sample of literature review for research

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• 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 Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 5, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

28 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Search strategies and Databases
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to organise the review
• Library summary

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: Search strategies and Databases
• Next: Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Aug 1, 2024 4:46 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

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

Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach

• University of Garut

• UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

• Universitas Pasundan

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Andreas Ahrens

• Anastasija Bikova
• Irina Abjalkiene

• Roshimah Shamsudin
• Wijianto Wijianto
• M. Furqon Hidayatullah
• Slamet Riyadi
• Bramastia Bramastia

• WENDY MATHEVULA
• SELLO MOABELO

• Puspa Negara
• Adelia Hanny Tiara

• Harumi Iring Primastuti

• Amisha Gunderia
• Priyansh Agarwal
• V. B. Nikam
• A.N. Bambole
• Nur Holifah
• Miskan Miskan
• J CLEAN PROD

• Kira Schabram

• Steve Counsell
• Jose Galvan

• Ros Carnwell

• Joyce Colling
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Literature Review Example

A literature review is a summary of the existing knowledge and research on a particular subject. by identifying gaps in the literature, it provides a foundation for future research. as such, it’s a crucial first step in any research project..

What is a literature review?

A literature review serves several purposes:

• identifies knowledge gaps
• evaluates the quality of existing research
• provides a foundation for newly presented research

Looking at existing examples of literature reviews is beneficial to get a clear understanding of what they entail. Find examples of a literature review by using an academic search engine (e.g. Google Scholar). As a starting point, search for your keyword or topic along with the term "literature review".

Example of literature review

Identify the research question or topic, making it as narrow as possible. In this example of a literature review, we review the anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) activity of Piper methysticum , or Kava .

Let's walk through the steps in the process with this literature review example.

Define the research question

First, identify the research question or topic, making it as narrow as possible. In this literature review example, we're examining the effects of urbanization on the migration of birds.

Search for relevant literature

Searching for relevant studies is arguably the most important aspect of the literature review.

Start by identifying keywords and phrases related to the topic and use them to search academic journals and databases ( Google Scholar , BASE , PubMed , etc.). For our example, you might start with "the effects of urbanization on bird migration", but after researching the field, discover that other terms like "avian migration" and "avian populations" are more commonly used.

Search for your keywords in Litmaps to find some initial articles to explore the field from. You can then use Litmaps to find additinal sources and curate a whole library of literature on your topic.

Search for your keywords in Litmaps, and select a starting article. This will return a visualization containing suggestions for relevant articles on your literature review topic. Review these to start curating your library.

Evaluate the sources

Evaluate the relevance and quality of the sources found by reading abstracts of the most relevant articles. Additionally, consider the publication venue, year of publication and other salient measures to identify the reliability and relevance of the source.

Read and analyze the sources

Take notes on the key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks used in the studies.

Use a research-friendly note-taking software, like Obsidian , that provide #tags to keep track of key concepts.

Organize the literature

Organize the literature according to themes, subtopics, or categories, which will help outline the layout of the literature review.

Tag keywords using a tool like Obsidian to help organize papers into subtopics for the review.

Write the literature review

Summarize and synthesize the findings from the sources analyzed. Start with an introduction that defines the research question, followed by the themes, subtopics, or categories identified. After that, provide a discussion or conclusion that addresses any gaps in the literature to motivate future research. Lastly, edit and revise your review to ensure it is well-structured, clear, and concise. The example below is from a review paper, which includes a table comparing the different sources evaluated. Such tables can be useful if you are conducting a comprehensive review.

If you're conducting a comprehensive review, you can include a table of sources reviewed in your process, like the one above from this publication .

Cite and reference the sources

Lastly, cite and reference the sources used in the literature review. Consider any referencing style requirements of the institution or journal you're submitting to. APA is the most common. However, you may need to familiarize yourself with other citation styles such as MLA, Chicago, or MHRA depending on your venue. See the image below for a literature review example APA of references. To cite references you've saved in Litmaps, you can move your saved articles from Litmaps to a reference manager (i.e. Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, etc.) and then export their bibliography from there. Here's how to export articles from Litmaps.

Use a reference manager tool like Zotero to easily export which makes them easy to manage, like in this APA literature review example.

A successful literature review tells a brief story about the topic at hand and leaves the reader a clear notion of what has been covered. Most importantly, a literature review addresses any gaps in the field and frames newly presented research. Understand the key steps and look at literature review examples in order to create a high quality review.

Header image Forest & Kim Starr, used under Creative Commons BY 3.0

WTO / Education / 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

A literature review is a compilation of current knowledge on a particular topic derived from the critical evaluation of different scholarly sources such as books, articles, and publications, which is then presented in an organized manner to relate to a specific research problem being investigated.

It highlights the methods, relevant theories, and gaps in existing research on a particular subject. It can be both a summary and synthesis of information on a specific topic. A summary reiterates key information from scholarly sources, while synthesis is a new interpretation or combination of new and old material. 

As a synthesis, it can outline the intellectual progression of knowledge in a particular field or topic, which might involve stating key debates throughout the advancement period.  

Literature Review Examples

Purpose of Literature Review

Literature reviews have different purposes in scholarly articles, research papers , and books, depending on the discipline at hand. First and foremost, reviews are generally meant to showcase the extensive research carried out by an author on a particular topic and their findings, which will form the foundation of the research. It then summarizes the information to show the author’s familiarity with the topic in question.

The review also demonstrates the relationship between the topic being investigated and other topics that were under consideration. Finally, it outlines the gaps in the previous works of other scholars, which create areas of research.

Literature reviews provide a new interpretation of previous scholarly publications and aim to resolve conflicting studies done in the past. In addition, identifying existing gaps in a particular research area illustrates the starting point of the research.

Literature Review vs. Academic Research Paper

A research paper presents new ideas, arguments, and approaches toward a particular topic. The conclusions of a research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of raw data collected by the author and an original study. On the other hand, a literature review is based on the findings of other publications. Thus, the review highlights the author’s understanding of a topic based on the previously conducted research. It is part of a research paper.

Where, When, and Why

The need for a literature review in a publication will vary from one situation to the other and the field/discipline of research. These two factors determine what is expected from the lit review. For example, a scientific review will be more analytical on the methods and results of previous research. In contrast, a philosophical review will be more argumentative, highlighting the discrepancies and correspondences between scholars.

It can either be part of a publication or a stand-alone document. As part of a research publication, it is often placed after the introduction to the topic outlining knowledge about a particular topic and critical sources that formed the foundation of the research. As an individual document, it is prepared by students as part of course study to aid the students in familiarizing themselves with different topics in their field of study.

Lit reviews also guide students to help them synthesize theoretical methodologies and frameworks to adopt in academic research . As a publication, literature reviews are used to document existing information about a topic for readers (other scholars) to go through for whatever reasons they may have. Published studies are essentially helpful to new scholars getting into any field of research.

Types of Literature Review

Before looking into how to write a literature review, it is vital to understand the different types. The type will usually depend on the objective approach of the author.

Common types are:  

Argumentative review

An argumentative review is adopted when the research paper or publication is meant to take a contrarian viewpoint on a particular subject. The review analyses an existing argument, philosophical problem, assumption, or conclusion outlined in different studies with an objective to either support or oppose the argument. 

Integrative review

An integrative review integrates secondary data to develop new perspectives and frameworks on a topic. This is more prevalent in research that does not involve primary data. In addition, integrative reviews are more familiar with social sciences.       

Historical review

Historical reviews are used when scholars or authors place a particular idea, concept, theory, or research in a historical context. It examines the idea, theory, or issue from the first time it was discussed and outlines its evolution throughout a given period.  

Methodological review

Methodological reviews look at how a specific theory, concept, results, or findings were developed. Therefore, methodological reviews will analyze the different methods used by different scholars to arrive at conclusions or knowledge about the topic being investigated.

Some of the methods scholars use in different disciplines to obtain information are interviewing, sampling, practical experiments/data collection, research approaches, critical thinking, social experiments, etc.

Methodological reviews are hence used to discuss tested methods of research and ethics that a researcher should be aware of before undertaking their investigations.  

Systematic review

A systematic review is a more detailed and comprehensive review compared to other types of lit reviews. It highlights any existing research evidence associated with a clearly defined research problem or question. The evidence is collected, analyzed, and reported in a summarized but detailed manner. Systematic reviews are popularly presented as a cause-and-effect structure.

Theoretical review

A theoretical review delves into the different theories regarding a particular issue, challenge, concept, or theory. It identifies their inadequacy in explaining the issue or concept at hand. The review then identifies the relationships between the identified theories, and the degree of research done and poses novel hypotheses to be investigated.

Organization of a Literature Review

How an author organizes a literature review will depend on what they aim to achieve. As a consequence, there are multiple ways of organizing it which are discussed below:

Chronological 

A chronological format outlines knowledge on a particular topic based on when the scholarly source of information was published. Starting with the earliest followed up to the most recent chronological order. This format should be used if there is a clear chronological order in the development of the information; therefore, it will not be applicable in some cases. Instead, key turning points, patterns, and events that impacted the direction of the knowledge should be outlined.  

By publication

It can be organized in the scholarly publications reviewed by the author, scholar, or student. The by-publication format should only improve the review and facilitate what the author aims to accomplish. 

Scholars or students can adopt a dominant trend in research, such as history, developmental stages, steps involved in a process, etc.

Methodological

A methodological format is based on the methods used by the researcher. Thus, the order of contents in the lit review will depend on the method they will use to carry out their research, knowledge obtained from the first method appears first, and the rest of the information follows in the same order according to the methods used by the author.  

Literature reviews organized in a thematic format revolve around the subject being investigated in no order. It is, therefore, ordinarily up to the researcher or author to determine how they intend to outline the information. A thematic format will crossover from one period and publication to another, but can sometimes incorporate a chronological order.

Theoretical

Literature reviews organized in a theoretical format have their contents organized in an abstract framework established by the author to discuss different concepts, theories, and concepts and how they relate to the research at hand.

Additional sections

Depending on the objective, other sections do not fit under conventional lit review formats that one may need to add. Below are some of the sections that authors or students can include in the lit review:

• Current situation: The review can have information about the current state of things regarding the topic at hand to facilitate further understanding.
• History: Researchers can summarize the subject under investigation, literature, or concept if the review is not already in chronological format.
• Selection methods: Lit reviews are known to outline the methods or criteria used in selecting the way to present information and scholarly sources referenced in the review.
• Standards: it can also include the standards used in choosing the format to present information in the review and the scholarly literature used in the research.
• Further questions for research: The review can include questions emanating from the review and how the researcher will further explore their research to address the queries raised.

Literature Review Samples

Considerations Before Writing a Literature Review

Preparation is essential when it comes to writing. The objective should be to come up with a review that satisfactorily explores the topic being discussed. The following considerations are steps towards that if incorporated into the writing process:

Authors should seek clarification from mentors or supervisors before commencing the writing process. First, determine what is expected from the lit review. The type and number of sources to be used, the assignment (summarize, synthesize, or critique), and the type of information provided should be clear.

Find models

You should review literature from other authors in the same discipline and evaluate how those authors presented their lit reviews. Previous lit reviews can be used as guides that point authors in the right direction when writing their lit reviews.

Narrow your topic

It is always advantageous to narrow down the research topic to a specific area of research; that way, the number of sources can also be reduced. Even though conducting research will usually involve extensive research on all available materials about a particular topic, having a well-defined topic simplifies the task at hand.

Current sources

Determine if the research project or discipline ought to be based on the most recent findings or information. It is common for knowledge to become obsolete, especially in disciplines where discoveries and new inventions are made fast. If the lit review should be based on current knowledge, limit the sources to the most recent literature. Some disciplines will typically have a limit on how old the sources should be.  

How to Write a Literature Review (Expert Guide)

Once all pre-writing considerations have been taken into account, it is time to write the document. At this point, you should already be aware of what you wish to accomplish with the literature review, and the steps to writing an exemplary lit review are mentioned below:

Problem formulation

First and foremost, clearly define the topic (research area) to be investigated. For students, this will sometimes be given as an assignment. However, the research could be an academic project, which means that the author has to come up with the problem and define it themselves.

Search for relevant studies

Once the problem is clearly expressed, you should search for studies related to the topic, concept, theory, or idea and questions surrounding the topic. Most stand-alone lit reviews will generally attempt to answer a more concentrated question. On the internet, literature can be searched using keywords related to the research area. In addition to keywords, include vital variables such as synonyms and associated terms. The inclusion of Boolean operators and, or not, is also used to narrow down results to more specific publications.

Familiar sources for publications are:

• Google Scholar
• Library catalogue
• Econ lit (economics)
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Inspec (physics, engineering, and computer science )
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)

Before selecting relevant studies, go through their abstract and determine if they fit the scope needed in the investigation. Use a list to note down any chosen works. Select landmark sources in the discipline.

Evaluation of sources/data

The next step is the evaluation stage . Evaluation involves a lot of reading. Evaluation can be done in two stages; overall skimming and thorough reading. During the second stage of this step, be critical, ask questions, and take many notes.

Some of the questions authors or researchers should ask themselves are:

• What is the author’s objective? What problem, concept, or theory are they putting across?
• What are the main concepts?
• What are the methodologies used by the author to arrive at the results and conclusions?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the results and conclusions?

Use credible sources. Most cited sources are preferred as they indicate their influence in the field. Also, keep track of the citations to be later incorporated.

Identify themes, debates, and gaps

While reading the sources, identify key patterns, themes, debates/arguments, and gaps in each literature. These elements help tie the literature to the topic under investigation. Look for consistent patterns, themes, questions, challenges, methods, and inconsistencies in the same. Consistencies present critical information for consideration, while inconsistencies present opportunities for research areas.

Outline the structure

Formatting is part and parcel of a well-written work. Selecting the structure should start by creating an outline with all the information that will go into the lit review, then consider the different types of structures and select the most suitable. Next, take the basic structure of the introduction, body, and conclusion into consideration and start work from there. 

Analysis and interpretation 

Lastly, perform an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the information obtained from the scholarly research and put it into writing. The summarized, synthesized, and critically evaluated information is then written down in well-structured paragraphs that follow the chosen structure. Transition words are used to draw comparisons, connections, and contrasts.

Format 

Ordinarily, a literature review will have three key components: introduction, body, and conclusion. These components should appear in the document in the following order:

Introduction

An introduction should inform the reader which topic is being studied. It gives the reader an overall idea of the purpose and focus of the document. The introduction lets the reader know beforehand the key things that will be highlighted in the document. Therefore, the introduction should be brief and precise.

The next item is the body, where the primary purpose of the lit review is fulfilled. The body should take critical information from all the sources used and comprehensively present them. This is where the author reports the extensive analysis and interpretation results that they gathered from all the sources they reviewed. The body should be categorized into themes, ideas, and concepts within the main topic.

Lastly, a summary of what the lit review entails should be provided as a conclusion. The critical points obtained from examining the sources should be written down and linked to the primary subject of the review. Key points are those that have the most outstanding contribution to the research.

Studies used should be screened based on provenance (author’s credentials or credibility), methodology, objectivity, persuasiveness, and value related to the topic at hand.

Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review

To improve the delivery of information, there are certain elements that authors can incorporate. They are:

Use evidence

The lit review’s findings, interpretations, and general contents should be based on actual evidence or credible literature. Using citations is evidence of authentic information.

Be selective

There will always be a lot of information available from the reviewed sources. Authors should therefore be selective and discuss the key points that focus on the topic. Not all information must be included in the review.  

Word-for-word quotes are acceptable . This is even more so if a critical point or author-specific terminology or knowledge cannot be paraphrased. Quotes should, however, be used sparingly.

Summarize and synthesize

The information obtained from the sources should be summarized, and the author should use it to synthesize new arguments, concepts, or ideas related to their research.

Keep your voice

The literature review should reflect the author’s voice as it is a review of other people’s works. This can be done by starting and ending the paragraphs with an original voice, ideas, and wordings.

Use caution while paraphrasing

Any paraphrased information should be conveyed accurately and in the author’s words. A citation must always be done, even when paraphrasing has been done.

Proofread before submitting or publishing. Go through the document a few times and make the necessary changes. The review should be within the applicable guidelines. Check for language and any other errors and edit accordingly.

Do’s and Don’ts for a Literature Review 

Every researcher wants to introduce their readers to a particular topic in an informative and engaging manner. Below are tips that can be used to this effect.

The following things should be opted by the researcher when writing a lit review:

• Find a focus: Authors should take a direction, idea, concept, or argument and stick to it. The information conveyed should then be made to align with the chosen point of focus. Thus, the review is not simply a list of analyzed sources, but a detailed summary of how different sources have a focal point (intertwined).
• Well-chosen sources: The quality of the information will, to a great extent, be determined by the quality of sources used. Therefore, take time to select suitable sources and more value will be added to the review.
• Create an annotated bibliography: Creating an annotated bibliography is recommended as one reads their sources. The bibliography keeps track of sources and takes notes. This information can be used when writing the final lit review.
• Synthesize research: Information obtained from the relevant studies should be combined to come up with new or original ideas. You should present a new domain based on previous sources’ knowledge, not just restating the information.
• Argumentative approach: Well-written literature reviews will often argue to support an author’s stance on a particular topic. The author can choose to address how the author’s work is filling a particular gap or support one of the scholar’s arguments and perception towards a particular topic. However, this argumentative approach will not work in all situations; it is usually discipline-specific. 
• Convey it to the reader: It should let the reader know the document’s main idea, concept, or argument. This can be done by including a simple statement that compels the reader to think precisely and know what to expect.
• Break out your disciplinary box: The research will often be multi-disciplinary. Literature reviews should then collect interdisciplinary information from multiple sources as they add novel dynamics to the topic under investigation. It should be noted that this does not imply that the researcher should substitute the literature from the topic’s discipline with that from other disciplines. This is usually an improvement strategy that adds substance to the review.
• Look for repeated patterns: Be attentive to pick out repeated ideas, findings, and concepts from different scholars as they will often illustrate agreed research dead-end or a scholarly conclusion.
• Don’t just review for content: When reviewing the literature, examine the content and other writing and presentation techniques. Look out for unique ways information has been presented, methods used, consistent citations, and non-textual elements such as graphs, and figures used to present information. In addition, the researcher identifies theories used to predict, explain, or understand phenomena within the discipline.
• Search Web of Science and Google Scholar: Conduct citation tracking about the leading scholars already identified in the search process. Scholars cited by multiple scholars outside the principal discipline will generally indicate that there are no new publications on the topic.

The following don’ts should be avoided:

• Do not select studies that are not directly related to the topic being investigated.
• Avoid rushing when identifying and selecting sources to use to research the problem.
• Avoid the use of secondary analytical sources. Instead, opt to use sources with primary research studies or data. Secondary analytical sources will often cite primary analytical sources; research should refer to them instead.
• Do not accept other scholarly findings, theories, or interpretations without critically examining and critiquing them.
• Researchers should not outline the search procedures used to identify scholarly sources for reviewing purposes.
• Avoid including isolated statistical findings without illustrating how they were arrived at using chi-squared or meta-analytic methods.
• Do not review studies that only validate the assumptions, stances, and concepts of your thesis; consider contradicting works with alternative and conflicting stances.

Frequently Asked Questions

It is written by researchers, authors, and students who must study literature to gather knowledge on a particular topic they are interested in.

It should be placed right after the introduction of the dissertation. It places the research in a scholarly context by summarizing existing knowledge on the particular topic.

Researchers and authors are not limited in terms of how many sources they can review. Students will usually have a given number of sources to review as an assignment. However, the number of sources referenced in a lit review will vary from one topic or discipline to the other. Some topics have a vast catalog of available sources, while others have minimal sources, especially emerging issues. It is, however, advised that each key point discussed should have at least 2-3 references/sources. For example, a 10-page lit review will have an average of 30 references.

About This Article

Was this helpful?

Great! Tell us more about your experience

Not up to par help us fix it, keep reading.

Budget , Education

Free school budget templates (excel | word | pdf).

Education , Log Sheets

How to make a reading log (32 free templates & ideas).

45 Free Balancing Chemical Equations Worksheets (PDF)

Charts , Personal

Finding your exercise heart rate (free charts by gender), thank you for your feedback.

Your Voice, Our Progress. Your feedback matters a lot to us.

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3
• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: FAMU Writing Center >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

• Literature review example analysis
• Information and services
• Student support
• Study skills and learning advice
• Study skills and learning advice overview
• Assignment writing
• How to write a literature review

This example shows how a literature review from a PhD thesis can be analysed for its structure, purpose and content.

Three sections of the thesis are analysed to show the:

• relationship between the introduction and the literature review
• structure and purpose of dedicated literature review chapters
• inclusion of literature review in other chapters of the thesis.

Access the thesis

Co-witnesses and the effects of discussion on eyewitness memory by Helen M Paterson

Overview of thesis (introduction)

This introductory section is less than two pages long.

The first paragraph:

• states the overall objective of the thesis
• defines the introduced term
• provides broad motivation for interest in the area
• introduces the sections of the thesis that will address the overall objective.

The other paragraphs describe the content and purpose of each section of the thesis.

Literature review

The literature review is made of up of two chapters.

Chapter 1: Literature review of relevant research

The overall goals of this chapter are to firstly establish the significance of the general field of study, and then identify a place where a new contribution could be made.

The bulk of the chapter critically evaluates the methodologies used in this field to identify the appropriate approach for investigating the research questions.

Chapter 2: Theoretical explanations of memory conformity

Chapter 5, Study 3: Co-Witness Contamination

This chapter has the following structure:

• Introduction
• Discussion.

The introduction introduces the particular study to be reported on, and includes a three-and-a-half page literature review.

The literature review in this chapter:

• links back to the relevant general findings of the earlier literature review chapters
• briefly reviews the broad motivation for this study
• identifies that two previously used methodologies in this field will be compared to resolve questions about the findings of previous studies which had only used a single methodology
• uses previous literature to generate specific hypotheses to test
• reviews additional literature to provide a justification for a second objective to be investigated in the study reported on in this chapter.

Learning Advisers

Our advisers can help undergraduate and postgraduate students in all programs clarify ideas from workshops, help you develop skills and give feedback on assignments.

How a Learning Adviser can help

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Chemistry and Chemical Biology Resources

Literature review.

• Getting Started
• Chemistry journals and databases
• Find Dissertations and Theses
• Find Conference Proceedings
• Find Technical Reports
• Managing Citations
• Research Data Management
• Managing Your Academic Identity  
• Helpful Tools

Reviewing the Literature: Why do it?

• Personal: To familiarize yourself with a new area of research, to get an overview of a topic, so you don't want to miss something important, etc.
• Required writing for a journal article, thesis or dissertation, grant application, etc.

Literature reviews vary; there are many ways to write a literature review based on discipline, material type, and other factors.

Background:

• Literature Reviews - UNC Writing Center
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  - What is a literature review? What purpose does it serve in research? What should you expect when writing one? - NCSU Video

Where to get help (there are lots of websites, blogs , articles,  and books on this topic) :

• The Center for writing and Communicating Ideas (CWCI)
• (these are non-STEM examples: dissertation guidance , journal guidelines )
• How to prepare a scientific doctoral dissertation based on research articles (2012)
• Writing a graduate thesis or dissertation (2016)
• The good paper : a handbook for writing papers in higher education (2015)
• Proposals that work : a guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (2014)
• Theses and dissertations : a guide to planning, research, and writing (2008)
• Talk to your professors, advisors, mentors, peers, etc. for advice

READ related material and pay attention to how others write their literature reviews:

• Dissertations
• Journal articles
• Grant proposals
• << Previous: Find Technical Reports
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2023 2:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/CCB

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ 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:

• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively
• How to Cite Social Media Sources in Academic Writing? 
• What is the Importance of a Concept Paper and How to Write It 

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., 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), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal....

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2024

Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung)

• Fabrizio Citarella 1 , 2 ,
• Kazuki Takada 3 ,
• Priscilla Cascetta 4 ,
• Pierfilippo Crucitti 2 , 5 ,
• Roberta Petti 5 , 6 ,
• Bruno Vincenzi 1 , 2 ,
• Giuseppe Tonini 1 , 2 ,
• Francesco M. Venanzi 7 , 8 ,
• Alessandra Bulotta 7 , 8 ,
• Sara Oresti 7 , 8 ,
• Carlo Greco 2 , 9 ,
• Sara Ramella 2 , 9 ,
• Lucio Crinò 10 ,
• Angelo Delmonte 10 ,
• Roberto Ferrara 7 , 8 ,
• Massimo Di Maio 11 ,
• Fiorella Gurrieri 2 , 6 &
• Alessio Cortellini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1209-5735 1 , 2 , 12  

Journal of Translational Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  714 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

177 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Compared to other malignancies, few studies have investigated the role of family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with lung cancer, yielding largely heterogeneous results. We performed a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching the PubMed and Scopus databases from their inception to November 25, 2023, to identify studies reporting on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer. A total of 53 articles were included, most with a retrospective design and encompassing a variety of geographical areas and ethnicities.

Thirty studies (56.6%) assessed patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while 17 studies (32.1%) assessed patients with mixed histologies. Overall, the rates of FHC ranged from 8.3 to 68.9%, and the rates of family history of lung cancer ranged from 2 to 46.8%. Twenty-seven studies investigated FHC as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, with more than half reporting an increased risk for subjects with FHC. Five studies reported on the potential role of FHC in determining clinical outcomes, and twelve studies examined the relationship between FHC and germline mutations. Notably, only one study reported a significantly increased rate of germline mutations, including ATM , BRCA2 , and TP53 , for patients with a family history of lung cancer compared to those without, but both groups had a low prevalence of mutations (< 1%).

The FAHIC—Lung (NCT06196424) is the first cross-sectional/prospective study specifically developed to identify FHC patterns and within-family clusters of other risk factors, including smoking, to guide patients with NSCLC to systematic genetic counseling. Acknowledging the largely heterogeneous results of our systematic review and considering the clinical implications of detecting pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), the FAHIC-lung study aims to identify patients potentially enriched with PGVs/likely PGVs to direct them to germline screening outside of the research setting.

Introduction

Familial aggregation and inherited predisposition have been increasingly investigated in multiple cancer types. In breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal malignancies, international guidelines recommend genetic counselling in patients showing risk criteria for syndromes of inherited susceptibility to cancer, as aggregations with other malignancies have been widely described within families of these patient populations [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

With a predicted number of death of about 160 000 cases in 2023 in Europe and 127 070 in US [ 4 , 5 ], Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) still remains a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. A positive smoking history represents the main risk factor [ 6 ], while environmental factors such as exposure to radon, asbestosis and air pollution have been linked to lung cancer among never smokers [ 7 , 8 , 9 ].

Few studies have investigated the impact of a positive family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with NSCLC, describing the malignancies that can occur among relatives of patients with NSCLC, while only few and rare genetic syndromes associated with inherited germline genetic mutations, such as the Li-Fraumeni, have been directly linked to lung cancer risk [ 10 ]. Most of the studies did not provide information on the potential within-family clusters of other risk factors, including exposure to tobacco smoking, environmental carcinogens, and other geographical/epidemiological factors. Additionally, retrospective approaches to this topic are heavily impacted by recall bias and misclassification [ 11 , 12 ].

To underline the importance and potential clinical implications of investigating family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a recent retrospective study conducted in a cohort of 7.788 patients with NSCLC, who underwent commercially available germline genetic testing and reported an FHC of 71%, found that pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) or likely PGVs were present in 14.9% of the cases. Additionally, 2.9% of the cases carried a single PGV in a gene associated with autosomal recessive inheritance. Among positive patients, 61.3% carried a PGV/likely PGV in DNA damage and response (DDR) genes, and 95.1% of them harbored a PGV in genes with potential clinical implications, including BRCA2 (2.8%), CHEK2 (2.1%), ATM (1.9%), TP53 (1.3%), BRCA1 (1.2%), and EGFR (1.0%) [ 13 ].

In this manuscript, we present the results of a systematic review of the available evidence on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer, and the design of the FAHIC-lung study (NCT06196424), a cross-sectional study that aims to prospectively describe the FHC and the potential within-family distribution of smoking and other risk factors, to identify patients more likely to be carriers of PGVs or likely PGVs.

Systematic review—methods

Literature search strategy and study selection criteria.

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases from their inception date to November 25, 2023, to identify potentially relevant articles. The search terms were “non-small cell lung cancer or NSCLC,” “family history,” “lung cancer,” and “risk.”

The inclusion criteria for the study selection were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with NSCLC of any stage; (2) available information on the family history of cancer for the included population (e.g., prevalence and type of family history). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) lack of information on the family history of cancer; (2) studies not published in English; and (3) case reports.

As this study was a systematic review, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), with the registration code CRD4202450742 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024507422 ).

Data extraction and data synthesis

Two authors (F.C. and K.T.) performed the literature search and evaluated the eligibility of studies using the PICO (patients, interventions, comparison, and outcome) framework following the PRISMA criteria. Assuming a certain heterogeneity in the results, we adopted a textual narrative synthesis approach to summarize the included publications [ 14 ]. In view of that, we did not establish specific criteria for data synthesis (e.g., the minimum number of studies or level of consistency required for synthesis).

F.C. and T.K. independently reviewed and extracted data from the published papers, including first author, journal name, and year of publication. The prevalence (as a rate) of family history of cancer was summarized in a master table, along with the type of family history collected (e.g., lung-cancer specific vs. family history of any malignancy), study design, study population characteristics, smoking status of study participants and screened relatives (if available), primary tumor type (e.g., NSCLC, small cell lung cancer [SCLC], or others), number of patients included, and disease stage (e.g., early stage vs. advanced stage, if available). Study characteristics, context, and findings were summarized, and similarities/differences across studies were described in detail. Disagreements between the two authors (F.C. and K.T.) were discussed and resolved with a third independent author (A.C.).

Systematic review—results

We identified a total of 198 potentially relevant articles from the PubMed and Scopus online databases through an initial search strategy. After excluding 41 duplicate articles, we screened and reviewed the titles and abstracts of 157 articles, resulting in 54 being assessed for eligibility. Finally, a total of 53 articles were included in this systematic review. The flow diagram of the study selection process is shown in Fig.  1 while the whole search strategy with publications assessed at each step (identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion) is available as supplementary material (search strategy).

Flow diagram of the studies selection process according to the PRISMA guidelines

Overall, the vast majority of the studies had a retrospective design, with most of them being case–control or observational retrospective studies, with only one cross-sectional study [ 15 ] and one prospective study [ 16 ]. Study populations encompassed a variety of geographical areas/ethnicities, with 23 studies (43.4%) enrolling Asian patients, 13 studies (24.5%) enrolling patients with multiple ethnicities (all with a majority of white patients), 11 studies (20.7%) including non-specified ethnicities, and six studies (11.3%) including other populations. Even the included histology types showed heterogeneity, with 30 studies (56.6%) assessing patients with NSCLC, 17 studies (32.1%) assessing patients with a mixed type of lung cancer including small cell lung cancer (SCLC), four studies (7.5%) assessing other/unspecified types of lung cancer, one study (1.9%) assessing patients with adenocarcinoma, and one study (1.9%) assessing patients with EGFR -positive adenocarcinoma only.

FHC was collected through questionnaires in only three studies [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], while none of them used ad-hoc questionnaires specifically developed to collect FHC and the within-family distribution of other risk factors, including smoking. Twenty-five studies (47.2%) assessed family history (FH) by collecting all malignancies reported among relatives, 21 studies (39.6%) assessed FH of lung cancer, three studies (5.7%) assessed FHC and FH of lung cancer separately, three studies (5.7%) assessed FH of smoking-related and smoking-unrelated cancers, and two studies (3.8%) assessed FH of pre-specified types of cancer. The degree of relatedness ranged from first to second degree, although it was not reported for the majority of the included studies. One study reported on the smoking status among the relatives of study participants [ 20 ] and one study included the assessment of environmental factors (coal exposure) among the risk factors for lung cancer [ 21 ].

Overall, the rate of FHC in patients with lung cancer ranged from 8.3 [ 22 ] to 68.9% [ 20 ], while the rates of FH of lung cancer from 2 [ 23 ] to 46.8% [ 21 ]. Some studies enrolled cohorts of patients potentially enriched for FHC, such as 11 studies which assessed female patients only reporting FHC ranging from 7.7 [ 24 ] to 59.4% [ 25 ] and FH of lung cancer ranging from 6.2 [ 26 ] to 28% [ 27 ], four studies which specifically assessed never/light smoker patients only, reporting FHC ranging from 29.1 [ 28 ] to 68.9 [ 20 ], two studies assessing patients with small aggressive NSCLC, one study assessing male patients only, one study assessing smokers specifically, and one study assessing patients aged ≤ 45 years. A synoptic table with organization of results is available as supplementary file 1.

Studies investigating FHC as a risk factor for lung cancer

Overall, 27 studies investigated FHC as a potential risk factor for lung cancer (Table  1 ) [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Six out of 11 studies (54.5%) that investigated the role of FHC as a whole or in pre-specified type of cancers reported an increased risk of developing lung cancer for patients with FHC, while 11 out of 16 studies (68.7%) that investigated the role of FH of lung cancer reported a significant association.

One study reported a more pronounced increased risk for women aged ≤ 45 years and a synergistic effect of smoking and FHC in increasing the risk of lung cancer [ 29 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was specifically associated with an increased risk of early on set lung cancer (< 55 years old) [ 17 ]. One study that failed to demonstrate an association between FHC and lung cancer diagnosis, reported a significant effect for patients in whom at least one relative with cancer was diagnosed < 50 years of age [ 20 ], while one study that failed to demonstrate an association between FH of lung cancer and lung cancer risk, reported a significant effect for female patients only [ 42 ].

One study confirmed that FH of lung cancer was associated with risk of lung cancer in both the whole study population and among smokers [ 37 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was more strongly associated with lung cancer risk in case of first/second degree of relatedness compared to collateral relatives [ 40 ].

Studies investigating the potential impact of FHC on clinical outcomes.

Five studies reported on the potential role of FHC in determining clinical outcomes (Table  2 ) [ 19 , 28 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. One study reported no association between FH of lung cancer and outcomes [ 48 ], two studies reported a differential effect for FHC and FH of lung cancer [ 28 , 49 ] and one study reported a decreased risk of death for patients with FHC [ 50 ]. Similarly, one study reported improving outcomes from PD-1 immunotherapy with increasing burden of FHC [ 52 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and germline mutations.

Overall, 12 studies reported on the potential relationship between FHC and germline mutations (Table  3 ) [ 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Two studies did not show an enrichment of the germline mutations/polymorphisms of interest in patients with FHC [ 53 , 55 ], while three studies suggested a potential enrichment [ 46 , 54 , 57 ], with only one of them specifically reporting an increased rate of germline mutations including ATM, BRCA2 and TP53 for patients with family history of lung cancer compared to those with no FH [ 46 ]. Two studies reported a significant effect of the germline status in increasing the risk of lung cancer among patients with no FHC [ 33 , 36 ], while in three other studies the effect was independent of FHC [ 39 , 44 , 46 ]. One study showed a synergistic effect in increasing the risk of lung cancer of XRCC3/XRCC4 variants and FHC [ 37 ]. Two studies investigated the potential impact of germline polymorphisms on clinical outcomes, one showing an association between hOGG1 single nucleotide polymorphisms and worse survival specifically in patients without FHC [ 51 ], the other showing multifaceted effects of germline NOTCH4 polymorphisms depending on the FHC status [ 56 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and lung cancer somatic features.

Seven studies reported on the potential association between FHC and lung cancer somatic features (Table  4 ) [ 15 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Three studies did not confirm significant associations between FHC and somatic microsatellite instability status [ 58 ], somatic DDR genes status [ 52 ], or KRAS mutational status [ 59 ], while 2 studies reported a significant association between FHC and EGFR mutation [ 60 , 61 ]. In addition, another study reported an association between FHC and the occurrence of multiple somatic mutations in patients tested for multiple genes [ 62 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and other lung cancer features.

Nine studies included in this subgroup reported on associations between FHC and other lung cancer features (Table  5 ) [ 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. One study reported a link between younger age at diagnosis female gender and FHC [ 63 ], one study reported an increased prevalence of FH of breast cancer among female patients with lung cancer [ 64 ], while another study reported a 10-years increasing trend over time for the prevalence of FHC [ 22 ]. Importantly, one study reported a significant association between FHC and smoking [ 19 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was more frequent among young women, with synergistic effect with smoking and coil exposure in determining the younger age at diagnosis [ 21 ].

FAHIC lung—methods/design

Study design and objectives.

The FAHIC—Lung study (observational, prospective, multicenter study to investigate the family history of cancer in patients with non-small cell lung cancer) is a cross-sectional/prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients with histologically diagnosed NSCLC will be enrolled, regardless of their age, TNM stage, smoking status, and other clinicopathologic characteristics. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06196424.

The primary objective of the study is the identification of FHC patterns and within-family clusters of other risk factors to address patients with NSCLC for systematic genetic counseling for germline next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing to identify PGVs and likely PGVs. Secondary objectives include the description of clinicopathological and oncological characteristics of patients with NSCLC according to FHC patterns.

Patients’ family history will be carefully collected by investigators through a dedicated self-reported study questionnaire, which has been developed for the purpose of this study and validated by the genetic expert of the steering committee (F.G.) (Supplementary file 2). Study questionnaire will focus on: (1) family history of cancer; (2) type of tumors/primary tumor sites among relatives with history of cancer; (3) age at diagnosis among relatives with history of cancer; (4) biological sex of relatives with history of cancer; (5) exposure to tobacco smoking and smoking habits among relatives with history of cancer; (6) geographical origin of participants and relatives with history of cancer; (7) personal history of multiple malignancies; (8) potential professional and environmental exposure to carcinogens of participants and relatives with history of cancer; (9) ethnicity of both participants and relatives with history of cancer.

To minimize risks of recalling bias, patients will be followed up for four weeks through two study visits: the first study visit at enrolment and the follow-up study visit. During the first study visit all patient’s clinic-pathologic will be collected and study participants will be given the ad-hoc questionnaire, which will be returned to the study personnel at the follow-up study visit (Fig.  2 ).

FAHIC-lung study design diagram

The following clinic-pathologic characteristics will be collected: (1) smoking status (active/passive, package/year, total years of smoking); (2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS); (3) age at diagnosis; (4) tumor histology; (5) tumor stage at diagnosis according to the 8th edition of TNM staging system; (6) ethnicity; (7) professional and environmental exposure to carcinogens; (8) programmed death ligand-1 tumor proportion score (PD—L1 TPS); (9) any available oncogenic drivers including EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, c-MET , mutations and ALK, ROS-1, RET, NTRK translocation/gene fusions; (10) personal history of other synchronous/metachronous primary malignancies.

The study plan includes an observational phase and an analytical phase:

Observational phase : after collecting participants’ questionnaires, we will first reconstruct patients’ family trees with additional information on how other potential risk factors, such as smoking history and exposure to professional/environmental carcinogens, segregate within the families with a history of cancer.

Analytical phase : once we have identified family clusters of malignancies and risk factors potentially associated with the highest risk of being carriers of germline PGVs or likely PGVs, we will proceed with the collection of blood samples for germline testing in a subgroup of patients. This will enable us to assess and compare the prevalence of PGVs/likely PGVs between patients more likely to be carriers and the control cohort. This approach aims to achieve a robust comparison, minimize systematic referrals to genetic counseling for all NSCLC patients, and optimize NGS testing requests outside the research setting. Considering the validity and comprehensiveness of high-throughput techniques in identifying PGVs/likely PGVs [ 68 ], we will assess the germline status of the groups of interest through whole exome sequencing (WES) after DNA extraction from blood samples in a two step analysis.

In the first step, the raw sequencing data (FASTQ files) will undergo bioinformatic processing. Mapping will be performed using a high-throughput aligner to ensure accurate alignment of the sequenced reads to the human genome. Variant calling will then be conducted to identify deviations from the reference genome. Filtering and annotation of these variants will focus on a pre-specified list of pre-specified genes known to be associated potentially associated with cancer (Supplementary file 3). This curated gene list will be used to prioritize PGVs/likely PGVs variants. Online tools will be utilized for variant prioritization, organizing the genes based on their correlation with lung cancer, thus enabling us to pinpoint the most relevant variants for further investigation.

In the second step, we aim to discover novel variants that may contribute to lung cancer predisposition. This phase involves a more exploratory analysis of the FASTQ data, looking beyond the known pathogenic variants. We will leverage the extensive genealogical data we have collected on the patients’ family histories to identify potential new genetic markers. The stored FASTQ files will be re-analyzed to detect previously unreported variants, incorporating bioinformatics tools and techniques for variant discovery. These include advanced algorithms for variant detection and annotation, as well as integrative approaches to assess the potential pathogenicity of novel variants. The integration of genealogical data will enhance our ability to correlate these novel variants with familial patterns of lung cancer, potentially uncovering new genetic predispositions. This comprehensive approach ensures that we maximize the utility of the sequencing data, providing a robust platform for both targeted and discovery-driven genetic analysis.

Participants selection

Inclusion Criteria include: (1) histopathological diagnosis of NSCLC (all stages); (2) age ≥ 18 years old; (3) signed written informed consent; (4) availability of familiar and/or personal anamnestic data of cancer. Exclusion Criteria include: (1) unavailability of familiar and/or personal anamnestic data of cancer; (2) patient’s refusal.

Statistical plan and sample size

The sample size of patients enrolled has been determined only for the observational phase of the study. This determination focuses on identifying patients who are more likely to be carriers of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) or likely PGVs. This approach acknowledges the lack of information on the prevalence of germline PGVs/likely PGVs in patients with NSCLC who are not selected based on family history of cancer (FHC), as well as the limited knowledge regarding the potential characteristics that will define our group of interest. We hypothesized a prevalence of 10% of participants with an especially enriched family history of cancer to be directed to systematic germline testing; assuming a confidence level of 95% with a total width for the confidence interval of 0.1 (precision of ± 5%), the minimum number of subjects needed to properly describe the group of interest, following a binomial “exact” calculation of the sample size, is 175. To account for potential dropouts, we will enroll a minimum of 180 patients.

Descriptive statistics will be used as appropriate to report FHC data, the distribution of within-family other risk factors, and baseline clinicopathologic characteristics. Analyses will be performed using R-Studio software (R Core Team, 2021), and MedCalc® Statistical Software version 20 (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org ; 2021).

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarizing the available evidence on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer, and the FAHIC-lung study (NCT06196424) is the first cross-sectional/prospective study specifically designed to identify patients with NSCLC more likely to be carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs, that should be systematically referred to genetic counselling and germline testing.

Our review shows that few studies have focused on the family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with lung cancer, resulting in overall heterogeneous results, beginning with the extremely wide range of FHC and family history of lung cancer rates. The category with the highest number of reports included studies assessing FHC as a potential risk factor for developing lung cancer. However, even in this category, the results were largely discordant, with a variety of different approaches and categorizations. Most of the included studies followed a retrospective approach, which is inherently associated with recall bias in collecting family history information, and none used questionnaires specifically designed to collect FHC. To mitigate this bias, we developed our ad-hoc study questionnaire, while the cross-sectional/prospective approach with the 4-week interval will allow study participants to gather and report FHC information as carefully as possible.

Something that set lung cancer apart from other malignancies, where the FHC has an established role in defining the probability of being a carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs, such as ovarian, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, is the role of smoking. As mentioned, smoking history represents the main risk factor for lung cancer [ 6 ], several evidence shows that passive smoking from family members can be a detrimental factor and that even the smoking habit can be “inherited”, with a sort of intergenerational transmission [ 69 , 70 ]. The FAHIC-lung questionnaire will allow us to mitigate this potential bias as well, collecting smoking habit information and environmental exposure to carcinogens among patients’ relatives with cancer.

More than a half of the studies that assessed FHC and FH of lung cancer as a potential risk factor for lung cancer concluded that FHC plays a detrimental role, with a potential synergistic effect with smoking, that seems even more pronounced among young/female patients. Our systematic review also suggests that younger patients, female, Asian, and never/light smokers may be especially enriched in FHC, although with no clear/conclusive results, while no somatic genomic feature seems to be significantly associated with FHC, except for EGFR mutations.

Recently, increasing attention has been focused on the study of germline mutations as risk factor for lung cancer, highlighting how DDR genes alterations can be found among patients with lung adenocarcinoma, even in the context of wider within-family primary tumors spectrums, including breast/pancreatic cancers or hematological malignancies [ 10 ]. Even in the context of TP53-associated genetic susceptibility, FHC is gaining a clearer role, to the point of recommending genetic counselling for patients with lung adenocarcinoma younger than 46 years old and with an especially enriched FHC or personal history of multiple primary tumors [ 71 ].

Importantly, in our systematic review only one of the studies that investigated the multifaceted role of germline mutations reported a significant enrichment among patients with FHC [ 46 ]. Rifkin and colleagues first reported a systematic review on the evidence linking germline mutations with lung cancer risk, then validated through a large case–control study of patients undergoing germline whole exome sequencing (WES) the significant association between lung cancer risk and ATM , BRCA2 and TP 53 pathogenetic/likely pathogenetic germline mutations [ 46 ]. However, despite the overall enrichment among controls, variant-based and gene-based analyses showed a low prevalence of germline PGV/likely PGV in both cases and controls [ 46 ]. In addition, they reported a higher rate of carriers among study participants with FH of lung cancer compared to those without, but with a very low overall prevalence (0.8% vs 0.7% for the combination of ATM/BRCA2/TP53 ) [ 46 ], suggesting that a simplified collection of FHC information is not enough to identify patients with the highest probability of being carriers and to properly optimize germ-line NGC access.

Among gene-specific susceptibility for lung cancer, EGFR -associated one needs a special mention. Genetic counselling is already recommended for patients with somatic EGFR positive NSCLC younger than 50 years, regardless of their family history [ 10 ], however, a proper syndromic EGFR -associated lung cancer should be suspected in the case of the novo EGFR T790M mutations, especially with a somatic variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥ 35% [ 10 , 72 ], with even more rare EGFR variants, such as V834L and V843I being increasingly recognized [ 73 , 74 ]. Lastly, we will have to consider the complexity related to the multifaceted role of multiple primary tumors. Beyond the consisting evidence linking DDR genes mutations to a personal history of multiple malignancies, recent studies reported on the potential role of pleiotropic loci in determining the risk of multiple malignancies [ 75 ].

Our study plan has, however, some limitations. First, we will have to rely on patients' ability and willingness to reconstruct their family history, therefore the recall bias will exert a certain effect despite the cross/sectional prospective approach. In addition, we have no strictly predefined definition of potential family clusters to be analyzed. However, we can anticipate that the identified group of interest will likely include young female patients with adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smokers, patients with EGFR mutations, patients with a history of multiple primary tumors, and patients with a high burden of family history. This high burden of family history is particularly expected to be enriched in non-smoking associated cancers, including lung cancer, and in the DDR-genes associated cancer spectrum, such as breast, ovarian, prostate, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers.To ensure a comprehensive analysis, we also plan to incorporate other factors collected through our detailed questionnaire. These factors include smoking habits of the patients, passive smoking exposure, working exposure to carcinogens, and smoking habits of family members. By evaluating these additional factors, we aim to identify within-family clusters of other risk factors. Specifically, we will focus on selecting patients without a history of passive smoking, identifying patients with a younger age at diagnosis among their relatives with cancer, and considering patients with low working exposure to carcinogens. Despite having these anticipations, we have deliberately chosen to adopt an unbiased approach without pre-established features to define patients for germline tests. Considering the very low prevalence of germline mutations reported so far [ 46 ], this strategy allows for a more comprehensive and inclusive analysis, ensuring that we do not overlook any potential associations or risk factors to unravel the complexity of FHC information and identify patients especially enriched in PGVs/likely PGVs. Furthermore, considering that this is an observational study, we decided to adopt a two steps approach, in order to identify patients at risk as a first step. This, to minimize the potential clinical implications for study participants and let their treating physicians refer them to genetic counseling as per their existing clinical practice. Once the group of interest will be identified, we will amend the protocol to collect blood samples and allocate fundings for germline testing. Lastly, we have to consider that the FAIHC lung study is being conducted in Italy, therefore the study population will mostly consist of white/Caucasian patients. Although this will prevent us from gathering broader information on the potential implications of different races, we will be able to focus and obtain reliable results on patients with European ancestry.

In the context of a worldwide progressive implementation of chest computed tomography based screening programs in subject with smoking history [ 76 ], and considering the initial evidence of the potential benefit of screening programs among never smokers and other subjects potentially enriched in FHC/PGVs [ 77 ], identifying patients with the highest risk of being carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs would be extremely important to develop dedicated preventing measures in non-smoker subjects. Considering the costs of commercially available germline NGS tests and the potential preventive, prognostic, and therapeutic implications of the detection of germline mutations related to familial cancers, we believe that establishing FHC patterns to identify a subgroup of patients especially enriched in PGVs to direct to germline screening outside of the research setting, would be extremely helpful in optimizing resources, spare time and eventually improve patients’ outcomes.

Data Availability

This systematic review does not involve the generation of new data. The data analyzed in this study are derived from publicly available studies and publications that are cited within the paper. All sources of data, including databases and search strategies used to identify relevant studies, are described in the Methods section. Readers interested in accessing the underlying data can refer to the referenced studies and publications for more detailed information. Due to data management regulations, individual patient-level data from the FAIHC-lung study are not available. However, inquiries from third parties can be directed to the corresponding author.

Guidelines Detail: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail .

Stjepanovic N, Moreira L, Carneiro F, et al. Hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1558–71.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Genetics of Prostate Cancer (PDQ ® )–Health Professional Version—NCI https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/hp/prostate-genetics-pdq .

Lung Cancer Statistics | How common is lung cancer? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html . Accessed 12 Mar 2023.

Malvezzi M, Santucci C, Boffetta P, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2023 with focus on lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:410–9.

Steuer CE, Jegede OA, Dahlberg SE, et al. Smoking behavior in patients with early-stage NSCLC: a report from ECOG-ACRIN 1505 trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:960–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malhotra J, Malvezzi M, Negri E, et al. Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide. Eur Respir J. 2016;48:889–902.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Riudavets M, Garcia de Herreros M, Besse B, et al. Radon and lung cancer: current trends and future perspectives. Cancers. 2022;14:3142.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

A New Pathway from Air Pollution to Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers https://dailyreporter.esmo.org/esmo-congress-2022/research-advances-in-the-last-months/a-pathway-from-air-pollution-to-lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-has-been-identified .

Benusiglio PR, Fallet V, Sanchis-Borja M, et al. Lung cancer is also a hereditary disease. Eur Respir Rev. 2021;30: 210045.

Chang ET, Smedby KE, Hjalgrim H, et al. Reliability of self-reported family history of cancer in a large case-control study of lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:61–8.

Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S. Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA. 2004;292:1480–9.

Sorscher S, LoPiccolo J, Chen E, et al. Landscape of pathogenic germline variants in patients with lung cancer. JCO. 2022;40:388570–388570.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.

Lashkarizadeh M, Lashkarizadeh M, Nikian M, et al. The expression of HER2/neu in patients with lung cancer and its associated factors. Clin Respir J. 2023;17:90–5.

Tammemagi MC, Schmidt H, Martel S, et al. Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the Pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1523–31.

Cassidy A, Balsan J, Vesin A, et al. Cancer diagnosis in first-degree relatives and non-small cell lung cancer risk: results from a multi-centre case-control study in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:3047–53.

Gaur P, Bhattacharya S, Kant S, et al. Hospital-based study on demographic, hematological, and biochemical profile of lung cancer patients. J Cancer Res Ther. 2020;16:839–42.

Isla D, Felip E, Viñolas N, et al. Lung cancer in women with a family history of cancer: the Spanish female-specific database WORLD07. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:6647–53.

Gorlova OY, Zhang Y, Schabath MB, et al. Never smokers and lung cancer risk: a case-control study of epidemiological factors. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1798–804.

Chen Y, Li G, Lei Y, et al. Lung cancer family history and exposure to occupational/domestic coal combustion contribute to variations in clinicopathologic features and gene fusion patterns in non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10:695–707.

Zang R, Shi J-F, Lerut TE, et al. Ten-year trends of clinicopathologic features and surgical treatment of lung cancer in China. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109:389–95.

Tsugane S, Watanabe S, Sugimura H, et al. Smoking, occupation and family history in lung cancer patients under fifty years of age. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1987;17:309–17.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen K-Y, Hsiao C-F, Chang G-C, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and lung cancer risk in Chinese. Cancer. 2007;110:1768–75.

Titan AL, He H, Lui N, et al. The influence of hormone replacement therapy on lung cancer incidence and mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159:1546-1556.e4.

Jin K, Hung RJ, Thomas S, et al. Hormonal factors in association with lung cancer among Asian women: a pooled analysis from the international lung cancer consortium. Int J Cancer. 2021;148:2241–54.

Pathak A, Wenzlaff AS, Hyland PL, et al. Apoptosis-related single nucleotide polymorphisms and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in women. J Cancer Ther Res. 2014;3:1.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lee Y, Jeon JH, Goh S-H, et al. The clinical impact of family history of cancer in female never-smoker lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2019;136:15–22.

Osann KE. Lung cancer in women: the importance of smoking, family history of cancer, and medical history of respiratory disease. Cancer Res. 1991;51:4893–7.

Schwartz AG, Wenzlaff AS, Prysak GM, et al. Reproductive factors, hormone use, estrogen receptor expression and risk of non small-cell lung cancer in women. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5785–92.

Tammemagi CM, Freedman MT, Church TR, et al. Factors associated with human small aggressive non small cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2082–9.

Cote ML, Yoo W, Wenzlaff AS, et al. Tobacco and estrogen metabolic polymorphisms and risk of non-small cell lung cancer in women. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:626–35.

Hong Y-S, Kang H-J, Kwak J-Y, et al. Association between microRNA196a2 rs11614913 genotypes and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in Korean population. J Prev Med Public Health. 2011;44:125–30.

Schwartz AG, Wenzlaff AS, Bock CH, et al. Admixture mapping of lung cancer in 1812 African-Americans. Carcinogenesis. 2011;32:312–7.

Sin DD, Tammemagi CM, Lam S, et al. Pro-surfactant protein B as a biomarker for lung cancer prediction. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4536–43.

Xu P, Liu L, Wang J, et al. Genetic variation in BCL2 3’-UTR was associated with lung cancer risk and prognosis in male Chinese population. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e72197.

He F, Chang S-C, Wallar GM, et al. Association of XRCC3 and XRCC4 gene polymorphisms, family history of cancer and tobacco smoking with non-small-cell lung cancer in a Chinese population: a case-control study. J Hum Genet. 2013;58:679–85.

Yilmaz M, Kacan T, Sari I, et al. Lack of association between the MTHFRC677T polymorphism and lung cancer in a Turkish population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:6333–7.

Tian G, Wang M, Xu X. The role of NQO1 polymorphisms in the susceptibility and chemotherapy response of Chinese NSCLC patients. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014;69:475–9.

Li J, Zhang M, Yang F, et al. High risk occupational exposure and family history were risk factors in young lung cancer in Chinese. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(12):23650–7.

Google Scholar  

White RW, Horvitz E. Evaluation of the feasibility of screening patients for early signs of lung carcinoma in web search logs. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:398–401.

Warkentin MT, Tammemägi MC, Freedman MT, et al. Factors associated with small aggressive non-small cell lung cancers in the national lung screening trial: a validation study. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2:pkx010.

Brown D, Zingone A, Yu Y, et al. Relationship between circulating inflammation proteins and lung cancer diagnosis in the national lung screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28:110–8.

Pineda Lancheros LE, Rojo Tolosa S, Gálvez Navas JM, et al. Effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the vitamin d metabolic pathway on susceptibility to non-small-cell lung cancer. Nutrients. 2022;14:4668.

Albano D, Dhamija A, Liao Y, et al. Lung cancer in nonsmokers—a risk factor analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;86: 102439.

Rifkin AS, Less EM, Wei J, et al. Association of reported candidate monogenic genes with lung cancer risk. Clin Lung Cancer. 2023;24:313–21.

Liu L, Yu H, Bai J, et al. Positive association of serum vitamin B6 levels with intrapulmonary lymph node and/or localized pleural metastases in non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Nutrients. 2023;15:2340.

Yang J, Li Y, Khoury T, et al. Relationships of hHpr1/p84/Thoc1 expression to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2008;38:105–12.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li N, Shao K, Chen Z, et al. The impact of positive cancer family history on the clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:331–6.

Li X, Pan X, Wang P, et al. Expression of ERCC1 mRNA in non-small cell lung cancer tissues and survival analysis of patients. Life Sci J. 2013;10(2):1926–31.

Su Y, Zhang H, Xu F, et al. DNA repair gene polymorphisms in relation to non-small cell lung cancer survival. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2015;36:1419–29.

Cortellini A, Giusti R, Filetti M, et al. High familial burden of cancer correlates with improved outcome from immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC independent of somatic DNA damage response gene status. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15:9.

Tefre T, Børresen AL, Aamdal S, et al. Studies of the L-myc DNA polymorphism and relation to metastasis in Norwegian lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1990;61:809–12.

Javid J, Mir R, Mirza M, et al. CC genotype of anti-apoptotic gene BCL-2 (-938 C/A) is an independent prognostic marker of unfavorable clinical outcome in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2015;17:289–95.

Liu Y, Kheradmand F, Davis CF, et al. Focused analysis of exome sequencing data for rare germline mutations in familial and sporadic lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:52–61.

Xu Q, Lin D, Li X, et al. Association between single nucleotide polymorphisms of NOTCH signaling pathway-related genes and the prognosis of NSCLC. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:6895–905.

Liu M, Liu X, Suo P, et al. The contribution of hereditary cancer-related germline mutations to lung cancer susceptibility. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020;9:646–58.

Suzuki K, Ogura T, Yokose T, et al. Microsatellite instability in female non-small-cell lung cancer patients with familial clustering of malignancy. Br J Cancer. 1998;77:1003–8.

Yilmaz A, Mohamed N, Patterson KA, et al. Clinical and metabolic parameters in non-small cell lung carcinoma and colorectal cancer patients with and without KRAS mutations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:8645–60.

Cheng P-C, Cheng Y-C. Correlation between familial cancer history and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in Taiwanese never smokers with non-small cell lung cancer: a case-control study. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:281–7.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hsu K-H, Tseng J-S, Wang C-L, et al. Higher frequency but random distribution of EGFR mutation subtypes in familial lung cancer patients. Oncotarget. 2016;7:53299–308.

Chang F, Zhang H, Chen C, et al. Concomitant genetic alterations are associated with plasma D-dimer level in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol. 2022;18:679–90.

Ambrosone CB, Rao U, Michalek AM, et al. Lung cancer histologic types and family history of cancer. Analysis of histologic subtypes of 872 patients with primary lung cancer. Cancer. 1993;72:1192–8.

Tsuchiya M, Iwasaki M, Otani T, et al. Breast cancer in first-degree relatives and risk of lung cancer: assessment of the existence of gene sex interactions. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:419–23.

Banik A, Schwarzer R, Pawlowska I, et al. Women with family cancer history are at risk for poorer physical quality of life and lower self-efficacy: a longitudinal study among men and women with non-small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:62.

Chen P-H, Chuang J-H, Lu T-P, et al. Non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery in patients aged 75 years and older: a propensity matching study. Front Surg. 2022;9: 880007.

Li Q, Wei X, Wang Y, et al. Pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma in the Chinese population: a clinical characteristic and prognostic analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 916906.

Parsons DW, Roy A, Yang Y, et al. Diagnostic yield of clinical tumor and germline whole-exome sequencing for children with solid tumors. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:616–24.

Dwivedi S, Pathak R, Agarwalla R, et al. The intergenerational transmission of tobacco habit: role of parents and the family. J Family Med Prim Care. 2016;5:373–7.

Saari AJ, Kentala J, Mattila KJ. The smoking habit of a close friend or family member–how deep is the impact? A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e003218.

Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman J-M, et al. Revisiting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome from TP53 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2345–52.

Oxnard GR, Chen R, Pharr JC, et al. Germline EGFR mutations and familial lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:5274–84.

van der Leest C, Wagner A, Pedrosa RM, et al: Novel EGFR V834L Germline Mutation Associated With Familial Lung Adenocarcinoma. JCO Precis Oncol 2:PO.17.00266, 2018

Ohtsuka K, Ohnishi H, Fujiwara M, et al: Predisposition to Lung Adenocarcinoma in a Family Harboring the Germline EGFR V843I Mutation. JCO Precis Oncol 3:PO.19.00104, 2019

Lu M, Zhang X, Chu Q, et al. Susceptibility genes associated with multiple primary cancers. Cancers. 2023;15:5788.

Passiglia F, Cinquini M, Bertolaccini L, et al. Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening by chest computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2574–85.

Triphuridet N, Zhang SS, Nagasaka M, et al. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening in asian female never-smokers is as efficacious in detecting lung cancer as in Asian male ever-smokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2023;18:698–717.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Operative Research Unit of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio Citarella, Bruno Vincenzi, Giuseppe Tonini & Alessio Cortellini

Department of Medicine and Surgery, Universitá Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio Citarella, Pierfilippo Crucitti, Bruno Vincenzi, Giuseppe Tonini, Carlo Greco, Sara Ramella, Fiorella Gurrieri & Alessio Cortellini

Department of Surgery, Saiseikai Fukuoka General Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

Kazuki Takada

Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France

Priscilla Cascetta

Thoracic Surgery Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Pierfilippo Crucitti & Roberta Petti

Operative Research Unit of Medical Genetics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy

Roberta Petti & Fiorella Gurrieri

Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Francesco M. Venanzi, Alessandra Bulotta, Sara Oresti & Roberto Ferrara

Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Radiation Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Carlo Greco & Sara Ramella

Thoracic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo Per Lo Studio Dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori”, Meldola, Italy

Lucio Crinò & Angelo Delmonte

Department of Oncology, Medical Oncology 1U, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, 10126, Turin, Italy

Massimo Di Maio

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK

Alessio Cortellini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the publication according to the ICMJE guidelines for the authorship (study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision). All authors read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study). Each author has agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Cortellini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All the study procedures will follow the precepts of Good Clinical Practice and the declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the local ethical committees on human experimentation (Comitato Etico Territoriale Lazio AREA 2, registro sperimentazioni 27.23 CET 2 CBM, 12 Oct 2023).

Competing interests

Alessio Cortellini declares speaker’s fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, Sanofi/REGENERON, and Roche (outside of the present work) and advisory board roles/grant for consultancies from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, OncoC4, IQVIA, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, REGENERON, Sanofi/REGENERON, Ardelis Health, AlphaSight, Access Infinity (outside of the present work). He also declares travel support from MSD and Roche. Sara Ramella declares advisory board roles and grant consultancies from Astra Zeneca, MSD (Merk) and Roche (outside of the present work). All other authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with the present study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file 1., supplementary file 2., supplementary file 3., supplementary file 4., 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.

Citarella, F., Takada, K., Cascetta, P. et al. Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung). J Transl Med 22 , 714 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4

Download citation

Received : 02 July 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 31 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Lung cancer
• Family history of cancer
• Germline screening

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]