ways of conducting literature review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

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.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• 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
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

• 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

How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from Start to Finish

Writing-a-literature-review-six-steps-to-get-you-from-start-to-finish.

Tanya Golash-Boza, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California

February 03, 2022

Writing a literature review is often the most daunting part of writing an article, book, thesis, or dissertation. “The literature” seems (and often is) massive. I have found it helpful to be as systematic as possible when completing this gargantuan task.

Sonja Foss and William Walters* describe an efficient and effective way of writing a literature review. Their system provides an excellent guide for getting through the massive amounts of literature for any purpose: in a dissertation, an M.A. thesis, or preparing a research article for publication  in any field of study. Below is a  summary of the steps they outline as well as a step-by-step method for writing a literature review.

How to Write a Literature Review

Step One: Decide on your areas of research:

Before you begin to search for articles or books, decide beforehand what areas you are going to research. Make sure that you only get articles and books in those areas, even if you come across fascinating books in other areas. A literature review I am currently working on, for example, explores barriers to higher education for undocumented students.

Step Two: Search for the literature:

Conduct a comprehensive bibliographic search of books and articles in your area. Read the abstracts online and download and/or print those articles that pertain to your area of research. Find books in the library that are relevant and check them out. Set a specific time frame for how long you will search. It should not take more than two or three dedicated sessions.

Step Three: Find relevant excerpts in your books and articles:

Skim the contents of each book and article and look specifically for these five things:

1. Claims, conclusions, and findings about the constructs you are investigating

2. Definitions of terms

3. Calls for follow-up studies relevant to your project

4. Gaps you notice in the literature

5. Disagreement about the constructs you are investigating

When you find any of these five things, type the relevant excerpt directly into a Word document. Don’t summarize, as summarizing takes longer than simply typing the excerpt. Make sure to note the name of the author and the page number following each excerpt. Do this for each article and book that you have in your stack of literature. When you are done, print out your excerpts.

Step Four: Code the literature:

Get out a pair of scissors and cut each excerpt out. Now, sort the pieces of paper into similar topics. Figure out what the main themes are. Place each excerpt into a themed pile. Make sure each note goes into a pile. If there are excerpts that you can’t figure out where they belong, separate those and go over them again at the end to see if you need new categories. When you finish, place each stack of notes into an envelope labeled with the name of the theme.

Step Five: Create Your Conceptual Schema:

Type, in large font, the name of each of your coded themes. Print this out, and cut the titles into individual slips of paper. Take the slips of paper to a table or large workspace and figure out the best way to organize them. Are there ideas that go together or that are in dialogue with each other? Are there ideas that contradict each other? Move around the slips of paper until you come up with a way of organizing the codes that makes sense. Write the conceptual schema down before you forget or someone cleans up your slips of paper.

Step Six: Begin to Write Your Literature Review:

Choose any section of your conceptual schema to begin with. You can begin anywhere, because you already know the order. Find the envelope with the excerpts in them and lay them on the table in front of you. Figure out a mini-conceptual schema based on that theme by grouping together those excerpts that say the same thing. Use that mini-conceptual schema to write up your literature review based on the excerpts that you have in front of you. Don’t forget to include the citations as you write, so as not to lose track of who said what. Repeat this for each section of your literature review.

Once you complete these six steps, you will have a complete draft of your literature review. The great thing about this process is that it breaks down into manageable steps something that seems enormous: writing a literature review.

I think that Foss and Walter’s system for writing the literature review is ideal for a dissertation, because a Ph.D. candidate has already read widely in his or her field through graduate seminars and comprehensive exams.

It may be more challenging for M.A. students, unless you are already familiar with the literature. It is always hard to figure out how much you need to read for deep meaning, and how much you just need to know what others have said. That balance will depend on how much you already know.

For people writing literature reviews for articles or books, this system also could work, especially when you are writing in a field with which you are already familiar. The mere fact of having a system can make the literature review seem much less daunting, so I recommend this system for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of writing a literature review.

*Destination Dissertation: A Traveler's Guide to a Done Dissertation

Image Credit/Source: Goldmund Lukic/Getty Images

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

Leveraging user research to improve author guidelines at the Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting

How research content supports academic integrity

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for Success

Software to Improve Reliability of Research Image Data: Wiley, Lumina, and Researchers at Harvard Medical School Work Together on Solutions

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

ISBN, ISSN, DOI: what they are and how to find them

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

Related articles.

User Experience (UX) Research is the process of discovering and understanding user requirements, motivations, and behaviours 

Learn how Wiley partners with plagiarism detection services to support academic integrity around the world

Medical student Nicole Foley shares her top tips for writing and getting your work published.

Wiley and Lumina are working together to support the efforts of researchers at Harvard Medical School to develop and test new machine learning tools and artificial intelligence (AI) software that can

Learn more about our relationship with a company that helps scientists identify the right products to use in their research

What is ISBN? ISSN? DOI? Learn about some of the unique identifiers for book and journal content.

Learn how medical practitioners can easily access and search visual assets from our article portfolio

Explore free-to-use services that can help you discover new content

Watch this webinar to help you learn how to get published.

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for success

How to Easily Access the Most Relevant Research: A Q&A With the Creator of Scitrus

Atypon launches Scitrus, a personalized web app that allows users to create a customized feed of the latest research.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Massive Attack’s science-led drive to lower music’s carbon footprint

Career Feature 04 SEP 24

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Partners in drug discovery: how to collaborate with non-governmental organizations

Career Feature 23 AUG 24

Intellectual property and data privacy: the hidden risks of AI

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

News 28 AUG 24

Postdoc/PhD opportunity – Pharmacology of Opioids

Join us at MedUni Vienna to explore the pharmacology of circular and stapled peptide therapeutics targetting the κ-opioid receptor in the periphery.

Vienna (AT)

Medical University of Vienna

Division Director - Experimental Hematology and Cancer Biology

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital seeks the next Director for the Division of Experimental Hematology and Cancer Biology.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Cincinnati Children's Hospital & Medical Center

Faculty and Research Positions, Postdoctoral Recruitment

Jointly sponsored by the Hangzhou Municipal People's Government and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Hangzhou Institute of Advanced Study, UCAS

Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Energy

Job Title: Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Energy Location: New York, Jersey City, Philadelphia or London — Hybrid Working Application Deadline:...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

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

Quick links

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 1:54 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

• Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Google Scholar

A  literature review  is a compilation 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.

• 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

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University,  https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question. 

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted, and analyzed by you in a synthesized way. 

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.
• Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later. 

2. Decide on the scope of your review. 

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.
• Consider these things when planning your time for research. 

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches. 

• By Research Guide 

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. 

• Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
• Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
• Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
• Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations. 

5. Review the literature. 

Some questions to help you analyze the research: 

• What was the research question you are reviewing? What are the authors trying to discover? 
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings? 
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze the literature review, samples and variables used, results, and conclusions. Does the research seem complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise? 
• If there are conflicted studies, why do you think that is? 
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Are they experts or novices? Has the study been cited? 

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida,  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic. 

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

• Could be material that answers the question directly
• Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase 

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

• You are now working with fewer words/passages
• Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them 

• The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

• A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis 

This is now the outline for your literature review. 

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center,  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

• Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following: 

• the methodology 
• the quality of the findings or conclusions
• major strengths and weaknesses
• any other important information

Writing Tips: 

• Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
• Use quotes sparingly.
• Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .   
• Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
• Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text 

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University,  https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

• << Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

Copyright ©  2022  Pepperdine University

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. decide on the scope of your review., 3. select the databases you will use to conduct your searches., 4. conduct your searches and find the literature. keep track of your searches, 5. review the literature..

• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window
• Sample Literature Reviews

Disclaimer!!

Conducting a literature review is usually recursive, meaning that somewhere along the way, you'll find yourself repeating steps out-of-order.

That is actually a good sign.  

Reviewing the research should lead to more research questions and those questions will likely lead you to either revise your initial research question or go back and find more literature related to a more specific aspect of your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor.

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

Tip: This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

Make a list of the databases you will search.  Remember to include comprehensive databases such as WorldCat and Dissertations & Theses, if you need to.

Where to find databases:

• Find Databases by Subject UWF Databases categorized by discipline
• Find Databases via Research Guides Librarians create research guides for all of the disciplines on campus! Take advantage of their expertise and see what discipline-specific search strategies they recommend!
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

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

Search form

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

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

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

You identify:

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

It Also Helps You:

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

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Conducting a Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Developing a Question
• Searching the Literature
• Identifying Peer-Reviewed Resources
• Managing Results
• Analyzing the Literature
• Writing the Review

Other Relevant Guides

• Evidence Synthesis Service by Ann Dyer Last Updated Aug 22, 2024 1718 views this year
• Evidence-Based Health Care by Ann Dyer Last Updated Aug 6, 2024 3056 views this year
• Library Tutorials: Health Sciences by Ann Dyer Last Updated Aug 13, 2024 3011 views this year
• Research Data Management by Ann Dyer Last Updated Jan 4, 2024 2302 views this year

What is a Literature Review?

Conducting a literature review is the process of assessing the current state of research and knowledge on a particular topic or research question. You may conduct a literature review to provide background on your current research and include it as an introduction to your paper, or it may be a formal and systematic method used to understand gaps in the literature and/or synthesize current knowledge on a topic.

There are many reasons to conduct a literature review:

• To provide a theoretical framework for a given topic
• To define terms and variables for an area of research
• To provide an overview and synthesis of current evidence
• To demonstrate a gap in the literature
• To identify methodologies and research techniques for a research area

Baker, J.D. (2016). The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN, 103 (3), 265-269. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.016

TIP : Set up a research consultation appointment at the library for assistance with a literature review. Just fill out and submit the Book A Librarian form:

• Book a Librarian Book an appointment with a librarian for additional assistance with your research.

Types of Reviews

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x 

Books on Reviews

Meta Analysis

• Next: Developing a Question >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 11:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.libraries.wsu.edu/litreview

New change to library operations

All Main Library and Weaver Library doors lock 15 minutes before closing.

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

• What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
• Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

• Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
• Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

• methodology
• theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

• Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

• Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
• Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
• Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
• Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
• Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

Libraries & Cultural Resources

Research guides, research in education.

• Where to Start

Education Literature Review Guide

General literature review guides.

• Citation Resources
• Contact Us!

• << Previous: Where to Start
• Next: Citation Resources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 5:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ucalgary.ca/edresearch

Libraries & Cultural Resources

• 403.220.8895

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Steps in conducting a literature review.

• Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

Conducting a literature review involves using research databases to identify materials that cover or are related in some sense to the research topic. In some cases the research topic may be so original in its scope that no one has done anything exactly like it, so research that is at least similar or related will provide source material for the literature review. The selection of databases will be driven by the subject matter and the scope of the project.

Selecting Databases -- Most academic libraries now provide access to a majority of their databases and their catalog via a so-called discovery tool. A discovery tool makes searching library systems more "Google-like" in that even the simplest of queries can be entered and results retrieved. However, many times the results are also "Google-like" in the sheer quantity of items retrieved. While a discovery tool can be invaluable for quickly finding a multitude of resources on nearly any topic, there are a number of considerations a researcher should keep in mind when using a discovery tool, especially for the researcher who is attempting a comprehensive literature review.

No discovery tool works with every database subscribed to by a library. Some libraries might subscribe to two or three hundred different research databases covering a large number of subject areas. Competing discovery systems might negotiate agreements with different database vendors in order to provide access to a large range of materials. There will be other vendors with whom agreements are not forthcoming, therefore their materials are not included in the discovery tool results. While this might be of only minor concern for a researcher looking to do a fairly limited research project, the researcher looking to do a comprehensive review of the literature in preparation for writing a master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation will run the risk of missing some materials by limiting the search just to a particular library's discovery system. If only one system covered everything that a researcher could possibly need, libraries would have no need to subscribe to hundreds of different databases. The reality is that no one tool does it all. Not even Google Scholar.

Book collections might be excluded from results delivered by a discovery tool. While many libraries are making results from their own catalogs available via their discovery tools, they might not cover books that are discoverable from other library collections, thus making a search of book collections incomplete. Most libraries subscribe to an international database of library catalogs known as WorldCat. This database will provide comprehensive coverage of books, media, and other physical library materials available in libraries worldwide.

Features available in a particular database might not be available in a discovery tool. Keep in mind that a discovery tool is a search system that enables searching across content from numerous individual databases. An individual database might have search features that cannot be provided through a discovery tool, since the discovery tool is designed to accommodate a large number of systems with a single search. For example, the nursing database  CINAHL  includes the ability to limit a search to specific practice areas, to limit to evidence-based practice, to limit to gender, and to search using medical subject headings, among other things, all specialized facets that are not available in a discovery tool. To have these advanced capabilities, a researcher would need to go directly to  CINAHL  and search it natively.

Some discovery tools are set, by default, to limit search results to those items directly available through a particular library's collections. While many researchers will be most concerned with what is immediately available to them at their own library, a researcher concerned with finding everything that has been done on a particular topic will need to go beyond what's available at his or her home library and include materials that are available elsewhere. Master's and doctoral candidates should take care to notice if their library's discovery tool automatically limits to available materials and broaden the scope to include ALL materials, not just those available.

With the foregoing in mind, a researcher might start a search by using the library's discovery tool and then follow up by reviewing which databases have been included in the search and, more importantly, which databases have not been included. Most libraries will facilitate locating its individual databases through a subject arrangement of some kind. Once those databases that are not discoverable have been identified, the researcher would do well to search them individually to find out if other materials can be identified outside of the discovery tool. One additional tool that a doctoral researcher should of necessity include in a search is ISI's  Web of Knowledge . The two major systems searchable within ISI's  Web  are the  Social Sciences Citation Index  and the  Science Citation Index . The purpose of these two systems is to enable a researcher to determine what research has been cited over the years by any number of researchers and how many times it has been cited.

Formulating an Effective Search Strategy -- Key to performing an effective literature review is selecting search terms that will effectively identify materials that are relevant to the research topic. An initial strategy for selecting search terminology might be to list all possible relevant terms and their synonyms in order to have a working vocabulary for use in the research databases. While an individual subject database will likely use a "controlled vocabulary" to index articles and other materials that are included in the database, the same vocabulary might not be as effective in a database that focuses on a different subject area. For example, terminology that is used frequently in psychological literature might not be as effective in searching a human resources management database. Brainstorming the topic before launching into a search will help a researcher arrive at a good working vocabulary to use when probing the databases for relevant literature.

As materials are identified with the initial search, the researcher will want to keep track of other terminology that could be of use in performing additional searches. Sometimes the most effective search terminology can be found by reading the abstracts of relevant materials located through a library's research databases. For example, an initial search on the concept of "mainstreaming" might lead the researcher to articles that discuss mainstreaming but which also look into the concept of "inclusion" in education. While the terms mainstreaming and inclusion are sometimes used synonymously, they really embody two different approaches to working with students having special needs. Abstracts of articles located in the initial search on mainstreaming will uncover related concepts such as inclusion and help a researcher develop a better, more effective vocabulary for fleshing out the literature review.

In addition to searching using key concepts aligned with the research topic, a researcher likely also will want to search for additional materials produced by key authors who are identified in the initial searches. As a researcher reviews items retrieved in the initial stages of the survey, he or she will begin to notice certain authors coming up over and over in relation to the topic. To make sure that no stone is left unturned, it would be advisable to search the available, relevant library databases for other materials by those key authors, just to make sure something of importance has not been missed. A review of the reference lists for each of the items identified in the search will also help to identify key literature that should be reviewed.

Locating the Materials and Composing the Review -- In many cases the items identified through the library's databases will also be available online through the same or related databases. This, however, is not always the case. When materials are not available online, the researcher should check the library's physical collections (print, media, etc.) to determine if the items are available in the library, itself. For those materials not physically available in the home library, the researcher will use interlibrary loan to procure copies from other libraries or services. While abstracts are extremely useful in identifying the right types of materials, they are no substitute for the actual items, themselves. The thorough researcher will make sure that all the key literature has been retrieved and read thoroughly before proceeding too far with the original research.

The end result of the literature review is a discussion of the central themes in the research and an overview of the significant studies located by the researcher. This discussion serves as the lead section of a paper or article that reports the findings of an original research study and sets the stage for presentation of the original study by providing a review of research that has been conducted prior to the current study. As the researcher conducts his or her own study, other relevant materials might enter into the professional literature. It is the researcher's responsibility to update the literature review with newly released information prior to completing his or her own study.

Updating the Initial Search -- Most research projects will take place over a period of time and are not completed in the short term. Especially in the case of master's and doctoral projects, the research process might take a year or several years to complete. During this time, it will be important for the researcher to periodically review the research that has been going on at the same time as his or her own research. Revisiting the search strategies employed in the initial pass of the ltierature will turn up any new studies that might have come to light since the initial search. Fortunately, most research databases and discovery systems provide researchers with the means for automatically notifying them when new materials matching the search strategy have entered the system. This requires that a researcher sign up for a personal "account" with the database in order to save his or her searches and set up "alerts" when new materials come online. Setting up an account does not involve charges to the researcher; this is all a part of the cost borne by the home library in providing access to the databases.

• << Previous: Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Next: Summary of the Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 10:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

Literature Reviews

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

Steps for Cr eating Literature Reviews

• Formulating Research Questions and Objectives : Define the scope and focus of the review.
• Searching the Literature : Conduct a thorough search of academic databases and other sources.
• Screening for Inclusion : Select relevant studies based on predefined criteria.
• Assessing Quality : Evaluate the quality and reliability of the selected studies.
• Extracting Data : Collect relevant data from the studies.
• Analyzing Data : Synthesize and interpret the data to draw conclusions.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Developing a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: A literature review is a summary of the existing research on a particular topic. It's typically done at the beginning of a research project and I did one for my undergraduate thesis, for my master's thesis and for my PhD thesis. And in this video I'm going to answer all of your literature review related questions. The first thing is how do you start a literature review? Well, to start a literature review, surprisingly or not surprisingly, you need literature. Where do you find that literature? Well, there's a ton of places. The first place I would go to is illicit.com. This is a new AI tool which allows you to ask a research question and get all of the papers related to that question. For example, here I can say how effective are conditional cash transfer programs? It will go away and search more than 125 million academic papers and here are the first four abstracts here. And here are all of the different researched peer-reviewed papers and that means that experts in the field have looked at these papers and said, yes, they are true. They are something that is a valuable contribution to the research field. So that's why you should be reading them. And we can go through and see that we've got a little summary and we just click through all of these and we can go and read them individually. That's one way, semantic searching. The next thing you can do is use Litmaps. Litmaps creates a map of literature for you to search. We can go in and create a map. Here I've created a map from one of my peer-reviewed papers that I wrote during my PhD and you can see I get a nice map of all of the other stuff that I need to read. You can do this with a single seed paper or you can put in a load of different papers in this tab in Discover to find out a load of different papers that you need to read about. Then you can also use something like Google Scholar. This is old school. This is like OG science and research. You'd go in, you just type keywords. For example, charge transport in OPV. So I'll click here and then here are all of the different papers that I should consider reading. Clearly, you don't need to read all of them but we'll get into that in a minute. But this is where you start. You start by searching the literature. You can have a look since 2024, since 2023 and this is the foundational activity for any literature review. Get comfortable searching the literature and you'll become a power user of all of the literature that you're about to write about. Before you start reading any literature, you need to have a literature review outline to work with. So this is the general structure of nearly every literature review for any field. It goes like this. First of all, we start with an introduction at the top. This introduction gives background information about the research field that you are investigating. It's in a reverse pyramid shape because this is the very, very broad step. This is where we're just sort of like looking at the overarching umbrella of our research field. Then optionally, we can talk about background and methods that are used to look for the research that we're going to talk about in the literature review. For example, you may want to say we looked at these databases, we looked at these sort of questions and background is the background of the field that you're specifically interested in. So we're going a little bit deeper, which is why it's the next step down on the inverse pyramid. Then we need all of the main text and this is all of the literature that you found searched by either theme. So you sort of group it together as like, this is a group of research that I can talk about because it's under one theme. Here's another theme or here's another theme and you've put research under that. So in here, you may have one, two, three plus themes under which you will talk about literature or, which is very uncommon I think these days, but you may be lucky that you may be able to sort this based on time, which means initially these people did this and then they did this and then they did this and that's how you structure your literature review. So you say they did this first, here's all the literature in the initial stages of that research, then they did this, here's the next stage of research, the evolution of that research field, here's the next stage. So it may be theme or time, it's completely up to you which one you use, but most people use theme. Once you've outlined all of the main themes and you've talked about the literature under that theme, then you need to have a discussion to bring it all together. This is where you're looking at all of the research themes and you're talking about your specific research question. Why are you doing this research into this literature and how does it help you sort of like answer the research question or the interest you have in a particular research field and why you're looking at the literature in the first place. And then you're looking at conclusions. Based on all of the stuff that you've read, all of the individual themes, all of the chronological studies, all of the papers you've included in this literature review, what conclusions can you make specifically about the current state of the field? And that is the general structure of nearly every literature review ever produced. Now, there's an easier way to do it obviously. What I like to do is go to ChatGPT and I just say, create a literature review outline for a study about and then whatever I'm interested in. Here I've got an example where it says, the effect of climate change on plants. And as you can see, it says introduction, background and here it says I want basic concepts of climate change. Then it says general impacts of climate change. Then we want direct effects of climate change on plants. So you can see we've started broad and we're getting narrower and narrower as the literature review goes on. And then we've got different themes. So we've got indirect effect of climate change on plants. So altered pests and disease dynamics, that's a theme. Changes in land use and habitat, that's a theme. And then we've got other themes underneath. So this is how you can easily structure and get a first kind of draft of the structure of any literature review that you're writing for nearly any subject. It's just amazing. And as you can see down here, the last one is conclusion, summary of key findings and then final thoughts on the importance of further research. So this is how we can use ChatGPT to structure our literature review outline. Nice stuff. Once you've got all of the literature you need to read and you've got a structure under which to put that literature, then you need to just write. You type out all of the stuff in your literature review. Before you do that, you may want to have a look at something like explainpaper.com that allows you to quickly understand peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers are notoriously hard to read. They're dense, they're thick in academic language. And here, it's a really nice way to just get the simple summary. And I think this is one of the most powerful ones, explainpaper.com. All you need to do is highlight a certain area and over here, it will say, okay, explain your explanation. As a middle schooler, we can move this up and down and then we just click explain. And underneath, it will tell you the undergrad explanation of what you've just highlighted. A really great way, particularly if you're early on in your academic career, if you're undergraduate, if you're in high school, this is a great way to unlock all of the power that's behind the horrible language found in peer-reviewed academic papers. Once you understand what's actually in all of this, you've collected them into themes, you need to write it. There are a few tools that you can use. So you can use jenny.ai, that's an auto-writer for research papers and literature reviews. You can use yomoo.ai. And that is another sort of like auto-writer for peer-reviewed and papers. But to be honest with you, the best thing you can do is sit there with a Word document, with a Google document, Google, what do you even call that? Google Docs? Google Word? I completely forgot. Anyway, you know what I mean. You sit there with a word processor and you start typing. You put in your structured headlines and then you say under each one, what literature you're going to mention and you start fleshing it out. It takes ages and ages and many, many revisions. Make sure that you get someone you trust or your supervisor to look over it as you're writing it. Maybe each chapter or each theme that you write, you get someone to look over it and then at the end they look over everything all together. It's a really, really long process. It takes such a long time. For my thesis, it probably took a good few weeks to get all of the information into a sensible structure and literature review. So here we are, here's one of the themes. Overview of photocurrent generation in organic photovoltaic devices. So that's just one of many, many themes in this thesis and depending on what stage of study you're at, it could be long, it could be short but let's talk about that next. Okay, how long should a literature review be? Well, there are no hard and fast rules but I like to think about it like this. Is there enough in your literature review to provide enough context to what you're doing and what you're researching? Is there enough context for you to understand the problem that your literature review is looking at and addressing and also, is there enough data in there to talk about the up-to-date research and where the current state of the field is? That's really what we're looking at but here's some rules of thumb. So if you're doing it for an assignment, one thing I recommend that you look at is about 3,000 to 10,000 words. That's normally good enough to get an overview. For example, in my undergraduate thesis, it's only about seven pages. There's not much in there. There's some fancy diagrams, there's lots of references but ultimately, it's about seven pages. So it's not much. So 3,000 to 10,000 words is all you need for a small assignment or an undergraduate thesis whereas for master's and master's theses and PhD dissertations, one thing I recommend is you look at what's normal for your field. In some fields, it's like 10 pages. In other fields, it can be up to 40 pages but ultimately, as long as you have enough information and literature to be able to provide context to your problem and you provide an up-to-date representation of that research field, then you've got enough in there. Like I said, I like to use just the guide of what is normal for my research field before I start writing my thesis so I can say, okay, normally it's about 20 pages and therefore, I need to fill 20 pages worth of stuff and that is a good starting point for almost any literature review. So there we have it. That's the introduction to literature reviews. I'd love to know what you think and also, I have got so many videos on this very channel about literature reviews with AI, how to find literature using AI tools, how to write it in seconds using tools that are available online. I'll put all of the links below in the description so you can sort of build on the knowledge that we've gained in this video but if you really want to go look at a powerful video, go check out this one where I talk about how to write an exceptional literature review using AI. You won't be disappointed. Go check it out.

• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2024

Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review

• Maryam Mooghali 1 , 8 ,
• Austin M. Stroud 2 ,
• Dong Whi Yoo 3 ,
• Barbara A. Barry 4 , 5 ,
• Alyssa A. Grimshaw 6 ,
• Joseph S. Ross 1 , 7 ,
• Xuan Zhu 4 &
• Jennifer E. Miller 1  

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making volume  24 , Article number:  247 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care.

In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients’, caregivers’, or healthcare providers’ perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design.

After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues ( n  = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity ( n  = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm ( n  = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns ( n  = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy ( n  = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership ( n  = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients’ interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights.

This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.

Peer Review reports

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in healthcare to improve the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and maintenance of health conditions [ 1 ]. These interventions have enormous potential to assist in the management of cardiovascular diseases, the leading cause of death in the US, given the high number of AI-based devices authorized for use and under review by the FDA for cardiovascular diseases, the breadth of use cases spanning clinical practice to consumer-facing AI-enabled solutions, and the potential for improving clinical outcomes [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Previous studies have shown that patients may be willing to accept the use of AI in healthcare and see its potential benefits if certain conditions are met, including transparency about the capture and use of their data by AI systems and the ability to opt out from data sharing at any time [ 6 ]. Moreover, patients place a higher level of trust in a healthcare provider’s assessment of their health compared to an AI and often want assurance that their physicians are involved in and ultimately are responsible for AI-enabled decisions due to the concerns about risks of AI failures during care [ 7 , 8 ]. On a similar note, healthcare providers express specific needs for information transparency, such as explanations about known strengths and limitations of interventions when using AI-based software in clinical decision-making [ 9 ]. Healthcare providers also recognize the potential impact of AI on patient-clinician trust and seek support for transparent and effective communication with patients about AI use in their care [ 10 ]. Thus, to fully achieve the appropriate uptake of AI in medicine, patients’ and healthcare providers’ ethical and trust concerns must be addressed [ 11 ].

Although prior research has begun to explore patient and clinician perspectives on the use of AI in medicine, none have focused explicitly on stakeholders’ transparency, trust, and ethical concerns; nor have studies focused explicitly on cardiovascular care, an area where there has been rapid and transformative recent growth [ 12 ]. Accordingly, there remains a significant gap in understanding the specific barriers and facilitators to addressing these stakeholder concerns related to transparency, trust, and ethics when implementing AI in cardiovascular care. This gap could hinder the development of effective practice guidelines and regulatory policies necessary for ensuring the ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine. To bridge this gap and to provide actionable insights into the nuanced requirements for trusted use of these AI-based technologies, this study reviewed the literature to identify key ethical concerns, potential mitigation strategies, and barriers and facilitators to trustworthy AI-informed cardiovascular care.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We conducted a rapid review of the literature, a form of information synthesis aiming to generate evidence through a resource-efficient approach by simplifying or removing certain components of the traditional systematic review process [ 13 ]. Eligible for inclusion were publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients’, caregivers’, or healthcare providers’ perspectives. Our search was not limited by date or study design. All papers published as full manuscripts, including qualitative and quantitative analyses, commentaries, editorials, expert opinions, perspective pieces, and guidelines were included. Conference abstracts, book chapters, pre-prints, animal studies, and publications that were not in English were excluded. Prior to the formal article screening process, we conducted a calibration exercise by piloting the screening of 10% of the sample. This ensured that all authors involved in the screening process consistently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Search strategy and data sources

A medical librarian with literature review expertise (AAG) developed the search strategy with input from all authors. The search was developed as an Ovid Embase search strategy, which was subsequently reviewed by a second librarian not otherwise associated with the project using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) [ 14 ]. After the strategy had been finalized and unanimously approved by all authors, it was adapted to the syntax and subject headings of other databases. Details on the search strategy can be found in Appendix 1. The search was conducted on the following six bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection, and was completed on May 24, 2022.

Study selection

Search results were downloaded to EndNote 20 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA), and duplicate citations were removed using the Yale Deduplicator Tool [ 15 ]. Individual citations were ingested into Covidence, a software tool dedicated to literature review management that facilitates collaboration between independent reviewers in the article screening and review processes. The review process was divided into two major steps: title/abstract screening and full-text screening. Titles and abstracts of each paper identified by the search were independently screened by two authors [MM and AMS, AAG, or DWY] against the inclusion criteria. Next, full-text articles were obtained for all studies that had not been excluded at the first level of screening and were assessed by two independent reviewers [MM and AMS or DWY], with the reasoning for exclusions being recorded. Disagreements on eligibility were resolved by consensus or through the input of a third investigator. After screening, CitationChaser was used to perform citation chasing on all included studies to identify other potentially relevant studies [ 16 ]. One reviewer [MM, AMS, or DWY] screened the identified papers to decide whether they met the eligibility criteria. Reviewers were not blinded to the journal titles, authors, or institutions.

Data extraction and synthesis

Using the Qualtrics software [ 17 ], data extraction was conducted by an author [MM, AMS, or DWY] for the following fields for each included paper: article type; article title; publication year; first author; purpose and indication(s) of AI-based medical device; and device users (patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers). Next, the conceptualization and characteristics used to describe barriers and facilitators of transparency and trust and ethical concerns from patients’, caregivers’, and healthcare providers’ perspectives were recorded. For validation, a second reviewer independently performed data extraction on 20% of the final sample, selected at random [MM, AMS, or DWY]. Disagreements were less than 5% and were resolved by discussion or through the input of a third investigator [JEM]. Data generated from this project will be actively preserved for three years per Yale Research Data and Materials Policy—Retention 6001.2 unless otherwise required by the journal. Content analyses were performed by MM, using Qualtrics 2022 and Microsoft Excel 2018 (Microsoft Corp) to facilitate data management and organization. In keeping with content analyses methods, abstracted data were independently categorized by two researchers [JEM and MM] who then met to discuss and agree upon the final categorization of findings, through iterative discussion with 100% agreement. Categories where then summarized into key themes pertaining to concerns and mitigation strategies for ethics and barriers and facilitators for trust in AI-enabled care, with unanimous agreement among all researchers.

Search results

The search resulted in 10,171 papers, of which 7,925 were unique. After conducting the first level of screening, 7,799 titles and abstracts were excluded, leaving 126 full-text articles for review. Of those, 71 did not meet eligibility criteria due to ineligible area of care, i.e., non-cardiovascular ( n  = 10); ineligible intervention, i.e., non-AI tools ( n  = 26); ineligible outcome ( n  = 22); ineligible format, i.e., conference abstracts, book chapters, or preprints ( n  = 13), leaving a total of 55 eligible publications. Citation chasing of these articles resulted in 3,603 additional citations, 3,330 of which were eliminated upon title and abstract reviewing. Of the 273 reviewed full-texts, 90 articles were found to be eligible. The reasons for excluding the remaining papers included: ineligible area of care ( n  = 69), intervention ( n  = 14), outcome ( n  = 88), and format ( n  = 12). Overall, 145 papers were included in this review (Fig.  1 ). Since we reached information saturation upon reviewing the additional papers identified through citation chasing, we stopped subsequent rounds of citation chasing.

Sample Construction Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Diagram

Sample characteristics

Included articles were published from 2014 to 2022, except for one paper [ 18 ] published in 1996. Of the 145 articles, 88 (60.7%) were review articles; 32 (22.1%) were commentaries, editorials, or perspective pieces; 22 (15.2%) were original research; and 3 (2.1%) were case studies.

The AI-based interventions discussed in 43 (29.7%) papers were devices used for the diagnosis or monitoring of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., AI-enabled cardiac imaging), while 5 (3.4%) were therapeutic devices (e.g., clinical decision support tools for heart pump implants). The interventions discussed in the remaining papers (101 [69.7%]) included both diagnostic and therapeutic AI-based medical devices. The indications for use of the AI-based devices were not specified in most papers (122 [84.1%]). Among those that specified, arrhythmia was the highest reported indication (8 [5.5%]), followed by heart failure (7 [4.8%]). Although all papers discussed AI-based devices in the cardiovascular context, 88 (60.7%) were specific to the cardiovascular specialty, while the remaining articles also included other areas of medicine.

Among all the reviewed articles, 3 (2.1%) studied devices that were self-management software used directly by patients [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], whereas the main users of the other devices discussed by 48 (33.1%) papers were healthcare providers. The remaining 94 (64.8%) papers did not specify the users. Only 2 (1.4%) papers specified the device sponsor; both studied HeartMan, a personal decision support system for heart failure management, funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union [ 19 , 20 ].

Ethical concerns and mitigation strategies

There were six key ethical concerns discussed in the literature, which were privacy, security, or confidentiality issues; risk of healthcare inequity or disparity; risk of patient harm; accountability and responsibility concerns; problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy; and issues related to data ownership (Fig.  2 ). Three papers discussed the lack of human involvement in patient care and the altered relationship between patients and healthcare providers as an ethical concern associated with AI-enabled medical care [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. One paper debated the additional complexity that AI-based medical devices could add to end-of-life care [ 25 ].

Ethical Concerns and Mitigation Strategies for the Use of Artificial intelligence-based Medical Devices in Cardiovascular Care

Privacy, security, and confidentiality concerns

Fifty-nine (40.7%) publications discussed ethical concerns related to privacy, security, or confidentiality. Specific concerns included potential inappropriate access to and misuse of personal information stored in medical devices and inadvertent release of private patient healthcare data [ 22 , 26 ]. Protecting sensitive patient information from data leakage and cyberattacks, especially for data used by private for-profit organizations [ 27 ], and protecting the stored medical data, particularly by cloud-assisted AI medical devices or commercial smartphone-based applications with poorly secured servers, were other areas of concern [ 28 , 29 ]. Moreover, transferring data between institutions for the reproducibility of results could cause additional security problems [ 30 ]. Lastly, ensuring confidentiality could be difficult owing to the circulation of sensitive patient information among unregulated companies and a lack of de-identification of raw data input for AI algorithms [ 30 , 31 ].

Mitigation strategies

We identified mitigation strategies from the literature to address some of the aforementioned ethical concerns. Data de-identification or anonymization and using highly secure data platforms could protect patient data used for the development and training of AI-medical devices [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Additionally, more secure health systems across different localities need to be built, and policymakers could help with constructing the adapted infrastructures and developing guidelines regarding patient privacy, data storage, and data sharing to ensure optimal implementation of AI tools in healthcare [ 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Several papers emphasized the need for more regulation and legislation on patient data use, such as performing regular privacy audits, mandating security breach notifications, and setting greater penalties for data misuse [ 27 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

Risk of healthcare inequity or disparity

Thirty-six (24.8%) papers raised concerns that AI-based medical devices could create new or exacerbate healthcare inequities or disparities based on factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, or pathology-driven specificities. Potential unfairness in algorithmically automated decisions was described as the major cause of inequities and disparities. Papers discussed the risk of the AI intervention being less effective or providing inaccurate recommendations for under-represented patients if the training datasets for algorithms are based on unrepresentative patient samples [ 37 , 40 ]. This in turn could lead to discrimination against certain patient populations and increase the gap in healthcare outcomes among different social groups. Furthermore, some were concerned that data could be used to improperly profile patients and differentially provide healthcare (e.g., avoidance of highest-cost or highest-risk patients) [ 26 ]. There were also concerns regarding social justice and potential unfairness in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of AI applications [ 22 ].

Several papers described important considerations for the data sources used by AI tools to help healthcare providers recognize when it could be inappropriate to use a specific AI tool for certain patient groups and to ensure that access to AI-based tools is not affected by demographic, geographic, or temporal constraints [ 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Strategies to mitigate concerns related to health inequity when using AI in medical care include using a balanced dataset through collecting sufficient data from under-represented populations, validating AI algorithms on different minority and low-income groups, and obtaining robust input from different stakeholders involved in the development, use, and regulation of AI tools [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Moreover, creating a distinct algorithm in AI systems for each group of patients, rather than using a universal algorithm for all patients, could improve fairness in decision-making [ 47 ]. Lastly, conducting evidence-based assessment and implementing further regulatory oversights could help to ensure the fairness of AI tools [ 28 , 45 ].

Risk of patient harm

Concerns about the risk of suboptimal care or patient harm associated with AI tools were raised by 24 (16.6%) papers. Inaccurate data used by AI-based decision tools, flawed AI algorithms, and deliberate hacking of algorithms were discussed as potentially leading to erroneous recommendations and patient harm on a massive scale [ 33 , 48 ]. The risk of errors would be greater when the AI systems function independently with unchecked decision-making and actions [ 49 ], particularly in the setting where errors made by complex and untransparent AI systems are difficult to trace and debug [ 50 ]. Moreover, the complexity of AI-based systems, potentially unpredictable system output, and the uncertainty of human–AI interactions could result in substantial variation in the performance of AI-based medical devices, causing further safety challenges [ 51 ]. Lastly, there were concerns about AI-based devices programmed to function in unethical ways, for example by suggesting clinical actions that generate higher profits without patient care benefits [ 31 ].

Several papers described the importance of providing sufficient training to device users to reduce the risk of patient harm, with an emphasis on educating healthcare providers about the potential pitfalls and limitations of AI technologies [ 48 , 52 ]. Additionally, rigorous validation and continuous assessment of the algorithms used in AI-based medical devices, including conducting clinical trials that compare AI-supported care with the standard of care, could identify potential bias in AI algorithms and minimize patient harm [ 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Establishing further regulatory and ethical guidelines in the postmarket stage and implementing standard frameworks for regular assessment of the safety of AI tools are also necessary [ 33 , 46 ].

Problematic informed consent and loss of patient autonomy

We found 17 papers (11.7%) discussing ethical concerns about obtaining informed consent for providing care with AI-enabled medical devices. The main reason leading to problematic informed consent is the lack of transparency and interpretability of AI tools and insufficient information about different aspects of care provided by AI-enabled medical devices [ 45 , 56 , 57 ]. Moreover, informing patients about all aspects of health data collection and its use across different platforms and for training algorithms may not be always feasible [ 36 , 58 ]. Withdrawing consent for the use of these data would cause further challenges [ 59 ]. Eight papers (5.5%) argued that patient autonomy could be negatively affected when using AI-enabled care. This issue specifically is likely to happen if the devices function independently and have unchecked actions [ 49 ], which could damage patients’ confidence in their ability to change their medical decisions, i.e. refuse care, if later desired [ 50 ].

To improve informed decision-making, several papers described the necessity of providing patients and healthcare providers with sufficient information and ensuring that patients are freely able to change their medical decisions if desired [ 50 , 60 ]. Moreover, further regulations on obtaining valid unambiguous consent when using patient data should be established [ 27 ].

Accountability and responsibility concerns

Another key ethical concern raised by 19 (13.1%) papers was the issue related to accountability and responsibility. Since multiple groups of professionals are involved in the design, manufacture, and use of AI-based medical devices, accountability and liability of the decisions made by these devices could be difficult to determine. While some suggested that users of the devices should ultimately be responsible for the output of algorithms [ 25 , 61 ], there are considerable debates around the accountability of actions suggested or performed by AI-based technologies and the potential misuse of data [ 36 , 37 ]. The complexity, opaqueness, and lack of transparency of AI-based medical devices make the accountability and responsibility issues even more challenging [ 50 , 62 ].

To address questions of accountability, several papers described the importance of improving the engagement of all stakeholders, including physicians and developers. Papers also suggested improving the transparency of AI tools’ function so that the reasons behind decisions and actions taken by the devices are clear [ 63 , 64 ]. Moreover, there is a need for regulatory and legal systems to oversee the implementation of AI-based medical devices and determine the responsibilities of patients, healthcare providers, and others [ 65 ].

Data ownership issues

There were further ethical concerns discussed by 11 (7.6%) papers related to ownership of the patient data being used by AI-based technologies, particularly if the data is identifiable [ 66 ]. The rules and regulations related to data ownership vary significantly across different regions and may be absent in some jurisdictions, which makes it unclear whether patients, hospitals, or private companies own the data analyzed by AI tools [ 67 , 68 ]. This issue is directly associated with how AI and its data are monetized [ 68 ], as there are controversies about who should profit from the collected data and for how long these institutions or individuals can and should retain patient health information [ 69 ].

To address these concerns, several papers described the importance of clear regulations around data ownership and preparing models of health data ownership with rights to the individual ahead of using AI-based devices in healthcare [ 33 , 38 ].

Trust barriers and facilitators

We identified 53 (36.6%) and 58 (40.0%) papers discussing trust barriers and facilitators, respectively, from patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives when using AI-based medical devices in cardiovascular care (Fig.  3 ).

Trust Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of Artificial intelligence-based Medical Devices in Cardiovascular Care

Shared (Patient and Healthcare Provider) Perspective

Data privacy and security issues.

Data privacy and security concerns were discussed as key trust barriers for patients and healthcare providers [ 17 , 62 ]. In particular, patients were described as worried about the potential alteration of data, unauthorized use of data, information sharing with commercial partners, and data loss [ 59 , 70 ]. These issues are specifically concerning in the absence of uniform federal privacy regulations regarding collecting, storing, and using patient health information in different settings [ 41 ].

Facilitators

To address data privacy and security concerns, the literature discussed encrypting patient data according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), removing data identifiers, documenting the purpose of datasets, establishing ethical standards for data use and access, and securing communications between patients and healthcare providers [ 41 , 71 , 72 ]. Regulatory bodies could ensure the competence of AI systems and their users and establish standardized codes of ethics and conduct for device developers [ 72 ].

Risk of suboptimal care or patient harm

Users have expressed concerns around the possibility of device malfunction and are hesitant about the trustworthiness of diagnostic decisions or automatically generated medical advice by AI tools, especially if the advice contradicts their previous experiences [ 50 ]. Another important trust barrier is the uncertainty about the reliability and quality of the data used in the algorithms, which could be incomplete, unrepresentative, or outdated [ 73 ]. This lack of generalizability could exacerbate health inequities, and further decrease trust in the populations who feel that AI would be inaccurate when applied to their cases [ 74 ]. Certain populations may also feel that they may not equally benefit from AI technologies because of the deployment and marketing strategies that manufacturers might take [ 74 ]. Healthcare providers are also concerned that AI-based medical devices could provide inaccurate or biased recommendations, especially if the systems are not regularly updated [ 75 , 76 ]. Moreover, clinicians may not trust the generalizability of the outputs of AI systems for their own patients due to the lack of diversity in the clinical dataset [ 77 , 78 , 79 ].

To address these trust barriers, the literature discussed the importance of keeping AI systems updated by introducing new rules and cases along with routine performance assessments to enhance the accuracy of decisions made by AI-based medical devices [ 75 , 80 ]. Further regulations and legislation could also increase trust by ensuring the balance between innovation and patient safety and confirming that AI algorithms meet appropriate standards of clinical benefit [ 81 , 82 ].

Lack of transparency and insufficient knowledge

Substantial barriers to trust in AI-enabled medical devices are the lack of transparency, opaqueness (black box nature), and poor interpretability of the devices [ 76 , 83 , 84 ]. Physicians tend to trust a device less if they do not fully understand how it functions or how its outputs are generated, even if the device performs well [ 37 , 40 , 54 ]. Multiple barriers to transparent AI-based medical devices exist, including the lack of understanding of what information is being used by the AI tools, what the AI systems are learning, and how the AI algorithms reach conclusions based on the inputs [ 30 , 85 , 86 , 87 ]. Also, it could be difficult to achieve algorithmic transparency due to the complicated structure, dynamic learning, and constant evolution of AI algorithms [ 36 , 56 ]. These factors make AI models difficult to explain and justify, and therefore, uninterpretable [ 88 ]. Besides, inadequate education and experience with AI tools can cause additional barriers to trustworthy AI-enabled care [ 76 , 89 ].

To improve explainability and physicians’ understanding of AI-based medical devices, it is essential to clarify AI algorithm training data, explain the computational model and its output, and acknowledge the existing limitations of AI-based medical devices [ 76 , 78 , 87 , 90 , 91 ]. Making the datasets, codes, and trained models publicly available and using interpretable models that will allow healthcare providers to review and provide feedback to the AI decision-making tools could further improve transparency [ 47 , 92 ]. Some argued that healthcare providers may not need detailed explanations of the validated predictions and decisions made by AI-enabled medical devices but need to have sufficient information about the major components that affect the decisions [ 43 ]. Additionally, a visual display of the consensus between decision support tools and clinicians’ assessments could enhance clinicians’ trust in AI systems [ 55 ].

Restricting the complexity of AI tools as well as providing clarity on how AI devices are regulated could facilitate patient trust [ 19 , 21 , 59 , 93 ]. It is also essential to provide patients with appropriate education about how to use AI tools and enhance their engagement in different phases of the design and implementation of AI technologies [ 50 , 89 , 94 , 95 ].

Other important factors for facilitating transparency are to clarify all the interactions within and among different sectors that led to the development of AI systems and to maintain open and clear communication between healthcare providers and developers [ 88 , 96 ]. Regulatory bodies could establish more rigorous regulations for the enforcement of transparency in datasets and algorithms used in AI-based medical devices [ 47 , 92 ].

Replacing human aspects of care

Patients and healthcare providers seem to trust AI tools less if the devices are meant to entirely replace the human aspect of care [ 53 ].

Trust could improve if patients and healthcare providers are assured that AI-based devices are supplementary to care, rather than outright replacing clinicians or other human aspects of care [ 53 , 92 ].

Patient perspective

Prioritizing profits over patients’ interests.

From the patient perspective, trust would be diminished when they feel AI devices are mainly used for economic efficiency at the cost of patient interests and benefits [ 72 ].

No facilitators were identified in the reviewed literature for this trust barrier.

Healthcare provider perspective

Lack of robust evidence.

A significant barrier to clinician trust is the lack of robust evidence for the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices in addition to the inadequate education and training about the use of AI tools [ 76 , 97 , 98 ].

Several papers argued that while it might not be feasible to explain all aspects of AI, generating more reliable evidence and standards through rigorous internal and external validations, prospective clinical trials in diverse cohorts which demonstrate safety, efficacy, and generalizability of AI devices, and peer-reviewed publications can improve trust [ 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 ]. Therefore, collaborative practices with healthcare providers for the development and continuous assessment of AI devices are essential [ 75 , 98 ]. Lastly, complying with the established legislations and regulations is essential when producing trustworthy AI research [ 88 ].

In this rapid review of the literature on the use of AI-based interventions in cardiovascular care, which included more than 11,000 publications, we identified key stakeholder concerns among healthcare providers and patients that relate to transparency, trust, and ethical concerns around the use of AI in cardiovascular care. Concerns focused on data privacy and security, risk of patient harm, and the possibility that AI-based medical care could exacerbate healthcare inequities or advance unfair algorithmically automated decisions. Inadequately obtaining informed consent from patients regarding the use of AI and various forms of data collection while providing AI-enabled care was also described, as was determining who is ultimately responsible for regulating the development, performance, and use of AI in medicine and who owns the collected data. The absence of rigorous clinical trials to support the safety and efficacy of AI-enabled medical devices and the lack of transparency about the data used by AI devices and their subsequent recommendations remain other significant barriers to patients’ and healthcare providers’ trust. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care [ 12 ], these challenges should be carefully identified and addressed to ensure that AI systems are developed and implemented in an ethical and trustworthy manner.

We identified mitigation strategies to address most key ethical and trust concerns about the use of AI in medicine, which requires a collaborative effort involving AI developers, regulators, hospital systems, healthcare providers, and patients. Regulatory agencies were identified as having multiple inroads to addressing patient and clinician concerns. Notably, we found that establishing further regulations and legislation around development, adoption, and use of AI in healthcare is a key facilitator for addressing almost all the identified ethics concerns and trust barriers. Certain proposed frameworks and guidance documents have carved out actions for oversight bodies to delineate the scope of liability, strengthen data privacy protections, and clarify data ownership regulations [ 104 , 105 ]. Moreover, requiring postapproval studies could ensure continuous monitoring of AI devices' performance, potential biases, and unintended consequences.

AI developers similarly have a significant stake in addressing patient and clinician concerns and need to be attentive to data stewardship practices, safety, and transparency as models are researched, developed, and marketed. Moreover, current medical device labeling does not always address the unique challenges of the use of AI-based software, such as training data sources, model accuracy, potential biases, and opting out of use, which can hinder patient-shared decision-making and trust in AI-enabled care. Providing AI model facts labels will establish a clear and standardized communication of information with users and enhance transparency and trust [ 52 ]. Furthermore, self-governance approaches may serve as a potential mechanism in tandem with regulatory intervention for implementing mitigation strategies. Submitting to a set of industry standards as well as certification processes may help to mitigate the risks of AI tools and help to facilitate trust in models [ 106 ].

Hospital systems and clinicians will also be faced with key decisions regarding AI tools adopted in their practices. As hospitals become a source of data for the development of numerous models, appropriate privacy protections and transparency about data use and model deployment would be relevant, especially as they act in coordination with third-party developers [ 107 ]. As end-users of most healthcare AI tools, clinicians may become responsible for providing appropriate information about these systems to patients at the point of care and for appropriately integrating model insights into clinical decision-making.

While our findings are indicative of many strategies that would be taken up by clinical, technical, and regulatory stakeholders, there are also opportunities for including patients. Stakeholder engagement with patient populations and the public in the research and design of AI tools may be relevant to mitigating bias and developing trust, particularly by communicating the underlying design of AI tools in ways that are understandable to patients and leveraging advisory groups to inform the creation of such tools [ 108 ]. Identifying opportunities for patient engagement will be incumbent upon all stakeholders with more formal decision-making authority. Thus, regulatory oversight on using and sharing patient information, safety and transparency of AI tools, and responsibilities of healthcare providers, device manufacturers, and patients would facilitate the application of AI in medical care.

Overall, we found that most papers briefly touched upon issues related to trust and ethics and potential mitigation strategies without providing in-depth information. Additional studies translating ethical principles into tangible tools and guidance for stakeholders will be an important next step in implementation of responsible and trustworthy AI-enabled healthcare [ 109 ]. Moreover, we did not find any ethical concerns or trust barriers and facilitators from the caregivers’ perspective, necessitating further research in this area.

Our study has limitations. First, similar to all reviews of published literature, publication and reporting biases may have affected our findings. Second, while we identified and reviewed a significant number of relevant papers, the vast majority were review articles and commentaries, editorials, or perspective pieces with fewer original research articles. While our search was very exhaustive, there was an inconsistency in the level of detail, which may have led to papers potentially being missed. However, citation chasing was undertaken to identify additional relevant articles that failed to include the three main concepts of our search. Lastly, this study focused on the use of AI in cardiovascular care and may not generalize to uses in other areas of medicine.

This rapid review of the literature on the use of AI-based interventions in cardiovascular care identified key ethical and trust concerns from patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives, including issues related to data privacy and security, potential inequity and bias, risk of patient harm, patient consent and autonomy, and a lack of transparency about the function of AI-based medical devices. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care [ 12 ], certain mitigation strategies, particularly establishing further regulatory oversight on the use of patient data, and safety and transparency of AI tools seem necessary.

Availability of data and materials

Relevant data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Artificial Intelligence

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

Fogel AL, Kvedar JC. Artificial intelligence powers digital medicine. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:5.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Benjamens S, Dhunnoo P, Meskó B. The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: an online database. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:118.

de Marvao A, Dawes TJ, Howard JP, O’Regan DP. Artificial intelligence and the cardiologist: what you need to know for 2020. Heart. 2020;106(5):399–400.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ladejobi AO, Cruz J, Attia ZI, van Zyl M, Tri J, Lopez-Jimenez F, et al. Digital health innovation in cardiology. Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2020;1(1):6–8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading Causes of Death 2023 [Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm .

McCradden MD, Sarker T, Paprica PA. Conditionally positive: a qualitative study of public perceptions about using health data for artificial intelligence research. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10): e039798.

Quinn TP, Senadeera M, Jacobs S, Coghlan S, Le V. Trust and medical AI: the challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(4):890–4.

Fritsch SJ, Blankenheim A, Wahl A, Hetfeld P, Maassen O, Deffge S, et al. Attitudes and perception of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A cross-sectional survey among patients. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221116772.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cai CJ, Winter S, Steiner D, Wilcox L, Terry M. "Hello AI": Uncovering the Onboarding Needs of Medical Practitioners for Human-AI Collaborative Decision-Making. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2019;3(CSCW):Article 104.

Barry B, Zhu X, Behnken E, Inselman J, Schaepe K, McCoy R, et al. Provider Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence-Guided Screening for Low Ejection Fraction in Primary Care: Qualitative Study. JMIR AI. 2022;1(1): e41940.

Reis LM, Christian; Mattke, Jens; Creutzenberg, Marcus; Weitzel, Tim.,. Addressing User Resistance Would Have Prevented a Healthcare AI Project Failure. Bloomington, Ind. 2020.

Elias P, Jain SS, Poterucha T, Randazzo M, Jimenez FL, Khera R, et al. Artificial Intelligence for Cardiovascular Care—Part 1: Advances. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;83(24):2472–86.

Garritty C, Gartlehner G, C. K, King V, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Stevens A, et al. Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Cochrane Rapid Reviews. 2020.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Yale University Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical L. Reference Deduplicator. 2021.

Haddaway NR, Grainger MJ, Gray CT. citationchaser: an R package for forward and backward citations chasing in academic searching. 0.0.3 ed2021.

Qualtrics 2022 [Available from: https://www.qualtrics.com/ .

Itchhaporia D, Snow PB, Almassy RJ, Oetgen WJ. Artificial neural networks: Current status in cardiovascular medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28(2):515–21.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Derboven J, Voorend R, Slegers K. Design trade-offs in self-management technology: the HeartMan case. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2019;39(1):72–87.

Article   Google Scholar  

Luštrek M, Bohanec M, Barca CC, Ciancarelli MC, Clays E, Dawodu AA, et al. A personal health system for self-management of congestive heart failure (HeartMan): Development, technical evaluation, and proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2021;9(3).

Kela N, Eytam E, Katz A. Supporting Management of Noncommunicable Diseases With Mobile Health (mHealth) Apps: Experimental Study. JMIR human factors. 2022;9(1):e28697-NA.

Antes AL, Burrous S, Sisk BA, Schuelke MJ, Keune JD, DuBois JM. Exploring perceptions of healthcare technologies enabled by artificial intelligence: an online, scenario-based survey. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2021;21(1):221-NA.

Davenport TH, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future healthcare journal. 2019;6(2):94–8.

Lekadir K, Leiner T, Young AA, Petersen SE. Current and Future Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Imaging. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020;7:137.

Nguyen DN, Ngo B, vanSonnenberg E. AI in the Intensive Care Unit: Up-to-Date Review. J Intensive Care Med. 2020;36(10):1115–23.

Rumsfeld JS, Joynt KE, Maddox TM. Big data analytics to improve cardiovascular care: promise and challenges. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(6):350–9.

Mathur P, Srivastava S, Xu X, Mehta JL. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cardiovascular disease. Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology. 2020;14:1179546820927404.

Park CW, Seo SW, Kang N, Ko BS, Choi BW, Park CM, et al. Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Current Applications and Issues. Journal of Korean medical science. 2020;35(42):379-.

Lareyre F, Adam C, Carrier M, Raffort J. Artificial Intelligence in Vascular Surgery: Moving from Big Data to Smart Data. Annals of vascular surgery. 2020;67(NA):e575-e6.

Kowlgi GN, Ezzeddine FM, Kapa S. Artificial Intelligence Applications to Improve Risk Prediction Tools in Electrophysiology. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. 2020;14(9):1–9.

Pesapane F. Legal and Regulatory Framework for AI Solutions in Healthcare in EU, US, China, and Russia: New Scenarios after a Pandemic. Radiation. 2021;1(4):261–76.

Dai H, Younis A, Kong JD, Puce L, Jabbour G, Yuan H, Bragazzi NL. Big Data in Cardiology: State-of-Art and Future Prospects. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine. 2022;9(NA):844296-NA.

Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44–56.

Krittanawong C, Rogers AJ, Johnson KW, Wang Z, Turakhia MP, Halperin JL, Narayan SM. Integration of novel monitoring devices with machine learning technology for scalable cardiovascular management. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020;18(2):75–91.

Lareyre F, Lê CD, Ballaith A, Adam C, Carrier M, Amrani S, et al. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Non-cardiac Vascular Diseases: A Bibliographic Analysis. Angiology. 2022;NA(NA):33197211062280-.

Constantinides P, Fitzmaurice D. Artificial intelligence in cardiology : applications, benefits and challenges. Br J Cardiol. 2018;25(3):1–3.

Google Scholar  

Su J, Zhang Y, Ke Q-q, Su J-k, Yang Q-h. Mobilizing artificial intelligence to cardiac telerehabilitation. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022;23(2):45.

Kheradvar A, Jafarkhani H, Guy TS, Finn JP. Prospect of artificial intelligence for the assessment of cardiac function and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Future Cardiol. 2020;17(2):183–7.

Price WN, Cohen IG. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37–43.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Turchioe MR, Volodarskiy A, Pathak J, Wright D, Tcheng JE, Slotwiner DJ. Systematic review of current natural language processing methods and applications in cardiology. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2022;108(12):909–16.

Aggarwal N, Ahmed M, Basu S, Curtin JJ, Evans BJ, Matheny ME, et al. Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Health Settings Outside the Hospital and Clinic. NA. 2020;NA(NA):NA-NA.

Siontis KC, Noseworthy PA, Attia ZI, Friedman PA. Artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiography in cardiovascular disease management. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(7):465–78.

Payrovnaziri SN, Chen Z, Rengifo-Moreno P, Miller T, Bian J-G, Chen JH, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence models using real-world electronic health record data: a systematic scoping review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. 2020;27(7):1173–85.

Paulus JK, Kent DM. Predictably unequal: understanding and addressing concerns that algorithmic clinical prediction may increase health disparities. NPJ digital medicine. 2020;3(1):1–8.

Petersen E, Potdevin Y, Mohammadi E, Zidowitz S, Breyer S, Nowotka D, et al. Responsible and Regulatory Conform Machine Learning for Medicine: A Survey of Challenges and Solutions. IEEE Access. 2022;10(NA):58375–418.

Tat E, Bhatt DL, Rabbat MG. Addressing bias: artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine. The Lancet Digital health. 2020;2(12):e635–6.

Fletcher R, Nakeshimana A, Olubeko O. Addressing Fairness, Bias, and Appropriate Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Global Health. Frontiers in artificial intelligence. 2021;3(NA):561802-.

Lopez-Jimenez F, Attia ZI, Arruda-Olson AM, Carter RE, Chareonthaitawee P, Jouni H, et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology: Present and Future. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(5):1015–39.

Kanwar M, Kilic A, Mehra MR. Machine learning, artificial intelligence and mechanical circulatory support: A primer for clinicians. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021;40(6):414–25.

Morley J, Machado CCV, Burr C, Cowls J, Joshi I, Taddeo M, Floridi L. The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social science & medicine (1982). 2020;260(NA):113172-NA.

He J, Baxter SL, Xu J, Xu J, Zhou X, Zhang K. The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):30–6.

van de Sande D, Van Genderen ME, Smit JM, Huiskens J, Visser JJ, Veen RER, et al. Developing, implementing and governing artificial intelligence in medicine: a step-by-step approach to prevent an artificial intelligence winter. BMJ health & care informatics. 2022;29(1):e100495-e.

Kilic A. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cardiovascular health care. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(5):1323–9.

Biller-Andorno N, Ferrario A, Joebges S, Krones T, Massini F, Barth P, et al. AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: proceed with care. J Med Ethics. 2022;48(3):175–83.

Yang Q, Steinfeld A, Zimmerman J. Unremarkable AI: Fitting Intelligent Decision Support into Critical, Clinical Decision-Making Processes. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Glasgow, Scotland Uk: Association for Computing Machinery; 2019. p. Paper 238.

Avanzo M, Trianni A, Botta F, Talamonti C, Stasi M, Iori M. Artificial intelligence and the medical physicist: Welcome to the machine. Appl Sci. 2021;11(4):1–17.

Xie Y, Lu L, Gao F, He S-J, Zhao H-J, Fang Y, et al. Integration of Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Wearable Technology for Chronic Disease Management: A New Paradigm in Smart Healthcare. Current medical science. 2021;41(6):1123–33.

Stewart JE, Goudie A, Mukherjee A, Dwivedi G. Artificial intelligence-enhanced echocardiography in the emergency department. Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA. 2021;33(6):1117–20.

Petersen SE, Abdulkareem M, Leiner T. Artificial intelligence will transform cardiac imaging—opportunities and challenges. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine. 2019:133.

Miller DD. Machine Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine. Cardiol Rev. 2020;28(2):53–64.

Gandhi S, Mosleh W, Shen J, Chow CM. Automation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence in echocardiography: a brave new world. Echocardiography. 2018;35(9):1402–18.

Skaria R, Satam P, Khalpey Z. Opportunities and Challenges of Disruptive Innovation in Medicine Using Artificial Intelligence. Am J Med. 2020;133(6):e215–7.

Barrett M, Boyne J, Brandts J, Brunner-La Rocca HP, De Maesschalck L, De Wit K, et al. Artificial intelligence supported patient self-care in chronic heart failure: a paradigm shift from reactive to predictive, preventive and personalised care. EPMA Journal. 2019;10(4):445–64.

Pesapane F, Codari M, Sardanelli F. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. European radiology experimental. 2018;2(1):35.

Gama F, Tyskbo D, Nygren J, Barlow J, Reed J, Svedberg P. Implementation Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence Translation Into Health Care Practice: Scoping Review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2022;24(1):e32215-e.

Esteva A, Chou K, Yeung S, Naik N, Madani A, Mottaghi A, et al. Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision. NPJ digital medicine. 2021;4(1):1–9.

Krajcer Z. Artificial Intelligence for Education, Proctoring, and Credentialing in Cardiovascular Medicine. Texas Heart Institute journal. 2022;49(2):NA-NA.

Gaffar S, Gearhart A, Chang AC. The Next Frontier in Pediatric Cardiology: Artificial Intelligence. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2020;67(5):995–1009.

Gearhart A, Gaffar S, Chang AC. A primer on artificial intelligence for the paediatric cardiologist. Cardiol Young. 2020;30(7):934–45.

Taralunga DD, Florea BC. A Blockchain-Enabled Framework for mHealth Systems. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;21(8):2828-NA.

Arafati A, Hu P, Finn JP, Rickers C, Cheng AL, Jafarkhani H, Kheradvar A. Artificial intelligence in pediatric and adult congenital cardiac MRI: an unmet clinical need. Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy. 2019;9(Suppl 2):S310.

Feldman RC, Aldana E, Stein K. Artificial intelligence in the health care space: how we can trust what we cannot know. Stan L & Pol’y Rev. 2019;30:399.

Shaw J, Rudzicz F, Jamieson T, Goldfarb A. Artificial Intelligence and the Implementation Challenge. Journal of medical Internet research. 2019;21(7):e13659-NA.

Fenech ME, Buston O. AI in Cardiac Imaging: A UK-Based Perspective on Addressing the Ethical, Social, and Political Challenges. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020;7 (no pagination).

Sheikhtaheri A, Sadoughi F, Dehaghi ZH. Developing and Using Expert Systems and Neural Networks in Medicine: A Review on Benefits and Challenges. J Med Syst. 2014;38(9):1–6.

Asan O, Bayrak AE, Choudhury A. Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: focus on clinicians. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6): e15154.

Yang Q, Zimmerman J, Steinfeld A, Carey L, Antaki JF, Acm, editors. Investigating the Heart Pump Implant Decision Process: Opportunities for Decision Support Tools to Help2016; San Jose, CA: Assoc Computing Machinery.

Lang M, Bernier A, Knoppers BM. AI in Cardiovascular Imaging: “Unexplainable” Legal and Ethical Challenges? Can J Cardiol. 2021;38(2):225–33.

Trayanova NA, Popescu DM, Shade JK. Machine Learning in Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. Circ Res. 2021;128(4):544–66.

Alaqra AS, Kane B, Fischer-Hübner S. Machine Learning-Based Analysis of Encrypted Medical Data in the Cloud: Qualitative Study of Expert Stakeholders' Perspectives. JMIR human factors. 2021;8(3):e21810-NA.

Adedinsewo DA, Pollak AW, Phillips SD, Smith TL, Svatikova A, Hayes SN, et al. Cardiovascular disease screening in women: leveraging artificial intelligence and digital tools. Circ Res. 2022;130(4):673–90.

Wang F, Preininger AM. AI in Health: State of the Art, Challenges, and Future Directions. Yearb Med Inform. 2019;28(1):16–26.

Manlhiot C, Van den Eynde J, Kutty S, Ross HJ. A primer on the present state and future prospects for machine learning and artificial intelligence applications in cardiology. Can J Cardiol. 2021;38(2):169–84.

Itchhaporia D. Artificial intelligence in cardiology. Trends in cardiovascular medicine. 2020.

Ranka S, Reddy M, Noheria A. Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021;36(1):26–35.

Cau R, Cherchi V, Micheletti G, Porcu M, Di Cesare ML, Bassareo PP, et al. Potential Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Can It Help Clinicians in Making a Diagnosis? J Thorac Imaging. 2021;36(3):142–8.

Aristidou A, Jena R, Topol EJ. Bridging the chasm between AI and clinical implementation. The Lancet. 2022;399(10325):620.

Vollmer SJ, Mateen BA, Bohner G, Király FJ, Ghani R, Jonsson P, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2020;368(NA):l6927-NA.

Lee D, Yoon SN. Application of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies in the Healthcare Industry: Opportunities and Challenges. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(1):271-NA.

Palla K, Hyland SL, Posner K, Ghosh P, Nair B, Bristow M, et al. Intraoperative prediction of postanaesthesia care unit hypotension. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(4):623–35.

Triantafyllidis A, Kondylakis H, Katehakis D, Kouroubali A, Koumakis L, Marias K, et al. Deep Learning in mHealth for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Cancer: Systematic Review (Preprint). NA. 2021;NA(NA):NA-NA.

Langlais ÉL, Thériault-Lauzier P, Marquis-Gravel G, Kulbay M, So DY, Tanguay J-F, et al. Novel Artificial Intelligence Applications in Cardiology: Current Landscape, Limitations, and the Road to Real-World Applications. Journal of cardiovascular translational research. 2022;NA(NA):NA-NA.

Muehlematter UJ, Daniore P, Vokinger KN. Approval of artificial intelligence and machine learning-based medical devices in the USA and Europe (2015–20): a comparative analysis. The Lancet Digital health. 2021;3(3):e195–203.

Sun J-Y, Shen H, Qu Q, Sun W, Kong X. The application of deep learning in electrocardiogram: Where we came from and where we should go? International journal of cardiology. 2021;337(NA):71–8.

Fitzsimons D, Hill L, McNulty A. Back to the future: what patients, carers, nurses and doctors can gain from artificial intelligence-based heart failure solutions. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 2021;16(11):1–3.

van Assen M, Banerjee I, De Cecco CN. Beyond the artificial intelligence hype: what lies behind the algorithms and what we can achieve. J Thorac Imaging. 2020;35:S3–10.

Zhou SK, Greenspan H, Davatzikos C, Duncan JS, van Ginneken B, Madabhushi A, et al. A review of deep learning in medical imaging: Imaging traits, technology trends, case studies with progress highlights, and future promises. Proc IEEE. 2021;109(5):820–38.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Winter P, Carusi A. ‘If You’re Going to Trust the Machine, Then That Trust Has Got to Be Based on Something’:: Validation and the Co-Constitution of Trust in Developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the Early Diagnosis of Pulmonary Hypertension (PH). Science & Technology Studies. 2022.

Tarakji KG, Silva J, Chen LY, Turakhia MP, Perez M, Attia ZI, et al. Digital Health and the Care of the Patient With Arrhythmia: What Every Electrophysiologist Needs to Know. Circulation. 2020;Arrhythmia and electrophysiology. 13(11):e007953.

Feeny AK, Chung MK, Madabhushi A, Attia ZI, Cikes M, Firouznia M, et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in arrhythmias and cardiac electrophysiology. Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 2020;13(8):e007952.

van den Oever LB, Vonder M, van Assen M, van Ooijen PMA, de Bock GH, Xie XQ, Vliegenthart R. Application of artificial intelligence in cardiac CT: From basics to clinical practice. Eur J Radiol. 2020;128: 108969.

Kelly C, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado GS, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):1–9.

Loncaric F, Camara O, Piella G, Bijnens B. Integration of artificial intelligence into clinical patient management: focus on cardiac imaging. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition). 2021;74(1):72–80.

World Health O. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. p. 2021.

Reddy S, Allan S, Coghlan S, Cooper P. A governance model for the application of AI in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(3):491–7.

Roski J, Maier EJ, Vigilante K, Kane EA, Matheny ME. Enhancing trust in AI through industry self-governance. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(7):1582–90.

Ozalp H, Ozcan P, Dinckol D, Zachariadis M, Gawer A. “Digital Colonization” of Highly Regulated Industries: An Analysis of Big Tech Platforms’ Entry into Health Care and Education. Calif Manage Rev. 2022;64(4):78–107.

Banerjee S, Alsop P, Jones L, Cardinal RN. Patient and public involvement to build trust in artificial intelligence: A framework, tools, and case studies. Patterns (N Y). 2022;3(6): 100506.

Prem E. From ethical AI frameworks to tools: a review of approaches. AI and Ethics. 2023;3(3):699–716.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This publication was supported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award [Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation grant to Yale University, U01FD005938] totaling $712,431 with 100 percent funded by FDA/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by FDA/HHS, or the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Maryam Mooghali, Joseph S. Ross & Jennifer E. Miller

Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Austin M. Stroud

School of Information, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

Dong Whi Yoo

Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Barbara A. Barry & Xuan Zhu

Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Barbara A. Barry

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Alyssa A. Grimshaw

Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA

Joseph S. Ross

Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), 195 Church Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

Maryam Mooghali

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MM and JEM are the guarantors of the review. MM and JEM drafted the protocol. MM, JEM, and AAG developed the search strategy with input from all the authors. MM, AAG, AMS, and DWY screened the articles and extracted the findings. MM summarized the data and wrote the first draft of the article. AAG, AMS, BAB, DWY, JSR, JEM, and XZ critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Mooghali .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was not required. Publicly available nonclinical datasets were used. Informed consent was not needed because no patient data were used.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

Dr. Mooghali currently receives research support through Yale University from Arnold Ventures outside of the submitted work. Mr. Stroud has no competing interests. Dr. Yoo has no competing interests. Dr. Barry currently receives research support through the Mayo Clinic Department of Cardiology from Anumana, Inc. Ms. Grimshaw has no competing interests. Dr Ross reported receiving grants from the US Food and Drug Administration; Johnson and Johnson; Medical Device Innovation Consortium; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures outside the submitted work. Dr. Ross was also an expert witness at the request of relator attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled in September 2022. Dr. Zhu offers scientific input to research studies through a contracted services agreement between Mayo Clinic and Exact Sciences Corporation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Miller reported receiving grants from the US Food & Drug Administration during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from Arnold Ventures, and Scientific American and serving on the board of the nonprofit Bioethics International, and as bioethics advisor at GalateoBio outside the submitted work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., 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.

Mooghali, M., Stroud, A.M., Yoo, D.W. et al. Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24 , 247 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02653-6

Download citation

Received : 18 October 2023

Accepted : 26 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02653-6

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

• Medical devices
• Artificial intelligence
• Machine learning
• Transparency

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

ISSN: 1472-6947

• General enquiries: [email protected]

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Marketing: Literature Review

• First Online: 31 August 2024

Cite this chapter

• Bayan Aljazeeri 11 ,
• Allam Hamdan 9 , 12 &
• Mohammad Kanan 10  

Part of the book series: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control ((SSDC,volume 538))

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has revolutionized various industries, and digital marketing is no exception. The objective of this study is to conduct a comprehensive review of previous research focusing on the pivotal role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of digital marketing. AI has emerged as a powerful tool capable of transforming numerous industries, marketing being one of them. By facilitating the analysis of vast quantities of data, recognizing patterns, and enabling informed decision-making, AI has fundamentally reshaped the way businesses interact with their online customers. The present study employed a library research approach, involving the review of 40 research papers relevant to the subject matter. The selected research papers encompassed a publication period spanning from 1955 to 2023. The primary finding indicates how businesses can leverage AI to elevate customer experiences, optimize advertising campaigns, and enhance overall marketing effectiveness. The paper extensively covered the diverse applications of AI in digital marketing, such as the creation of personalized content, implementation of chatbots for customer support, utilization of predictive analytics for targeting and segmentation, and deployment of recommendation engines for generating product ideas.

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
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Hamdan, A., Alareeni, B., Hamdan, R., Dahlan, M.A.: Incorporation of artificial intelligence, Big Data, and Internet of Things (IoT): an insight into the technological implementations in business success. J. Decis. Syst. 33 (2), 195–198 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2022.2143618

International Telecommunication Union (2022) Measuring digital development. Retrieved from Facts and figures 2022: https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/2022/11/24/ff22-internet-use/

Dsouza, A., Panakaje, N.: A study on the evolution of digital marketing. Int. J. Case Stud. Bus. IT Educ. (IJCSBE) 7 (1), 95–106 (2023)

Google Scholar  

Statista: Number of worldwide social network users 2027 (2022). Retrieved from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/#:~:text=Number%20of%20global%20social%20network%20users%202017%2D2027&text=Social%20media%20usage%20is%20one,almost%20six%20billion%20in%202027

Shehadeh, M.: Digital transformation: a catalyst for sustainable business practices. Technological Innovations for Business, Education and Sustainability, pp. 1–16 (2024). ISBN 978-183753106-6, 978-183753107-3. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-106-620241003

Basnet, I.B.: Impact digital mark. organ. perform. (2023)

Ananzeh, H.: The economic consequence of corporate philanthropic donations: evidence from Jordan. J. Bus. Socio-econ. Dev. 4 (1), 37–48. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/JBSED-10-2022-0112

Smith, P.R., Zook, Z.: Marketing communications: an integrated approach (2011)

Holliman, G., Rowley, J.: Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’ perceptions of best practice. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 8 (4), 269–293 (2014)

Camilleri, M.A.: Understanding Customer Needs and Wants. Springer, Milan (2017)

Alareeni, B., Hamdan, A., Hamdan, R., Shoaib, H.M.: Marketing ‎and entrepreneurship‎: challenges and opportunities‎. J. Strateg. Mark. 1–8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2155688

Wedel, M., Kannan, P.: Marketing analytics for data-rich environments. J. Mark. 80 (6), 96–122 (2016)

Article   Google Scholar  

Thilagavathy, N., Kumar, E.P.: Artificial intelligence on digital marketing—an overview. NVEO-Nat. Volatiles Essent. Oils J. 9895–9908 (2021)

Turing, A.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59 , 433–464 (2004)

McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N., Shannon, C.E.: A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence (1955)

Wichert, A.: Principles of quantum artificial intelligence: quantum problem solving and machine learning (2020)

Pujol, O., Agell, N., Museros, L.: Artificial intelligence research and development: recent advances and applications. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (2014)

Buallay, A., Al Hawaj, A.A., Hamdan, A.: Integrated reporting and performance: a cross-country comparison of GCC Islamic and conventional banks. J. Islamic Mark. 12 (8), 1619–1636 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-08-2017-0084

Barone, A.: Digital marketing overview: types, challenges & required skills (2023). Retrieved from nvestopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/digital-marketing.asp

Shareeda, A., Al-Hashimi, M., Hamdan, A.: Smart cities and electric vehicles adoption in Bahrain. J. Decis. Syst. 30 (2–3), 321–343 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2021.1911024

Bughin, J.: Brand success in an era of digital Darwinism. J. Brand Strateg. 2 (4), 355–365 (2014)

Harraf, A., Ghura, H., Hamdan, A., Li, X.: Formal institutions and the development of entrepreneurial activity – the contingent role of corruption in emerging economies. J. Entrepreneurship Public Policy 10 (1), 15–37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-06-2020-0033

Ho, J.Y., Dempsey, M.: Viral marketing: motivations to forward online content. J. Bus. Res. 63 (9–10), 1000–1006 (2010)

Chin, H., Kim, M.: AI-based digital advertising effects: focus on customization advertising and personalization advertising. J. Korea Convergence Soc. 12 (8), 115–122 (2021)

Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K., Inman, J.J.: From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing. J. Retail. 91 (2), 174–181 (2015)

George, A.S., George, A.H.: A review of ChatGPT AI’s impact on several business sectors. Partners Univers. Int. Innov. J. 1 (1), 9–23 (2023)

Xing, X., Song, M., Duan, Y., Mou, J.: Effects of different service failure types and recovery strategies on the consumer response mechanism of chatbots. Technol. Soc. 70 , 102049 (2022)

Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53 (1), 59–68 (2010)

Albinali, E.A., Hamdan, A.: The implementation of artificial intelligence in social media marketing and its impact on consumer behavior: evidence from Bahrain. In: Alareeni, B., Hamdan, A., Elgedawy, I. (eds.) The Importance of New Technologies and Entrepreneurship in Business Development: In The Context of Economic Diversity in Developing Countries. ICBT 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 194. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69221-6_58

Makhlooqa, A., Mubarakb, M.A.: Artificial intelligence and marketing: challenges and opportunities. Technological Innovations for Business, Education and Sustainability, pp. 3–16 (2024). ISBN 978-183753106-6, 978-183753107-3. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-106-620241001

Quinton, S., Wilson, D.: Tensions and ties in social media networks: towards a model of understanding business relationship development and business performance enhancement through the use of LinkedIn. Ind. Mark. Manage. 54 , 15–24 (2016)

Granovetter, M.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78 (6), 1360–1380 (1973)

Verlegh, P., Ryu, G., Tuk, M., Feick, L.: Receiver responses to rewarded referrals: the motive inferences framework. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41 , 669–682 (2013)

Sislian, L., Jaegler, A.: The spread of social inclusion in the maritime industry: a social study. Int. J. Bus. Ethics Governance 6 (1), 38–57 (2023). https://doi.org/10.51325/ijbeg.v6i1.120

Ryan, D.: Understanding Digital Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Engaging the Digital Generation, pp. 153–155. Kogan Page Publishers (2016)

Sterne, J.: Artificial Intelligence for Marketing: Practical Applications. Wiley (2017)

Book   Google Scholar  

Saunders, M.N., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A.: Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson Education (2009)

Kurilchik, E.: Chatbots as a digital marketing communication tool: case company: Wiredelta (2017)

Milkman, K.L., Berger, J.: What makes online content viral? J. Mark. Res. 49 (2), 192–205 (2012)

Bharathi, S., Kumar, V. H.: Impact of digital transformation on impulse buying behaviour with special reference to FMCG sector in sustainable environment. In: Edward J.A., Jaheer Mukthar, K.P., Dhruvakumar, M., Murugesan, T.K. (eds.) Digital Transformation for Business Sustainability. Contributions to Environmental Sciences Innovative Business Technology. Springer, Singapore (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7058-2_4

Jeble, S., Kumari, S., Patil, Y.: Role of big data and predictive analytics. Int. J. Autom. Logistics 2 (4), 307–331 (2016)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ahlia University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain

Allam Hamdan

University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Mohammad Kanan

STC, Manama, Bahrain

Bayan Aljazeeri

School of Business, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allam Hamdan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

College of Business of Finance, Ahlia University, Manama, Bahrain

Department of Business Studies, Box Hill College Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait

Arezou Harraf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Aljazeeri, B., Hamdan, A., Kanan, M. (2024). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Marketing: Literature Review. In: Hamdan, A., Harraf, A. (eds) Business Development via AI and Digitalization. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 538. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62102-4_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62102-4_13

Published : 31 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-62101-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-62102-4

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (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