L. Non-Surgical Therapy and Oral Microbiota Features in Peri-Implant Complications: A Brief Narrative Review. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tripathi, R.; Vasudevan, S.; Palle, A.R.; Gedela, R.K.; Punj, A.; Vaishnavi, V. Awareness and management of peri-implantitis and peri-mucositis among private dental Practitioners in Hyderabad-A cross-sectional study. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2020 , 24 , 461–466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Citterio, F.; Zanotto, E.; Pellegrini, G.; Annaratore, L.; Barbui, A.M.; Dellavia, C.; Baima, G.; Romano, F.; Aimetti, M. Comparison of Different Chemical and Mechanical Modalities for Implant Surface Decontamination: Activity against Biofilm and Influence on Cellular Regrowth-An In Vitro Study. Front. Surg. 2022 , 9 , 886559. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Munakata, M.; Suzuki, A.; Yamaguchi, K.; Kataoka, Y.; Sanda, M. Effects of implant surface mechanical instrumentation methods on peri-implantitis: An in vitro study using a circumferential bone defect model. J. Dent. Sci. 2022 , 17 , 891–896. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, N.C.P.; Miller, C.M.; Antunes, E.; Sharma, D. Impact of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surface and subsequent bacterial adhesion: An in-vitro study. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2022 , 8 , 313–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cobb, C.M.; Daubert, D.M.; Davis, K.; Deming, J.; Flemmig, T.F.; Pattison, A.; Roulet, J.F.; Stambaugh, R.V. Consensus Conference Findings on Supragingival and Subgingival Air Polishing. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2017 , 38 , e1–e4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, C.C.; Dixit, N.; Hatz, C.R.; Janson, T.M.; Bastendorf, K.D.; Belibasakis, G.N.; Cosgarea, R.; Karoussis, I.K.; Mensi, M.; O’Neill, J.; et al. Air powder waterjet technology using erythritol or glycine powders in periodontal or peri-implant prophylaxis and therapy: A consensus report of an expert meeting. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2024 , 10 , e855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keim, D.; Nickles, K.; Dannewitz, B.; Ratka, C.; Eickholz, P.; Petsos, H. In vitro efficacy of three different implant surface decontamination methods in three different defect configurations. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019 , 30 , 550–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021 , 10 , 89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nicola, D.; Isabella, R.; Carolina, C.; Baldini, N.; Raffaele, M. Treatment of peri-implant mucositis: Adjunctive effect of glycine powder air polishing to professional mechanical biofilm removal. 12 months randomized clinical study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2024 , 26 , 415–426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Selimović, A.; Bunæs, D.F.; Lie, S.A.; Lobekk, M.A.; Leknes, K.N. Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without erythritol air-polishing a 12-month randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health 2023 , 23 , 240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Luengo, F.; Sanz-Esporrín, J.; Sanz-Sánchez, I.; Solonko, M.; Herrera, D.; Sanz, M. Clinical, microbiological and biochemical impact of a supportive care protocol with an air-polishing device, after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: Randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2023 , 34 , 378–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Clementini, M.; Fabrizi, S.; Discepoli, N.; Minoli, M.; De Sanctis, M. Evaluation of the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser or erythritol powder air-polishing in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2023 , 34 , 1267–1277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hentenaar, D.F.M.; De Waal, Y.C.M.; Stewart, R.E.; Van Winkelhoff, A.J.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Raghoebar, G.M. Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2022 , 33 , 184–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hentenaar, D.F.M.; De Waal, Y.C.M.; Stewart, R.E.; Van Winkelhoff, A.J.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Raghoebar, G.M. Erythritol airpolishing in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021 , 32 , 840–852. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lasserre, J.F.; Brecx, M.C.; Toma, S. Implantoplasty Versus Glycine Air Abrasion for the Surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020 , 35 , 197–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aloy-Prósper, A.; Pellicer-Chover, H.; Peñarrocha-Oltra, D.; Peñarrocha-Diago, M. Effect of a single initial phase of non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: Abrasive air polishing versus ultrasounds. A prospective randomized controlled clinical study. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2020 , 12 , e902–e908. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Toma, S.; Brecx, M.C.; Lasserre, J.F. Clinical Evaluation of Three Surgical Modalities in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2019 , 8 , 966. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ziebolz, D.; Klipp, S.; Schmalz, G.; Schmickler, J.; Rinke, S.; Kottmann, T.; Fresmann, S.; Einwag, J. Comparison of different maintenance strategies within supportive implant therapy for prevention of peri-implant inflammation during the first year after implant restoration. A randomized, dental hygiene practice-based multicenter study. Am. J. Dent. 2017 , 30 , 190–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Lupi, S.M.; Granati, M.; Butera, A.; Collesano, V.; Rodriguez, Y.B.R. Air-abrasive debridement with glycine powder versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine administration for the maintenance of peri-implant health status: A six-month randomized clinical trial. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2017 , 15 , 287–294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• John, G.; Sahm, N.; Becker, J.; Schwarz, F. Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using an air-abrasive device or mechanical debridement and local application of chlorhexidine. Twelve-month follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015 , 19 , 1807–1814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahm, N.; Becker, J.; Santel, T.; Schwarz, F. Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using an air-abrasive device or mechanical debridement and local application of chlorhexidine: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011 , 38 , 872–878. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vilarrasa, J.; Soldini, M.C.; Pons, R.; Valles, C.; Blasi, G.; Monje, A.; Nart, J. Outcome indicators of non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A prospective case series analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023 , 27 , 3125–3138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Khan, S.N.; Koldsland, O.C.; Roos-Jansåker, A.M.; Wohlfahrt, J.C.; Verket, A.; Mdala, I.; Magnusson, A.; Salvesen, E.; Hjortsjö, C. Non-surgical treatment of mild to moderate peri-implantitis with an oscillating chitosan brush or a titanium curette-12-month follow-up of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2023 , 34 , 684–697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Roccuzzo, M.; Mirra, D.; Roccuzzo, A. Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Br. Dent. J. 2024 , 236 , 803–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ramanauskaite, A.; Cafferata, E.A.; Begic, A.; Schwarz, F. Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2023 , 25 , 682–695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Louropoulou, A.; Slot, D.E.; Van der Weijden, F.A. Titanium surface alterations following the use of different mechanical instruments: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012 , 23 , 643–658. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tan, N.C.P.; Khan, A.; Antunes, E.; Miller, C.M.; Sharma, D. The effects of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surfaces: A systematic review. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2021 , 51 , 298–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Corbella, S.; Radaelli, K.; Alberti, A.; Francetti, L.; Taschieri, S. Erythritol powder airflow for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2024 . online ahead of print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Toma, S.; Lasserre, J.F.; Taïeb, J.; Brecx, M.C. Evaluation of an air-abrasive device with amino acid glycine-powder during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Quintessence Int. 2014 , 45 , 209–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schwarz, F.; Becker, K.; Renvert, S. Efficacy of air polishing for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015 , 42 , 951–959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, I.C.; Su, C.Y.; Tu, J.J.; Kao, D.W.; Fang, H.W. In vitro studies of factors affecting debridement of dental implants by tricalcium phosphate powder abrasive treatment. Sci. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 8271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abuhajar, E.; Salim, N.A.; Satterthwaite, J.D.; Silikas, N.; Anweigi, L.M. Effect of bioceramic powder abrasion on different implant surfaces. J. Prosthodont. 2024 . online ahead of print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Patil, C.; Agrawal, A.; Abullais, S.S.; Arora, S.; Khateeb, S.U.; Fadul, A.E.M. Effectiveness of Different Chemotherapeutic Agents for Decontamination of Infected Dental Implant Surface: A Systematic Review. Antibiotics 2022 , 11 , 593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Müller, N.; Moëne, R.; Cancela, J.A.; Mombelli, A. Subgingival air-polishing with erythritol during periodontal maintenance: Randomized clinical trial of twelve months. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014 , 41 , 883–889. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kotsakis, G.A.; Lan, C.; Barbosa, J.; Lill, K.; Chen, R.; Rudney, J.; Aparicio, C. Antimicrobial Agents Used in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Alter the Physicochemistry and Cytocompatibility of Titanium Surfaces. J. Periodontol. 2016 , 87 , 809–819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Jang, K.-J.; Lyu, A.; Han, S.-H.; Kim, N.J.; Han, S.-B.; Song, H.-J.; Park, W.-J.; Park, J.-B. Comparison of Air Abrasion and Mechanical Decontamination for Managing Inflammatory Reactions around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 7775. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177775

Jang K-J, Lyu A, Han S-H, Kim NJ, Han S-B, Song H-J, Park W-J, Park J-B. Comparison of Air Abrasion and Mechanical Decontamination for Managing Inflammatory Reactions around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(17):7775. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177775

Jang, Ki-Jung, Ahrim Lyu, Sung-Hoon Han, Na Jin Kim, Saet-Byeol Han, Hye-Jung Song, Won-Jong Park, and Jun-Beom Park. 2024. "Comparison of Air Abrasion and Mechanical Decontamination for Managing Inflammatory Reactions around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Applied Sciences 14, no. 17: 7775. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177775

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals