literature review on bibliography

• Search Website
• Office Directory
• Employee Directory
• Learning Commons
• Topic Sentences

Annotated Bibliography vs. Literature Review

What's the big deal.

There are fundamental differences between an annotated bibliography and a literature review that are crucial to completing the assignment correctly. The chart below is provides an overview of the biggest differences between the two types of assignments in a side-by-side comparison. However, if you need more specific information about either assignment, visit our Annotated Bibliography and/or Literature Review pages for more detailed information on how to complete them. 

Differences between an annotated bibliography and literature review

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

• Chester Fritz Library
• Library of the Health Sciences
• Thormodsgard Law Library

Literature Reviews

• Get started
• What is a Literature Review?
• Finding Literature Reviews
• Your Literature Search
• Library Books
• How to Videos
• Communicating & Citing Research

References & Further Reading

Manuals & guidelines, print books.

• Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443.
• Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews Horsley, T., Dingwall, O., & Sampson, M. (2011). The Cochrane Library, 8.
• Domain Definition and Search Techniques in Meta-analyses of L2 Research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results) Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267–278.
• Effectiveness and Efficiency of Search Methods in Systematic Reviews of Complex Evidence: Audit of Primary Sources Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). BMJ, 331(7524), 1064-1065. Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by “snowballing” (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Conclusion: Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.
• An Empirical Assessment of A Systematic Search Process for Systematic Reviews Zhang, H., Babar, M. A., Bai, X., Li, J., & Huang, L. (2011, April). In Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2011), 15th Annual Conference on (pp. 56-65). IET.
• The Impact of Limited Search Procedures for Systematic Literature Reviews – A Participant-Observer Case Study Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Turner, M., Niazi, M., Linkman, S., Pretorius, R., & Budgen, D. (2009, October). In Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2009. ESEM 2009. 3rd International Symposium on (pp. 336-345). IEEE.
• Information retrieval in systematic reviews: Challenges in the public health arena Beahler, C. C., Sundheim, J. J., & Trapp, N. I. (2000). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (18)4, 6-10.
• Literature Searching for Social Science Systematic Reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Papaioannou, D. , Sutton, A. , Carroll, C. , Booth, A. and Wong, R. (2010). Health Information & Libraries Journal, 27, 114-122.
• Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge‐building and theory‐generating qualitative systematic reviews Finfgeld‐Connett, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2013). Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(1), 194-204.
• Performing a Literature Review. Reed, L. E. (1998, November). In fie (pp. 380-383). IEEE.
• Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in Systematic Reviews: A Structured Methodological Review Booth, A. (2016). Systematic Reviews, (5)74, 1-23.
• Should We Exclude Inadequately Reported Studies From Qualitative Systematic Reviews? An Evaluation of Sensitivity Analyses in Two Case Study Reviews Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Lloyd-Jones, M. (2012). Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1425-1434.
• Systematic Literature Studies: Database Searches vs. Backward Snowballing Jalali, S., & Wohlin, C. (2012, September). In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 29-38). ACM.
• Text-Mining Techniques and Tools for Systematic Literature Reviews: A Systematic Literature Review Feng, L., Chiam, Y. K., & Lo, S. K. (2017, December). In Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2017 24th (pp. 41-50). IEEE. Also available open access: http://eprints.um.edu.my/18515/1/All.pdf
• Use of information-seeking strategies for developing systematic reviews and engaging in evidence-based practice: the application of traditional and comprehensive Pearl Growing. A review Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Bhavnani, S., & Nail‐Chiwetalu, B. (2006). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 41(5), 567-582.
• What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. Riva, J. J., Malik, K. M., Burnie, S. J., Endicott, A. R., & Busse, J. W. (2012). The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 56(3), 167-71.
• Writing a Literature Review
• ECO 495: Senior Economic Project: Literature Review
• Ethical use of Sources and Writing

For Conducting a Systematic Review or Meta-analysis

• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0) Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269.
• Standards for Systematic Reviews (Report) The National Academies of Science, Engineering, Medicine. Released 3/23/2011. Copyright © 2018 National Academy of Sciences.
• Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York (2008). York, UK: York Publishing Services Ltd.
• Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews Kitchenham, B. (2004). Keele University, 33(2004), 1-26. Software Engineering Group, Department of Computer Science, Keele, UK.
• A Roadmap for Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses Adapted from: Pai, M. et al. (2004). The National Medical Journal of India, 17(2):86-95.
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: An Illustrated, Step-By-Step Guide. Pai, M., McCulloch, M., Gorman, J. D., Pai, N., Enanoria, W., Kennedy, G., ... & Colford, J. J. (2004). The National Medical Journal of India, 17(2), 86-95.
• Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Interventions (Version 2) July 2007. Armstrong, R., & Waters, E. on behalf of the Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Health Promotion and Public Health Taskforce.
• A Guideline for Applying Systematic Reviews to Child Language Intervention Hargrove, P., Lund, B., & Griffer, M. (2005). Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(4), 226–235.
• A Tutorial on Conducting Meta-Analyses of Clinical Outcome Research Robey, R. R., & Dalebout, S. D. (1998). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 41(6), 1227-1241.
• Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution Koricheva J., Gurevitch J., & Mengersen K. (Eds.). (2013). Princeton University Press.

Across Disciplines

• Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Discusses differences between exploratory and other types of case studies.
• Research Methods for Postgraduates Greenfield, Tony, and Sue Greener. Research Methods for Postgraduates. Third ed. 2016. Print.
• Case Study Research and Applications: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Summary Yin, R. K. (1994). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Summary only. 6th edition (2018) available in Chester Fritz Library. Discusses exploratory and other types of case studies.
• The Book Review: Scholarly and Editorial Responsibility Felber, L. (2002). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 33(3), 166.
• Special Section on the Value of Scholarly Book Reviews. Gump, S. E. (2018). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 1-7. University of Toronto Press.
• Use of Scholarly Book Reviews: Implications for Electronic Publishing and Scholarly Communication Spink, A., Robins, D., & Schamber, L. (1998). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 364-374.
• What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research Synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., Neander, W. (2016). AIMS Public Health, 3(1), 172–215. From health and social sciences perspectives.
• Use of Content Analysis to Conduct Knowledge-Building and Theory-Generating Qualitative Systematic Reviews Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Qualitative Research, 14(3), 341-352.
• HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known Kerr, N. L. (1998). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.
• p-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666–681.

Medicine & Public Health

• How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-reviewed Journal: A Review of the Literature Lee, A. D., Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Nyquist, J. (2010). Journal of Chiropractic Education, 24(1), 57-69.
• Writing a Literature Review Steward, B. (2004). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(11), 495–500.
• How to Read a Paper: Papers that Summarise other Papers: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. Greenalgh, T. (1997). British Medical Journal, 315, 672-675.
• A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). Health Information And Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
• Five Steps to Conducting a Systematic Review Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118-121.
• Criteria for the Systematic Review of Health Promotion and Public Health Interventions Jackson, N. & Waters, E. for the Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Health Promotion and Public Health Taskforce. (2005). Health Promotion International, Volume 20, Issue 4(1), Pages 367–374.
• Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews -- Has established a place for itself Dixon-Woods, M., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 323(7316), 765-6.
• A Brief History of Research Synthesis Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37.
• Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45.
• The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485-514.
• Methodologic Issues in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Montori, V. M., Swiontkowski, M. F., & Cook, D. J. (2003). Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 413, 43-54.
• I Have the Answer, Now What's the Question?: Why Metaanalyses Do Not Provide Definitive Solutions Streiner, D. L. (2005). The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(13), 829–831.

Social Sciences

• Book Reviews and Scientist-Practitioner Currency: A Critical Lever. Jones RG, Fleenor JW, Summers L. (2004). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41, 22-25.
• All in the Family: Systematic Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Realist Reviews, and More Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015). Systematic Reviews, 4(183), 1–2.
• Writing a Literature Review Baumeister, R. F. (2013). In M. J. Prinstein (Ed.), The Portable Mentor (pp. 119–132). New York, NY: Springer New York.
• Writing a Review Article for Psychological Bulletin Bem, D. J. (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172-177.
• Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide [Book Review] Suri, H. (2009). Evaluation Journal of Australaisa, 9(1), 62-63. Book Reviewed: Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2006). Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4051-2110-1 Book in library collection: https://odin-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com:443/und:all:ODIN_ALEPH008277698
• Using Logic Models to Capture Complexity in Systematic Reviews Anderson, L. M., Petticrew, M. , Rehfuess, E., Armstrong, R. , Ueffing, E. , Baker, P. , Francis, D. and Tugwell, P. (2011). Research Synthesis Methods, (2), 33-42.
• Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
• Face Validity of Meta-Analyses in Emotional or Behavioral Disorders. Mostert, M. (2004). Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 89-118.
• Meta-analytic Decisions and Reliability: A Serendipitous Case of Three Independent Telecommuting Meta-analyses. Nieminen, L., Nicklin, J., McClure, T., & Chakrabarti, M. (2011). Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 105-121.
• Research Transparency in Psychological Science: How & Why? Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018a, October 26. [Video File]. Presented at the Northern Lights Psychology Conference 2018, UND, Grand Forks, ND, https://commons.und.edu/nlp-conference/2018/
• Rewarding Research Transparency Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018). Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
• Writing Empirical Articles: Transparency, Reproducibility, Clarity, and Memorability Gernsbacher, M. A. (2018). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 403-414.

Education & Public Policy

• Teaching the Literature Review: A Practical Approach for College Instructors Cisco, J. (2014). Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 2(2), 41-57.
• Producing Policy Relevant Systematic Reviews: Navigating the Policy-Research Interface Oliver, S., Bangpan, M., & Dickson, K. (2018). Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 14(2), 197-220.
• Use and Impacts of Campbell Systematic Reviews on Policy, Practice, and Research Maynard, B. R. & Dell, N. A. (2018). Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 13 -18.
• The Relevance of Systematic Reviews to Educational Policy and Practice. Davies, P. (2000). Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4), 365-378.
• The Place of Systematic Reviews in Education Research Andrews, R. (2005). British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 399-416.
• The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education Slavin, R., & Smith, D. (2009). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 500-506.
• Application of Systematic Reviews in Speech‐and‐Language Therapy Marshall, J. (2011). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(3), 261 -272.
• A Review of Meta-Analyses in Education: Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses. Ahn, S., Ames, A., & Myers, N. (2012). Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436-476.
• Deficiencies of Reporting in Meta-Analyses and Some Remedies. Harwell, M., & Maeda, Y. (2008). The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 403-428.
• Effect Sizes and Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis in Higher Education. Bowman, N. (2012). Research in Higher Education, 53(3), 375-382.
• Meta-Analysis With Complex Research Designs: Dealing With Dependence From Multiple Measures and Multiple Group Comparisons. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., & Stuebing, K. (2014). Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 328-364.
• Meta-Analysis in Higher Education: An Illustrative Example Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling Denson, N., & Seltzer, M. (2011). Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 215-244.

(Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics)

• The Evolving Practice of Scholarly Book Reviews. Jinfa Cai. (2015). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(3), 250-252.
• Workshop in Conducting Integrative Literature Reviews Carliner, S. (2011, October). In Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2011 IEEE International (pp. 1-3). IEEE.
• Repeatability of Systematic Literature Reviews Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Li, Z., Budgen, D., & Burn, A. (2011). Proceedings of EASE 2011 (15th Annual Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering)
• Methodology for Systematic Literature Review Applied to Engineering and Education Torres-Carrión, P. V., González-González, C. S., Aciar, S., & Rodríguez-Morales, G. (2018, April). In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2018 IEEE (pp. 1364-1373). IEEE.
• Identifying Barriers to the Systematic Literature Review Process Carver, J. C., Hassler, E., Hernandes, E., & Kraft, N. A. (2013, October). In Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2013 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 203-212). IEEE.
• Visualizing Systematic Literature Reviews to Identify New Areas of Research Godwin, A. (2016, October). In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
• Review: Power and Information Technology Research: A Metatriangulation Review Jasperson, J., Carte, T. A., Saunders, C. S., Butler, B. S., Croes, H. J. P., & Zheng, W. (2002). MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 397–459.
• Statistical Issues in Ecological Meta-Analyses Gurevitch, J., & Hedges, L. (1999). Ecology, 80(4), 1142-1149.

Business & Management

• Extending a Provocative Tradition: Book Reviews and Beyond at AMR Bartunek, J. M., & Ragins, B. R. (2015). The Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 474–479
• Compliments and Criticisms in Book Reviews About Business Communication Mackiewicz, J. (2007). Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 21(2), 188–215.
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples Torraco, R. J. (2005). Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
• Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.
• Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017). International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432–454.
• Meta-Analysis in Advertising Research. Eisend, M. (2017). Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 21–35.
• Meta-analyses in Sales Research. Johnson, J. S., & Jaramillo, F. (2017). Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37(2), 134–152.
• Qualitative Inquiry in Management: Methodological Dilemmas and Concerns in Meta-Analysis. Point, S., Fendt, J., & Jonsen, K. (2017). European Management Review, 14(2), 185–204.
• The Suitability of Simulations and Meta-Analyses for Submissions to Academy of Management Journal Shaw, J. D., & Ertug, G. (2017). Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2045–2049. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.4006
• The Scholarly Book Review in the Humanities: An Academic Cinderella? East, J. W. (2011). Journal of Scholarly Publishing 43(1), 52-67. University of Toronto Press.
• H-Net Book Reviews: Enhancing Scholarly Communication with Technology McGrath, E. L., Metz, W. F., & Rutledge, J. B. (2005). College & Research Libraries, 66(1), 8-19.
• Literature Reviews and the Hermeneutic Circle Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2010) Australian Academic & Research Libraries, (41)2, 129-144.
• Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2010), 30, 85–110
• Publication Practices in Motion: The Benefits of Open Access Publishing for the Humanities. Adema, J., & Ferwerda, E. (2014). In Dávidházi P. (Ed.), New Publication Cultures in the Humanities: Exploring the Paradigm Shift (pp. 131-146). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
• Going Open Smith, S. (2016). In Manifesto for the Humanities: Transforming Doctoral Education in Good Enough Times (pp. 67-84). ANN ARBOR: University of Michigan Press.
• Qualitative Research
• Journal of Scholarly Publishing
• Systematic Reviews
• International Journal of Social Research Methodology
• Campbell Systematic Reviews

Hover over the title for a brief overview and click on the title to be taken to the listing in the catalog where you can find more information such as location and call number. If you want to find additional print books on literature reviews, send me an email or ask a librarian around the clock using our  Ask Us 24/7  chat service!

Need a book that we don't have in the collection? Borrow it using our  interlibrary loan service .

• << Previous: Communicating & Citing Research
• Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 8:31 PM
• URL: https://libguides.und.edu/literature-reviews

• How to Prepare an Annotated Bibliography
• East Tennessee State University
• Literature Reviews
• What is an Annotated Bibliography?
• Examples of Annotated Bibliographies

Difference between Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review

Although both types of writing involve examining sources, a literature review attempts to correlate the information and draw connections between the sources.

Examples of Literature Reviews

• Student Example
• Journal Example

Citation Help

• MLA Center The Modern Language Association website can help you cite sources in MLA style.
• APA Style Blog The American Psychology Association can help you cite sources in APA style.
• Chicago Manual of Style Use this site to help you site sources in Chicago Manual of Style.
• Purdue's Online Writing Lab (OWL) Purdue's Online Language Writing Lab contains up-to-date information on MLA and APA styles.

What is a Literature Review?

Literature Review - from The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. It usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates.

Organizing a Literature Review

There is not one "standard" for literature reviews but they should include the following:

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

Organizing your literature review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you write about your materials according to when they were published. The oldest date is first and the most recent publication date is last.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend.
• By trend: A better way to organize sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as "evil" in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the researcher or writer. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.
• << Previous: Examples of Annotated Bibliographies

Call Local Call Toll-Free Text Email Research Help

Call Toll-Free

Things to remember.

Be Selective

Summarize and Synthesize

Keep Your Own Voice

Use Caution When Paraphrasing

Revise, Revise, Revise

Source: Literature Reviews - The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill

Things to Clarify

Items to clarify if not in assignment:

• How many sources should be included?
• What types of sources should be included? (scholarly articles, books, websites, etc.)
• Should information be reviewed by a common theme or issue?
• Should subheadings and background information be provided? (i.e. definitions and/or a history?)
• Should the review be in chronological or publication order?
• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2023 10:48 AM
• URL: https://libraries.etsu.edu/guides/howto/lib101annotatedbibliographies

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you....

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

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

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

This video from NCSU Libraries gives a helpful overview of literature reviews. Even though it says it's "for graduate students," the principles are the same for undergraduate students too!

Reading a Scholarly Article

• Reading a Scholarly Article or Literature Review Highlights sections of a scholarly article to identify structure of a literature review.
• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article (NCSU Libraries) Interactive tutorial that describes parts of a scholarly article typical of a Sciences or Social Sciences research article.
• Evaluating Information | Reading a Scholarly Article (Brown University Library) Provides examples and tips across disciplines for reading academic articles.
• Reading Academic Articles for Research [LIBRE Project] Gabriel Winer & Elizabeth Wadell (ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative (OERI))

Literature Review Examples

What is a Literature Review?

The literature review is a written explanation by you, the author, of the research already done on the topic, question or issue at hand. What do we know (or not know) about this issue/topic/question?

• A literature review provides a thorough background of the topic by giving your reader a guided overview of major findings and current gaps in what is known so far about the topic. 
• The literature review is not a list (like an annotated bibliography) -- it is a narrative helping your reader understand the topic and where you will "stand" in the debate between scholars regarding the interpretation of meaning and understanding why things happen. Your literature review  helps your reader start to see the "camps" or "sides" within a debate, plus who studies the topic and their arguments. 
• A good literature review should help the reader sense how you will answer your research question and should highlight the preceding arguments and evidence you think are most helpful in moving the topic forward.
• The purpose of the literature review is to dive into the existing debates on the topic to learn about the various schools of thought and arguments, using your research question as an anchor. If you find something that doesn't help answer your question, you don't have to read (or include) it. That's the power of the question format: it helps you filter what to read and include in your literature review, and what to ignore.

How Do I Start?

Essentially you will need to:

• Identify and evaluate relevant literature (books, journal articles, etc.) on your topic/question.
• Figure out how to classify what you've gathered. You could do this by schools of thought, different answers to a question, the authors' disciplinary approaches, the research methods used, or many other ways.
• Use those groupings to craft a narrative, or story, about the relevant literature on this topic. 
• Remember to cite your sources properly! 
• Research: Getting Started Visit this guide to learn more about finding and evaluating resources.
• Literature Review: Synthesizing Multiple Sources (IUPUI Writing Center) An in-depth guide on organizing and synthesizing what you've read into a literature review.
• Guide to Using a Synthesis Matrix (NCSU Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service) Overview of using a tool called a Synthesis Matrix to organize your literature review.
• Synthesis Matrix Template (VCU Libraries) A word document from VCU Libraries that will help you create your own Synthesis Matrix.

Additional Tutorials and Resources

• UR Writer's Web: Using Sources Guidance from the UR Writing Center on how to effectively use sources in your writing (which is what you're doing in your literature review!).
• Write a Literature Review (VCU Libraries) "Lit Reviews 101" with links to helpful tools and resources, including powerpoint slides from a literature review workshop.
• Literature Reviews (UNC Writing Center) Overview of the literature review process, including examples of different ways to organize a lit review.
• “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review.” Pautasso, Marco. “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review.” PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 9, no. 7, July 2013, p. e1003149.
• Writing the Literature Review Part I (University of Maryland University College) Video that explains more about what a literature review is and is not. Run time: 5:21.
• Writing the Literature Review Part II (University of Maryland University College) Video about organizing your sources and the writing process. Run time: 7:40.
• Writing a Literature Review (OWL @ Purdue)
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Zotero >>

The Sheridan Libraries

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

Get Organized

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

Synthesize your Information

Synthesize: combine separate elements to form a whole.

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.

After summarizing and evaluating your sources, arrange them in a matrix or use a citation manager to help you see how they relate to each other and apply to each of your themes or variables.  

By arranging your sources by theme or variable, you can see how your sources relate to each other, and can start thinking about how you weave them together to create a narrative.

• Step-by-Step Approach
• Example Matrix from NSCU
• Matrix Template
• << Previous: Summarize
• Next: Integrate >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Literature Reviews and Annotated Bibliographies

Initial databases for a literature review.

What is a Literature Review?

• How to Write a Literature Review?
• Graduate Research and the Literature Review
• What is an Annotated Bibliography?
• How to Evaluate Sources?
• Citation & Avoiding Plagiarism

The databases listed here are interdisciplinary and suitable for most disciplines. For databases specific to your discipline see our Research Guides  

Academic Search Ultimate  Includes some full text

A great place to start to search for magazine and journal articles on almost all topics. Tip : Check "peer reviewed" box to limit your search to scholarly journals.

Dissertations and Theses   (1861+) Indexes dissertations accepted for doctoral degrees by accredited North American educational institutions and over 200 other institutions. Also covers masters theses since 1962. Starting in the early to mid-1900's, the full text is included for an increasingly comprehensive number of dissertations and theses. 

Google Scholar   Enables you to search specifically for scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of research. Use Google Scholar to find articles from a widevariety of academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories and universities, as well as scholarly articles available across the web

Humanities and Social Science Retrospective   Bibliographic database that provides citations to articles in a wide range of English language journals in the humanities and social sciences for the period 1907-1984.

  JSTOR Includes full text Includes long runs of backfiles of scholarly journals. Subjects covered include Anthropology, Asian Studies, Ecology, Economics, Education, Finance, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, Political Science, Population Studies, and Sociology.

Periodical Archives Online- (1770-1995) Includes full text; Full text archive of hundreds of periodicals in the humanities and social sciences from their first issues to 1995 Allows date-limited searching. Periodical Index Online, 1665 - 1995

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, ..., but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries."

--Written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre and available at http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review (Accessed August 8th, 2011)

Writing the Literature Review sites :

  Literature Reviews: UNC - Chapel Hill

Write a Literature Review: UC-Santa Cruz  

Writing a Literature Review: Perdue OWL

Methods Map: Literature Review

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a new theory
• To evaluate a theory or theories
• To survey what’s known about a topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Provide a historical overview of the development of a topic

Type of Literature Reviews:

• Mature and/or established topic: Topic is well-known and the purpose of this type of review is to analyze and synthesize this accumulated body of research.
• Emerging Topic: The purpose of this type of review to identify understudy or new emerging research area.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: How to Write a Literature Review? >>
• Last updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.asu.edu/LiteratureReviews

The ASU Library acknowledges the twenty-three Native Nations that have inhabited this land for centuries. Arizona State University's four campuses are located in the Salt River Valley on ancestral territories of Indigenous peoples, including the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Pee Posh (Maricopa) Indian Communities, whose care and keeping of these lands allows us to be here today. ASU Library acknowledges the sovereignty of these nations and seeks to foster an environment of success and possibility for Native American students and patrons. We are advocates for the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems and research methodologies within contemporary library practice. ASU Library welcomes members of the Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh, and all Native nations to the Library.

Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews

• Organizing and Managing your Resources
• Define Your Research Question
• Search The Literature

What is an Annotated Bibliography

What is a Literature Review - video

Michelle Early

Difference Between a Literature Review and an Annotated Bibliography

Literature review.

A literature review should not be confused with an annotated bibliography. A literature review is not simply a summary of information you have found on a topic. Literature reviews are more in depth and provides analysis of multiple works relating to a research question. An annotated bibliography is a list of the resources, that you consulted when working on a research project. Each citation is accompanied by a brief written analysis of its usefulness to your research.

Courtesy of Washington University Library

“Library Guides: Annotated Bibliographies: Overview.” Overview - Annotated Bibliographies - Library Guides at University of Washington Libraries , guides.lib.uw.edu/tacoma/annotated.

Purdue Owl Annotated Bibliographies

Purdue owl annotated bibliography information, annotated bibliography breakdown, stem cell research: an annotated bibliography.

Holland, Suzanne. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy . Boston: MIT P, 2001.

This is the annotation of the above source, which is formatted according to MLA 2016 (8 th ed.) guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. If one were really writing an annotation for this source, one would offer a brief summary of what this book says about stem cell research.

After a brief summary, it would be appropriate to assess this source and offer some criticisms of it. Does it seem like a reliable and current source? Why? Is the research biased or objective? Are the facts well documented? Who is the author? Is she qualified in this subject? Is this source scholarly, popular, some of both?

The length of your annotation will depend on the assignment or on the purpose of your annotated bibliography. After summarizing and assessing, you can now reflect on this source. How does it fit into your research? Is this a helpful resource? Too scholarly? Not scholarly enough? Too general/specific? Since "stem cell research" is a very broad topic, has this source helped you to narrow your topic?

Senior, K. "Extending the Ethical Boundaries of Stem Cell Research." Trends in Molecular Medicine , vol. 7, 2001, pp. 5-6.

Not all annotations have to be the same length. For example, this source is a very short scholarly article. It may only take a sentence or two to summarize. Even if you are using a book, you should only focus on the sections that relate to your topic.

Not all annotated bibliographies assess and reflect; some merely summarize. That may not be the most helpful for you, but, if this is an assignment, you should always ask your instructor for specific guidelines.

Wallace, Kelly. "Bush Stands Pat on Stem Cell Policy." CNN . 13 Aug. 2001.

Using a variety of sources can help give you a broader picture of what is being said about your topic. You may want to investigate how scholarly sources are treating this topic differently than more popular sources. But again, if your assignment is to only use scholarly sources, then you will probably want to avoid magazines and popular web sites.

• Next: Organizing and Managing your Resources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 20, 2024 2:20 PM
• URL: https://libguides.xavier.edu/Bib_lit

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Webinar Transcripts: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography Basics

Literature review and annotated bibliography basics.

View the recording

Presented February 13, 2019

Last updated 3/14/2019

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Housekeeping

• Will be available online within 24 hours.
• Polls, files, and links are interactive.
• Now: Use the Q&A box.
• Later: Send to [email protected] or visit our  Live Chat Hours .
• Ask in the Q&A box.
• Choose “Help” in the upper right-hand corner of the webinar room

Audio: Hello, everyone. Welcome to today's webinar. I'm Claire Helakoski and I'll be facilitating this webinar. Let's go ahead and get started. But before we do, I want to go over just a few housekeeping notes. So first, I want to note that this session is being recorded. So, if you need to leave during, or if the timing doesn't work for you, or if your internet drops out, then you can view the recording. It will be available within 24 hours in our webinar recording archive which I'll link to at the end of the presentation and is also available in our slides.

Throughout the webinar the polls, files and links will be interactive and Michaels prepared a couple of chats for you as well. During the webinar if you have questions, you can use the question and answers box and I will be in there to respond as best as I am able. If you think of questions later or you’re watching this recording, then you can go ahead and send questions to [email protected] or visit us during our live chat hours to have an immediate response.

During the webinar if you’re having any kind of technical issues, then you can let me know in the Q & A box. And I do have a couple of tips and tricks that may help resolve your issues. But you can also you can find the Adobe help button at the top right of the adobe connect panel, so at the top right there. And that is Adobe’s official support, so if you’re having major technical issues then I would suggest going there. But do let me know first, so that I can give you any tips tricks that I have. All right. So, with that we will go ahead and hand it over to the representor today, Michael.

Visual: Slide changes to the title of the webinar, “Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography Basics” and the speaker’s name and information: Michael Dusek, Writing Instructor, Walden University Writing Center

Audio: Hello, everyone. Welcome to today's webinar regarding lit reviews and annotated bibliographies. My name is Michael Dusek and I'm really happy to be leading this webinar today, excited. Essentially what we are going to be doing is we’re going to be taking a look at these two genres at these two written genres. Both the literature review and the annotated bibliography. We’re going to discuss some conventions. Or some typical characteristics that you might see or encounter in literature reviews and annotated biliographies. And we’re just going to go through general formatting and organizational tips as to how to organize these documents and get them to a place where they are useful to both you and to your reader.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Webinar Objectives

• Formatting & Organization
• Writing Tips & Examples
• Relationship Between the Two

Audio: So that was kind of my broad stroke overview. Here are the more specific objectives of this particular webinar. We will overview these things. We are going to talk about conventions of these two genres, the purpose of them, what are they meant to accomplish? I think the literature review and annotated bibliography are somewhat related, but they really are meant to accomplish different things; they have different purposes.

We are going to look at the formatting and organization of these documents which are significantly different. So, we are going to see how they are different and how one could perhaps inform the other. We are going to look at writing tips and some examples of this, some things that can save you time and perhaps some anxiety and headaches and some examples to show you how these are typically formatted and what they look like typically in the academic community.

And lastly as I mentioned, we are going to discuss the relationship between the two genres, and how one can lead into the other and how really these are some ways working with the same materials even though they are doing pretty significantly different things.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Alternative Names:

• Annotated bib =
• annotated bibliography
• Annotation =
• part of annotated bibliography
• Lit review =
• literature review

Audio: But, yeah, to break this down a little, to talk about these, alternative names, you can see this is an annotated bib. Right? This is kind of a shortened version of a bibliography there. For annotated, a part of annotated bibliography, think of annotated as really anything. Any time you are interacting with a source.

A broad definition of annotation is any mark that you make in a document. So, if you are highlighting something, if you are underlining a piece that you’re working with, maybe writing some notes in the margin or putting a question mark next to something that you need to look up, these are all considered annotations. For the purpose of annotated bibliography, it's sufficient to think of this as working with a draft or working with a source, excuse me, working with a piece of scholarship you might potentially use in your research.

Lit review is a shortened version of word literature review. These are really used interchangeably. If you see these shortened versions, you can assume that they are referring to these two documents or one of the two.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: The Annotated Bibliography

Annotate : “to make or furnish critical or

explanatory notes or comment”

Bibliography : “the history, identification, or

description of writings or publications”

                          (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2012)

Audio: So, to begin with then, let's pick one. And for the purpose of this webinar we pick the annotated bibliography to start with. But before we get into breaking this up, I want to talk about how the annotated bibliography is primarily a research tool. It is meant to aid you in collecting your research and kind of sussing out both what this source is doing; how it could do this thing better. And then how this might be useful or applicable to you in your research.

But to ground this, I want to start with the foundation that an annotated bibliography is a research tool. It's meant to help you organize your research. Right? Okay.

Now that we’ve established that foundational definition here, let's break up these two words. Annotate, to make or furnish critical or explanatory notes or comments. Yeah, it's to work with a draft. As you guys are scholars now, in a higher level of post-secondary level here, generally speaking, you really can think of yourself as professional readers. When you read a scholarly source or read a source you are thinking of using in your research, you don't want to be a passive party to that. You want to actively engage with that source and annotations are part of doing this. Making notes in a source, underlining things, highlighting things that you may need to look up again. These are all considered annotations. But, again, for the purpose of this discussion, an annotation is really working with a source, is this kind of critical or explanatory note that you provide for that source.

A bibliography is defined by Merriam Webster, as the history or identification or discription of writings or publications. Really what we are looking for here is publication information, history, identification, description; where is this source coming from. Right? Where are you getting this from and how does this compile into a list of other sources on a related topic.

I know that's a little wishy washy on the second part of this definition, but this is going to become a little bit more clear as we take a look at how to compile this, what elements go into, an annotation or annotated bibliography entry, and that will be a little bit more clear as we go on here.

For those of you looking for a resource outside of this webinar discussing annotated bibliographies, in the bottom right corner of this slid, you can see we have a link to our annotated page. What this is, it's a website, web page, that explains how annotated bibliographies work, the elements that need to be included in a typical annotated bibliography. And it gives you an example of what an annotated bibliography could look like, as well as should look like, better said. So, if you are watching this recording or downloaded the slides and want to refer to a resource about this topic after the fact, after this webinar, this is a great one. Right there on the bottom right.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Annotated Bibliography: Purpose

• Teaches about a particular topic
• Demonstrates a source’s value
• Shows depth/breadth of research
• Helpful note-taking and reflection exercise
• Promotes analysis and critical reading
• Preparation for a writing project

Audio: Thinking about the purpose of annotated bibliographies, you can think of it as certain purposes for the reader. It has certain purposes for yourself. As I mention, this is primarily used as a research topic, but a research tool, excuse me. But it's not uncommon to get an assignment to complete an annotated bibliography within a course. So, there's something of a reader awareness or a purpose for the reader, as well as for you, the researcher, compiling this.

So, for the reader what an annotated bibliography can do. Is it can inform the reader about a particular topic. It can demonstrate a source's value or why a source is important within a topic area, and it can show depth or breadth of research. And annotated bibliography is generally going to consist of a many entries. Throughout your research process you are going to continue to add to this probably, but it's going to show again a breadth of research, what information is out there on a topic.

For yourself, again, this is a research tool. This is helpful in note taking and reflecting on your source. A lot of the difficulty of writing is knowing where to look and being able to save yourself time in referring to a source that you’ve already read can be valuable in that you don't have to reread that source. You can look at an annotated bibliography and say that's what that source is about and here's why I thought it was useful to me in my research process. So really, it's to save you time, promotes analysis and critical thinking.

With an annotated bibliography pushes you to do, is not just summarize a source, but critique it and take that critical eye to it. One of the paragraphs in an annotated bibliography focuses specifically on critiquing that source. What is that source doing well, what could that source do better, perhaps. And in this way you are joining that conversation as a scholar. So this does this as well.

So lastly it prepares you for a writing project. It's a way of compiling your research so that you can kind of have it all in one place before you get off and get towards creating and outline or drafting. It's a place to store the research that you have already done, so in that way it can be really valuable.

• Course assignments
• Prewriting for large projects

Audio: Where will you encounter annotated bibliographies? As I mentioned you might see these in course assignments. When I would teach writing, this would not be uncommon for me to give students. Walden will assign an annotated bibliography as a beginning or as a jumping off point to a larger research project. I think they do this because they think that this is an important element in the research process. So yeah, you might encounter these as course assignments. Beyond that, for those of you working on a larger project like a capstone or a dissertation document, these are really meant as a prewriting strategy, or again, a tool, to allow you to approach that larger piece more efficiently and being from a place of being more informed. You will research more and you will be more informed individually about that topic. But it's not uncommon to see these in course assignments. So, there's a do it for the professor side and there’s the do it for yourself side. And as you get to these capstone or dissertation documents, the do it for yourself to save yourself the anxiety, is going to become the dominant purpose here. But alas you might see these in course assignments too.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Annotated Bibliography: Format & Organization

Alphabetized list of reference entries + annotations

Reference entry listed in alphabetical order.

                             Annotation of source in paragraph format.

Reference entry.

                             Annotation.

Audio: Okay. Talking about formatting and organizing, annotated bibliography, the first thing to note, is that these are like a reference list. These are going to be alphabetized. So, you’re going to start with the sources that begin with A in their reference entry. This is kind of a brief out line here that discusses this. So, as you can see, you will start with a reference entry in alphabetical order. And then you’re going to below that, put your annotations. These are a number of paragraphs that we are going to break apart in an upcoming slide, but for the purposes of right now you can think of an annotated bibliography or each annotation, as having two pieces. You are going to have your reference entry, which is APA formatted. Looks like a reference entry at the end of a piece you have composed. And you are going to have your annotation part.

So, these two parts. Again, as I mentioned the annotation part is going to be broken down further, but let's start here for now, shall we. And this is how this is going to look in this brief outline, you’ll have a reference entry, and below it you’ll have your annotation piece and you will keep listing those sources in an alphabetized order there.

• Reference :
• Common Reference List Examples
• Annotation :
• 3 paragraphs: Summary, Analysis, and Application
• 2 paragraphs: Summary/Analysis and Application
• Depends on your purpose and faculty’s expectations

Audio: And to break this down a little farther as I promised, as I said that I would do. You start again with this reference entry that is in APA formatting. A helpful resource that I know I use a lot and I think, I know Claire uses allot too, is this link here for common reference list examples. What this link has is, it provides some formatting for some commonly used sources. Things like journal articles, like books, like web pages. Even down to things like course materials or interviews and these types of things. It will have a number of different formats and each source has a different formatting. Right? This link will give you some examples of those that you can use as examples to double check that your reference entries are correct.

Now this second part, as I mentioned, can be kind of broken down into a number of parts. This annotation. And for this you’re going to use consistent paragraph formatting. It will be double spaced. But this annotation part often times is broken down into two to three paragraphs. Right? In a three-paragraph annotation you’re going to have one paragraph that summarizes the source, what does it say, what are these authors doing, what are their conclusions and what does this study find. You are going to have a paragraph analyzing or criticizing the source. What did this piece do well, what are some opportunities for this piece to have been better? Is there potentially opportunities for furthering research that this piece brought up. Right? That would be another kind of analysis piece.

And lastly, in a three-paragraph annotation you’re going to have an application paragraph which essentially states why this piece is important broadly in that, in your field. But more importantly, how is this piece useful for your resource process, in your resource project. Something that would be typical to include in an application paragraph would be something like, I feel I'm going to use the data from page 12 on, in my background section or something like this. My point is, is that this is how this applies to you, how is it useful in your specific research product.

A shorter version of an annotation can only have two paragraphs, where you combine the summary and analysis and then have a separate application paragraph. In an even simpler annotation maybe for yourself as you’re reading a number of sources, you might just have a summary paragraph. But my point is, there's a number of ways to do this. If you are encountering this as a course assignment it's likely the professor is going to ask you to include a three-paragraph annotation. If you are doing this on your own, and this is not part of a course assignment, this is just a research tool for you, you can choose to format this however you want. Right? Because it's about finding what is useful to you personally. This is the format that we think is quite effective. And, again, in course assignments where you’re being assigned an annotated bibliography to complete it's usually going to be either one of these two and I would say primarily the three-paragraph annotation.

And again, it expands on your purpose and the faculty expectations. I would like to remind you guys, it is certainly appropriate to reach out to your faculty and to ask those questions. To clarify: Are you expecting a three-paragraph annotation or is a two-paragraph appropriate for this piece. I guess the reason I say this, often times I find students are a little reticent about contacting professors with questions, but I want to reassure you this is an appropriate question to reach out to your faculty or to your professor with.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Annotated Bibliography: Writing Tips

• Take factual notes
• Use the past tense
• Use your own words
• Focus on purpose, methods and findings
• Include the most relevant information
• Take questioning notes
• Focus on strengths and then weaknesses
• Go broad à narrow
• Do not feel the need to be “nice.”
• Take notes of your reactions
• Relate the source to yourself, your field, other scholars, the community, etc.
• How could this source be useful?
• Potentially use “I”

Audio: To break this down a little further from the annotation piece here, a summary paragraph is going to be your first paragraph of your annotation. And again, this is factual notes. This is what your summarizing this piece. You want to use the past tense. In APA, specifically you want to use past tense when referring to pieces that have already been published. A good way to think about this, is this has been already said. As it was published, say, in the year 2012, it has already been said in the year 2012 so it is appropriate to discuss that piece in the past tense.

In your summary paragraph you’re going to use your own words. Really you want to focus on the purpose, the methods and the findings of the study. What did the study set out to do, how did they plan to accomplish that goal or test that hypothesis? And then at the end what did they find. Right? What were their conclusions, what were they able to draw from this study?

And in your summary when thinking about what to include and what to omit, what to leave out, you really want to include the most relevant information there. Right? What’s the meat of this study, what did these authors really look for and what did they really find. These are things to include, maybe smaller pieces about the methodology or some smaller details that the author includes that didn't turn out to be as important to the conclusions of the study. These can be things to omit. But again, it's what relevant to your research topic. That's the information that should be included in the summary paragraph.

Now, the analysis paragraph, your second paragraph of an annotation, I often refer to as the critique paragraph, is really about bringing this critical eye to your engagement with the source. Right? You want to take questioning notes. Focus on the strengths and on the weaknesses of a source. Right? What could this source have done better. We’re going to look at a couple of examples later on in this presentation of some ways to critique a source and to pick apart ways a source that could have tested something more accurately.

In an analysis paragraph you want to start broadly and work specifically. Broadly this study is doing this well, more specifically it could do this better. That's a general way to approach an analysis paragraph.

And lastly, don't feel the need to be nice here. I think this is an important point about scholarship at the graduate or PhD level in general, and that's that you’re entering this conversation. Right? So, it's okay to disagree with the author. I would encourage you to keep a professional tone, but it's okay to encounter a study where you say I don't think this is a very accurate study for these three reasons. That's okay. That as a scholar, someone who studies in this field and who is familiar with scientific methods and other ways to test hypotheses, it's appropriate for you to add your voice to this even if it's in disagreement. Just a general note for you all there.

Your last paragraph again, is this application paragraph. Take notes as to your reactions. That's a good tip there. But again, you want to relate the source to yourself, to your field, to other scholars, to your intellectual communities that you are a part of, etcetera, in an effort to recognize how this could be useful to you and to your research project. 

So, again, to simplify this a little bit, a good application paragraph will talk about maybe the significance of the study in the field; so, and so study is foundational in the field of psychology because it studied X, Y and Z that produced a lot more research. That would be an appropriate detail to include in an application paragraph. But, again, where it's most important to you as a researcher would be this, how it is useful to my research product; I would like to use the methodology of this study to then test a different hypothesis in my dissertation. Something like that. But, again, it's going to be different for every person. But the application paragraph, as you think about this as you approach this, the important part is how is this source useful to me. That's how it applies. That's where the rubber meets the road here. So, again, a typical annotation has three paragraphs and each does something significantly different.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Annotated Bibliography:

• Summary Paragraph

       Thompson, Kirk, and Brown conducted a study to determine how burnout and emotional exhaustion of female police officers affect their family environment based upon role ambiguity and role overload.  Thompson et al. mailed out surveys to 1,081 female police officers employed by the Australian State Police; however, only 421 surveys were useable.  The researchers predicted that supervisor support would reduce role stressors and emotional exhaustion and improve family cohesion and conflict.  They found a relationship between supervisor support and reduced role stressors, family functioning, and emotional exhaustion, but did not find a correlation between coworker support and work stress.  Thompson et al. suggested that further research is needed on how emotional exhaustion affects family stressors in policewoman.

Audio: Next we’re going to have some examples of these. For the summary paragraph I don't think I'll read this whole thing because I think at this level you guys are familiar with summarizing a piece, but this is what this could look like. (Reading) Thompson Kirk and Brown conducted a study to determine how burnout and emotional exhaustion of female police officers affect their family environment based upon role ambiguity and role overload.

This goes on to summarize the rest of this piece. As you can see it talks about the sample size here. It talks about the methodology. This male survey thing. And at the end it talks about these findings. They found a relationship between supervisor support and role stressors.

To get back to our slide and in an example here, what this does is talks about what the authors were looking to find, it talks about how they plan to find that or test that hypothesis, and then at the end it talks about what they did find. The conclusions of that piece. So, you can see all the parts are here.

One thing that’s important to note as we look at this example as you can see there are no citations here. Right? In an annotated bibliography the reason why often times we don't include citations, this can be seen a bit as redundant. So, if you have a reference entry above your annotations it's kind of implied that what follows here based on the genre of annotated bibliographies is a summary critique and an application of the above source.

However, in some course assignments you may be required to cite within the paragraphs of an annotated bibliography. So that would be the expectation of the instructor and the purpose which you are using this for. If you are using this annotated bibliography as a research tool, you don't need to necessarily include citations there because you know where you are drawing this from. If you are turning this in for a grade you might want to include citations, because that's conventional in APA formatting in general. But if you have a question about this, this is something to reach out to your professor about and would be a perfectly appropriate question to ask. To wrap up this slide, the summary paragraph it summarizes. You talk about what the study is doing.

• Analysis Paragraph

Although Thompson et al. made a significant contribution to the field of police research, the article had several limitations.  First, the researchers chose a small and specialized sample that did not include policewomen or other minorities.  Second, the researchers potentially influenced results by asking leading questions in the interviews and focus group meetings.  Therefore, further research is needed with a wider demographic range and completely impartial interviewers.

Audio: The analysis paragraph, then you are working with this piece. Right? You are talking about the strengths and the weaknesses. Although (reading) Thompson, et al made a significant contribution to the field of police research, the article had several limitations.  First, the researchers chose a small and specialized sample that did not include policewomen or other minorities.  Second, the researchers potentially influenced results by asking leading questions in the interviews and focus group meetings.  Therefore, further research is needed with a wider demographic range and completely impartial interviewers.

Now again, this has a professional tone. But you can see the author in this example analysis paragraph is really pointing out the shortcomings of this study. After reading it and evaluating the methods that this study, this hypothetical study uses, this author concluded that it could be done better in a couple of ways. There could be a wider sample size and there could be an impartial questionnaire or an impartial person asking the questions. So, it's in this way you can really work with the source and point out some ways it could be done better. That's really what the critique or analysis paragraph is all about. What did the study do well, but also what is it not doing so well? What are some opportunities for the study to have been more accurate or been done better more broadly?

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Annotated Bibliography

• Application Paragraph

This study was valuable to understanding the relationship between employees’ views of change and the coping mechanisms used. Based on the results, the business sector should reinforce positive emotions to reduce withdrawal and increase commitment to the change. This implication aligns with Kotter’s 8-step change model emphasizing the positive and reinforcing employees for their efforts. This study, as well as Kotter’s model, will serve as the basis for the Business Change Strategy of my Application.

Audio: Excuse me. Lastly, we are going to, you would include an application paragraph. And as I mentioned, this is where the rubber meets the road as a researcher. Here’s what an application would sound like. (Reading) This study was valuable to understanding the relationship between employees’ views of change and the coping mechanisms used. Based on the results, the business sector should reinforce positive emotions to reduce withdrawal and increase commitment to the change. This implication aligns with Kotter’s 8-step change model emphasizing the positive and reinforcing employees for their efforts. This study, as well as Kotter’s model, will serve as the basis for the Business Change Strategy of my Application.

So, as you can see here, this author is talking about what this study does well and how it contributes to this larger field. How it is applied to the field in general. In this case comparing it to Kotter's eight step change model. And then at the end is where this author talks about what this is study means to their project. This is going to serve as the basis for my application of a business strategy change. So yeah, the application is what are you going to do, how is this useful to you?

All Together

[Reference Entry] Thompson, B. M., Kirk, A., & Brown, D. (2006). Sources of stress in policewomen: A three factor model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(3), 309-328. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.3.309 

    [1. Summary] Thompson, Kirk, and Brown conducted a study to determine how burnout and emotional exhaustion of female police officers affect their family environment based upon role ambiguity and role overload…

    [2. Analysis] Although Thompson et al. made a significant contribution to the field of police research, the article had several limitations…  

    [3. Application] This study was valuable to understanding the relationship between employees’ views of change and the coping mechanisms used…

Audio: Altogether then, it can look something like this, start off with this reference entry. We then have our summary, our analysis paragraph and our application paragraph.

Let’s Take a Look!

Annotated Bibliography Example

Audio: So, let's take a look at what this can actually look like on paper. What this is formatted like on an entire annotated bibliography. As you can see we start with this title page. As we go on this starts with something of an introduction paragraph, something to lead the reader in and introduce them to the topic this annotated bibliography will be covering.

As a note here, not all professors are going to require you to have an introduction paragraph in your annotated bibliography, but I would recommend if you are turning it in for a grade and the reason is you want to bring the reader up to speed and tell them what topic this annotated bibliography will be covering, I think it's really important in general to give the reader enough background information to understand what you are doing in any piece. So, if you turn this in for a grade, I would recommend an introduction paragraph.

But as this is a research tool, if you are, you don't necessarily need that if you are just using it for your own research. If it's not being turned in and you don't think an introductory paragraph is important, by all means don't include one. But moving on, to take a look at this. We have our first annotation here. Starting with a reference entry. It goes on to have our three paragraphs, of one being a summary, the second an analysis or a critique, and the third being an application. And then it ends. We have another reference entry here that starts another annotation.

This is exactly how these are typically listed, one annotation after the other. You can see that they are alphabetized. And lastly, it is typical and conventional to include a reference list at the end of the piece. Again, as with citing within the piece, some professors and some instructors might find this to be redundant. I would have a hard time disagreeing with them. But this is something that you might be required to include also. So, if that's the case, definitely include that.

One reason I guess to the contrary I would say you should include a reference page, is that you can take these reference entries from here and then just plug them into your document once you are drafting. You have compiled these reference entries, so you can kind of just copy and paste there if you wish. But again, this is really up to the instructor's discretion as to whether or not you need to include this reference list. 

Let’s take a Look!

Audio: Okay. So that was kind of the first bit here about annotated bibliographies. I think this would be a good time to stop for questions.  Claire is there any questions in the Q & A box that you think the large group would benefit from me explaining or talking through?

Claire: Sure, thanks Michael We did have one and it was about the analysis or critique paragraph, that second paragraph in the annotated bibliography. Other than biases, are there other things that students could kind of talk about in that section or that are covered depending on the assignment?

Michael: Sure. That's a great question. Identifying bias in a source is really an important point and something as scholars you really want to be on guard for always, is when a piece is displaying some type of bias. That's one thing you can talk about in that analysis or critique paragraph. Other than that, really anything that you see as being something of a deficiency in a study. So, in our example one thing that they commented on was sample size. And this is something I think that's really common to look at.

In a study, a study has a specific sample or population they are look at or testing. This is something that can be easily manipulated and that isn't always generalizable to a larger population. So, if a sample size is too small, then the implication there is that you can't say the findings are generalizable to the rest of the population. So, sample size is one thing that I see commented on a lot there.

As in our example, again, this kind of the way a question is asked or the method, the methodology of the study would be better said here is another thing that is commented on a lot in a critique or analysis paragraph. How could this study have been done better would be another question to ask? And one often times the answer is the methodology could have been more sound. To refer to our example once more, if you are asking leading questions or if you’re asking questions that have some bias in them inherent, then you could write better questions. That would be another way to approach critiquing or using your own analysis on a study.

Generally speaking, though, it's really anything that you see that can be done better in a study. So, I mentioned a couple here, but there are many more, there are many more ways that a study can be done better. So, finding those and pointing those out is really what the analysis and critique paragraph is really all about. Any others Claire?

Claire: No, That was really great. Thank you, Michael.

Michael: Cool. All right. So that's our annotated bibliography section of this webinar.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Relationship Between Annotated Bibliographies & Literature Reviews

Annotated bibliography = preparation for any writing project

Literature review = foundation for research

Audio: (laughing) Moving on then. We are going to talk a little bit about the relationship between annotated bibliographies and literature reviews. In an effort to kind of transition to talk about lit reviews.

So, to kind of ping pong off this slide here, annotated bibliography is something that's really meant to prepare you for any writing project. It's a research tool that you can use to inform a project of any length, essentially. A literature review is going to be a foundation for the research that you are conducting. So, an annotated bibliography compiles the research out there that you looked at. A literature review talks about the specific studies that are applicable to your narrowed topic that you are then going to be building from in your research project. So that's a little wishy washy, but I'm going to unpack how a literature review function differently. So, I'm hoping this will be clear as we get towards the end of this webinar and I think it will. So, stick with me.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: The Literature Review

“a written approach to examining published information on a particular topic or field. Authors use this review of literature to create a foundation and justification for their research or to demonstrate knowledge on the current state of a field.” (Walden Writing Center, n.d., para. 1)

More Resources!

“Reviewing the Literature and Incorporating Previous Research ” recorded webinar

Audio: The literature review, to use our definition here, is a written approach to examining published information on a particular topic or field. Authors use this review of literature to create a foundation and justification for their research or to demonstrate the knowledge on the current state of the field.

Yeah. That's a great definition. (Laughing). Really what I think about literature review as, its something that, it's a portion of a larger document. Right? That shows the reader what research is out there already on a narrowed topic.

One metaphor that people often use to talk about a literature review is that a literature review it's like a dinner party. So, each source is a scholar in this field and they are talking to each other about the specific topic. The literature review is, to go off this analogy, is compiling what is said at that conversation and that dinner table. Right? What are these different sources adding on this topic. How are they agreeing, how are they disagreeing? And you use that as the definition indicates, as a foundation for your own research. So, having this conversation in front of me, I think that the next place for this conversation would go in this direction. That's how the literature review functions.

More resources here on the bottom right hand corner. We have another webinar that discusses reviewing the literature and incorporating previous research specifically. If that’s something that interests you, go ahead and take a look at that too. Again, you are developing a foundation for your own research and telling the reader what research has been done on an narrowed topic already.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Literature Review: Purpose

• Overviews your chosen topic or field
• Demonstrates your depth of knowledge
• Can show a gap or your research focus
• Supports and guides research
• Can help you find a gap or your research focus

Audio: For your reader then, these are overviews literature reviews, excuse me, overviews of your chosen topic or field; that again demonstrates this depth of knowledge. This is what has been published on this topic thus far. It can even show a gap in research that you can then focus on. Like, what's an opportunity for furthering research there.

For yourself, it supports and guides the research. It can promote analysis and critical reading. There's a really strong analysis or synthesis part of a literature review. And lastly, it can help you find a gap in the literature that you can focus on. Everyone is looking for this gap in the literature that they can then use their study to fill and so this again can be something that helps you do that, the literature review.

Examination of all the scholarship on a particular topic or field written in narrative form via synthesis .

• Not summary or report
• Not just research that agrees
• Not a list of annotations or organized alphabetically or chronologically
• Not just summary or analysis

Audio: So, again, the purpose of a literature review to break this down a little bit farther is an examination of all of the scholarship on a particular topic or field written in narrative form via synthesis. There's a lot going on there, so were going to unpack this a little bit more.

It's an examination. It's not a summary or a report. You are not just regurgitating what a source says. You are not just reporting about this source. You are examining it. So, what's implied is that you will be working with this source and looking at some of the elements within a source and comparing it to other sources that way. So, it's not just a summary.

It's going to be all the resources within a certain narrowed topic area. Not all research is going to agree. You’re going to have those different voices at the dinner table. One scholar might not agree with another. So, you will highlight where they differ and how that disagreement comes about and what they are disagreeing about.

A topic will be a focus or a narrowed topic. You don't want this to be too broad. If you think about a topic like climate change, if you go into academic search premiere or another database to search for a different journal articles and type in climate change, you’re going to get thousands upon thousands of published articles. So, you need to focus that down so you are really narrowing your topic to focus on a specific conversation within that large umbrella topic area.

It's a narrative, so it's not a list of annotation. Or organized alphabetically or chronologically. You are putting it into writing could be another way to say that it's a narrative. You are not just listing or bulleting; you are bringing these together in paragraph form.

And, lastly, it is not just summary or analysis it’s synthesis, which is a kind of a big word that we use a lot here, synthesis, really the way I think of it is bringing two distinct things together to make a new whole. We’re going to talk about this in another slide. Is synthesis is putting two things together to create something new.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Literature Review: Organization

Annotated bibliography = Organized by sources

Literature review = Organized by theme

Literature reviews are about synthesis

Audio: Here's our difference again. Annotated bibliography organized by sources. Literature review is not organized by sources; it's organized by themes. Right? So, if you are crafting a literature review, logistically speaking each one of your paragraphs in a literature review should contain more than one source. Part of synthesis is putting these sources in conversation with one another. Right? So, it's kind of hard to have a conversation alone (laughing). So, in a literature review each paragraph should cover a theme that multiple sources approach. And I’m going to explain that a little bit further as well. But again, don't organize your literature review by source; organize it by theme.

What is synthesis ?

• Identifying patterns among sources
• Analyzing strengths/weaknesses of the sources or field
• Comparing and contrasting the authors’ findings
• Interpreting what is known in your field and what is missing

Adding to the conversation

…Although Benson (2015) suggested technical innovations make providing health care easier, Campbell et al. (2014) noted that technology is only helpful if hospital staff are adequately trained on the new system. Thus, adequately training hospital staff is essential to successfully implementing new technology….

Audio: And, again, this brings in the synthesis piece which we will talk about right here. Synthesis. As I mention, bringing two different things together to make a new whole. The example that I like to give here is with chemistry. Synthesizing chemicals. You are taking two chemicals that are completely distinct from one another, they are different, and when you combine them, you’re creating something new. It's not just these two chemicals together now, it is something completely different. It's a new chemical. That is kind of how synthesis works in writing as well.

You’re going to identify patterns among sources. So, I have five sources that all talk about making a grill cheese sandwich. Two of these sources have the same methodology. They say to make a grill cheese sandwich in the same way. This is a theme or pattern within these sources. It would be appropriate then to discuss these two sources together and how they are subtly different in making a grill cheese sandwich.

Your analyzing strengths and weaknesses of a source or field. Comparing and contrasting an authors' findings. As you research in a topic area not every source is going to agree with each other. You will have authors that sometimes very distinctly or drastically disagree with each other. So again, you want to include all of the voices at that dinner party. You want to bring everyone's voice in and give them some time to express their views and relate that to the other views at the table.

You’re going to be interpreting what is known in your field and what is missing. And here's an example of this source synthesis idea. (Reading) Although Benson suggested technical innovations make providing health care easier, Campbell et al. (2014) noted that technology is only helpful if hospital staff are adequately trained on the new system. So, these are the two sources. We have two bits of information here. Benson says this and if the other side of the dinner table Campbell et al., says this, we’re bringing these two ideas together to make a new idea. That's the bolded portion on the slide. Thus, adequately training hospital staff is essential to successfully implement new technology. So, we say Benson says that new technology is makes giving healthcare, makes it easier to provide healthcare. Campbell et al, says it's important that all staff are trained properly on anything. To bring these together it's important to train hospital staff on new technology. It's two pieces that together yield this new point. Okay.

For those of you maybe feel confused or intimidated at this point, synthesis is a pre ‑‑ it's a high order scholarly or intellectual activity. It's something that needs to be practiced. It's a skill that needs to be developed. So, if you are not seeing how sources fit together right away, that's totally fine. You are going to be working with these sources more and these kinds of things will become more clear to you as you research more and deal with sources more. For those starting out, don't be intimidated. You will get it. Synthesis is a muscle that needs to be flexed it’s something that can be practiced and improved upon, so don't get discouraged is what I'm saying.

Yeah. This bit of synthesis adds to this conversation.

…After Kroll (2016) suggested that streamlining workflow using technology would allow for more time with patients, Macijewski (2017) noted that technology is only able to save time when hospital hardware is kept updated.

Is this a strong or weak example of synthesis?

Audio: Okay. We have our first chat here. And essentially, I’ve got a bit of a source, an excerpt from a literature review here. I'm looking for you to in this chat box speak about the strengths or weaknesses of this example, how well or lack thereof maybe are these; is synthesis being brought into this example. I'll give you a couple of minutes to do this. Again, put your answers in the chat box.

[silence as students respond]

Alright for the sake of time here, I’m going to move along. Let’s take a look at this. After Kroll 2017 suggested streamlining workflow using technology allowed for more time with patients... Macjewski (2017) noted that technology is only able to save time when hospital hardware is kept updated. Yeah, this is a, I would say this is an example of weak synthesis or a lack of synthesis at all. I see a couple of you kind of agreed with me in the chat box. I like how one student said it's a weak synthesis and the next student said no synthesis at all (laughing). It’s a little less diplomatic. But you are right, there's no synthesis here. What this is doing is presenting Kroll's idea and then it’s presenting Macijewski’s ideas. These are two separate things. Two voices in the conversation. But what this is forgetting that synthesis piece. Right? Is bringing these two things together. Given that these two ideas are both valid, what does that leave us with. Combining these, how do we make that whole. Here's an example of how that could look.

…After Kroll (2016) suggested that streamlining workflow using technology would allow for more time with patients, Macijewski (2017) noted that technology is only able to save time when hospital hardware is kept updated. Thus, hospitals must invest both in software and IT departments to support and update technology to be effective.

Audio: Again, we have Krolls idea here, we have Macijewski’s idea there. The synthesis that would make this a strong synthesis (laughing), the sentence that would make this a strong synthesis is highlighted in bold here. (Reading) Thus, hospitals must invest both in software and IT departments to support and update technology to be effective.

Yes, so this is bringing these together. Kroll saying technology could streamline this and make for more time with patients. Macijewski is saying the hardware needs to be up‑to‑date. Putting these two things together, hospitals need to make sure the software and the IT departments are supported for technology to be effective. Right? That's the new idea that we have created here.

Kroll isn’t talking about hardware systems within technology. Kroll is talking about how hardware could affect the delivery of services to a patient. Combining these two you have this new thing, new elements.

• Unique organization
• Talk about multiple authors in sections and paragraphs
• Allow authors to “talk to each other”
• Creates narrative form
• Limits organization
• Limits a paragraph to one source
• Doesn’t allow synthesis of sources
• Creates summary or book report feel

Audio: I'll move on. Some kind of do's and don'ts of a literature review and the organization. Do organize this by theme. Says a Unique organization. So, we have a link there can help you with this. You want to talk about multiple authors in the same section and paragraph. Absolutely. You want to allow the authors to talk to each other, to voice their specific ideas. Sure. And you want to create this kind of narrative, this paragraph displaying these authors' ideas.

When you don't do that, when you don't organize this by theme, when you only organize this by author, there's some pretty negative outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of that literature review. This limits your objection. This limit paragraphs to one source. You can only talk about one source at a time. That's not putting them in conversation with one another. Doesn't allow for synthesis of sources. Yeah, you can't create a new whole if you only have one thing. You just have the one thing (laughing). So yeah, that makes it ineffective also. And if you organize this by author, it just creates a summary or book report feel to it.  When really, we need this conversational piece and synthesis of these sources for this to be a true and effective literature review.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Literature Review: Writing Tips

Use Paragraphs

No required or prescribed headings

Audio: Some general writing tips. Use paragraphs. You are not required or prescribed to use headings here. But as you can see this can be something that can be useful to use headings. You are not required, but it can be useful.

Use headings and comparative terms to direct the reader and organize the literature review

Cue your reader to organization and changing topics

Note subtopics of themes

Comparative Terms

Demonstrate where authors agree or disagree

Highlight your interpretation of the authors’ findings

Audio: A heading can cue a reader to an organization or changing of a topic. You can also use headings to explore subtopics of certain themes. Headings I don’t think are a bad idea within a literature review at all. So, yeah, if it helps you organize your thoughts that way, I would say go for it. This bit on the slide about comparative terms is really important also. The idea here being, and I know it sounds kind of silly, but words matter. Words have meanings, specific meanings, so you need to use a language that shows an accurate relationship between these sources. You want to demonstrate where authors agree and where authors disagree.

So, to give you an example how this could sound, you might use the word similarly to show how one author agrees with another. You might use the phrase on the contrary or conversely to show where one author disagrees with another.

Again, my point here being be careful about the language you use in combining and synthesizing sources, because it does have specific meanings. And if sources disagree, saying something like similarly would kind of be confusing to the reader. So, again, be cognizant of the terms that you are using in comparing these sources. Some mean they are agreeing, some mean they are conceding the point. Some mean that they are flat out disagreeing with another source. So be cognizant and aware of the comparative terms that you are using.

Organization

Note themes & patterns as you read

Use a matrix

Use a software program (like Zotero )

Develop an outline

Stay flexible as research develops

Use general good scholarly writing guidelines:

Effective Paraphrasing

Transitions

Literature Reviews: 5-Part Blog Series

Audio: Some tips here for creating a literature review. In terms of the organization, note the themes and patterns as you read. This is the annotation piece. If you look back at your annotated bibliography you’d say, okay, these three sources and their source summaries have all discussed this one idea, this one narrow idea. That's a theme that can be noted. Use the matrix, the library offers, a resource called the literature matrix, which can really be helpful in organizing your ideas as you compile sources. What this is, is it’s essentially an excel spreadsheet that asks you break down sources by different attributes. Things like sample size, like methodology, theoretical framework that sources are using. There's a link here that’ll get you to that matrix I would highly recommend that, I think it’s a really good resource that Walden provides.

Beyond Walden, is a program called Zotero. Which I’ve heard a lot of students at residency say is really useful, I think it has some added features that can be useful, so if that's something that interests you, go ahead and take a look at that and seek that out.  Developing an outline is important because then you’re taking those themes and you’re saying well I'm going to do one paragraph about this theme and one paragraph about that theme. So that can be useful in reviewing your literature as well. Also, you want to stay flexible as your research develope. This is just strong advice for research in general. Be open to the sources that you find and don't discard a source because you maybe disagree or it doesn't agree with some of your other sources.

In terms of resources, use general good scholarly writing guidelines. Things like Synthesis, effective paragraphing, paragraphs. Transitions are really useful in literature reviews. We have another resource here, literature reviews five-part blog series. That can be a good resource for you if you are compiling a literature review. Again, as with everything with writing, it's about finding what works for you. So, yeah, if you find a matrix or Zotero useful, by all means use that. Find a resource that works well for you is my point here.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Literature Review: Example Headings

• Introduction
• Historical Context of Continuing Education
• The Need for Continuing Professional Educations in the Human Services
• Professionals’ Views of Continuing Education
• Continuing Education in the Funeral Profession
• Issues Regarding Mandatory versus Voluntary Continuing Education
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Mandatory versus Voluntary Continuing Education
• Formal and Informal Continuing Education
• Differing Methodologies

Audio: Here's is what an outline for a literature review could like look. These are some, potentially examples headings you could use. Introduction, paragraph. Then this author is going to talk about strategy. How different sources approach strategy. Historical context and continuing education. You get it. These are the different themes this author would have identified in the research. Then breaking it down. They’re going to talk about instances where the research they have gathered addresses the specific themes. And how maybe they agree, how maybe they disagree. Again, this is an example outline you can use, that gives you an idea how a literature review can be broken apart.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Literature Review: Example Paragraph

As Stragalas (2016) argued, sharing specific details about the change will help to eliminate any difficulties. Steele-Johnson et al. (2015) echoed these sentiments when they reported that revealing all of the details about a change process can help those involved better understand and support the change. Steele-Johnson et al. also asserted that a high level of transparency during the change can help those involved prepare for and welcome the change. Similarly, Nahata et al. (2011) showed that transparency through excessive communication can allow for a wider range of acceptance of the change.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of this paragraph?

Audio: In the interest of time, I think I’m going to burn this second chat because I want to leave a little bit of time for questions. But by all means go back in and take a look at that if you downloaded these slides.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Recap

Annotated Bibliographies

Individual authors/sources

Reference + Annotation

Literature Reviews

Patterns and themes

Annotated Bibliographies (master’s and doctoral students)

Reviewing the Literature and Incorporating Previous Research (doctoral students)

Literature Reviews for Graduate Coursework (master’s students)

Audio: To recap, annotated bibliographies you really focus on an individual author and a source. You have your reference entry and your annotation. All of those refer to one specific source. This is a research tool that's meant to help you compile your research and see maybe how that research fits together. But it's really meant to see, compile research, and see what individual sources are doing, how are they approaching this topic? What did they find, how could they have done that better, how is this useful to me?

In a literature review, from that annotated bibliography, from the research you compiled you need to identify themes and patterns and reorganize that information around those themes or patterns. Under the theme of X, these three authors talk about that and they approach it in a different way. So that paragraph would unpack these three authors view views and some synthesis at the end, that when combined what these things say together, what is important here. That type of thing.

Here’s a resource on annotated bibliographies and here’s a few resources on a literature review. Both are master levels and doctoral level resource there.

Visual: Slide changes to the following: Questions: Ask Now or Later

[email protected] •  Live Chat Hours

Learn More:

Reviewing the Literature and Incorporating Previous Research

(for doctoral students)

Literature Reviews for Graduate Coursework (for master’s students)

Annotated Bibliographies (for master’s and doctoral students)

Make a Paper Review Appointment!

Assist students in becoming better academic writers by providing online, asynchronous feedback by appointment.

Audio : Okay. With that then, I'll ask you again, Claire, any questions you would like me to talk through before we adjourn this webinar?

Claire: Thanks, Michael. I did have a good one which was: Do you recommend working on an annotated bibliography and a literature review at the same time? Or should one or the other potentially come first?

Michael: That is a good one. That's a good question. Well, first and foremost I would point towards this individual thing for different people. Right? If it works well for you to work on them side‑by‑side, I guess I can see a situation in which that might be useful. For me, in my opinion, I think you should do the annotated bibliography first before you do a literature review. Here's why. The literature review, again, it’s really important that you identify these themes and patterns within the research that you have collected. That identifying these themes and patterns informs how your literature review will be ordered and set up and how that synthesis is brought in. So, before you can do that you need to identify these themes. I think that the annotated bibliography as a tool can be really useful in looking at different sources in identifying those themes. I would say, personally, that you do the annotated bibliography before the literature review.

On a broader note, once again it's really about finding what works for you. So, if that's works for you to do them at the same time and to add to individual paragraphs separately, then go for that. That's your method. That's your process. But I would say do the annotated bibliography before the literature review.

Claire: Great. Thanks so much, Michael. I think that's all the questions we have for today. So, thank you for presenting. If you do have questions you can email us at [email protected] or again visit us during our live chat hours. I know that some of the links were not active during this presentation. Adobe Connect has been really finicky with us lately about doing some weird things with links when we transfer it to the presentation mode, but all the links should be just fine in the actual slides. So, if you want to download the slides, you can go to the pod at the bottom it’s right next to Michaels picture there and click slides lit review and annotated bibliography basics.

If you were looking for any of the links that were not functional during this presentation, they will all be active and correct in that slide show itself. I also want it have a quick plug for additional webinars. We do have some recommendations here. You can review them in our archive or check out ones that are coming up in our webinar schedule. And we are happy to review our next literature review as long as it's not for your dissertation itself. If it's for your course work assignments, those are great things to send into the Writing Center. We are here to support you that way as well.

Thank you all for a great presentation. Have a good rest of your day.

(End of webinar)

• Previous Page: Life Cycle of a Paper
• Next Page: Literature Review Panel with the Library and Writing Center
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 25, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• WESTCHESTER CAMPUS
• Social Media Center
• Directories

ENG 201: Research Introduction, Annotated Bibliography & Literature Review (PLV)

• Research Introduction

Annotated Bibliographies & Literature Reviews

Writing an annotated bibliography, why do we write literature reviews, what are scholarly journals & peer review.

• Strategic Searching
• Locating Sources Online & At Pace
• Citing Your Sources

How are annotated bibliographies and literature reviews related? 

Annotated bibliographies collect sources and present citations along with a summary and analysis that connects the information to your research question. In a literature review , the author synthesizes multiple sources together to present the major themes, arguments and theories around a topic. 

Therefore, an annotated bibliography can provide an opportunity to review and analyze individual sources before o rganizing them around common denominators found across sources. 

Creating an annotated bibliography: 

• Review your assignment to determine how your professor would like your annotated bibliography to look.
• Search ! The "Strategic Searching" and "Locating Sources Online & At Pace" pages on this guide for assistance in locating potential sources. 
• Create the citations for your sources. 
• Write a paragraph for each citation summarizing, analyzing and determining the relevance of that source to your paper.                                                                       Icon by freepik

Examples: 

• University of Wisconsin: Annotated Bibliographies Research Guide This Research Guide page walks through the step by step process of creating an annotated bibliography.
• Rasmussen College: Annotated Bibliography Research Guide Watch the video and see an example of an annotated bibliography.

Literature reviews serve a purpose in research by: 

• Showing the writer's understanding of their topic area including key concepts, terminology, theories and definitions
• Identifying what research has been done in that area
• Finding gaps in the research or current areas of interest to help the writer tweak their own research question, if needed
• Identifying main areas of agreement, disagreement or controversy within the topic area
• Convincing the reader that your research question is significant, important and interesting

You are writing a MAP to the scholarly conversation on your topic.

• Planning and Creating a Literature Review Video Tips for searching, analyzing, and organizing sources for your literature review.

For your Literature Review you will summarize, evaluate, and synthesize, existing scholarship related to your research question. This "scholarship" is found in academic, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. These differ from magazines and articles written for the general public because scholarly journals are written for researchers and experts in the discipline area. 

Click the link below titled, "Anatomy of a Scholarly Journal Article" to view an  interactive journal article and review what each section means.

You may need a few peer reviewed sources for your literature review. But what does that mean?

Peer-reviewed and refereed publications  include articles that are read and approved by an editor and one or more experts in that field to confirm accuracy of information and the contribution of that information to the scholarly conversation. 

• Anatomy of a Scholarly Journal Article Click to explore what makes up a "scholarly journal article." From the North Carolina State University Library.
• How to Read a Scholarly Article A visual demonstration, from Western Libraries.
• Example of a Scholarly Article
• Example #2 of a Scholarly Journal
• << Previous: Research Introduction
• Next: Strategic Searching >>
• Last Updated: Feb 20, 2024 3:45 PM
• URL: https://libguides.pace.edu/eng201
• © Pace University
• Work at Pace
• Privacy Policy

Literature Review vs. Annotated Bibliography vs. Research Paper... What's the difference?

Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to provide an overview of existing academic literature on a specific topic and an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s arguments. You are summarizing what research is available on a certain topic and then drawing conclusions about the topic. To make gathering your research easier, be sure to start with a narrow/specific topic and then widen your topic if necessary.

A literature review is helpful when determining what research has already been discovered through academic research and what further research still needs to be done. Are there gaps? Are there opportunities for further research? What is missing from my collection of resources? Are more resources needed?

It is important to note that the conclusions described in the literature you gather may contradict each other completely or in part.  A literature review gives the researcher an overview and understanding of research findings to date on a particular topic or issue.

Annotated Bibliography

An annotated bibliography is a list of resources that you have gathered on a topic that includes an annotation following the reference.  Like a References list, annotated bibliographies gather all resources discovered in the research process in one document. Each citation in the bibliography is followed by an annotation a 5-7 sentence paragraph consisting of a summary, an evaluation, and a reflection of that resource.

An annotated bibliography is different from a literature review because it serves a different purpose. Annotated bibliographies focus on sources gathered for a specific research project. A literature review attempts to take a comprehensive approach to evaluate all of the research available on a particular question or a topic to create the foundation for a research paper. 

For more information, please visit the annotated bibliography page of our APA guide.

Research Paper

A research paper presents a single argument/idea on a topic supported by research that you have gathered. Your own thoughts and opinions will be supported by research that you have gathered on your topic. The resources used in your research paper typically support the argument that you are making.

For more information on writing a research paper, check out our Writing guide .

Generally, either an annotated bibliography or a literature review are written first and set the framework for the final product: your research paper. 

• Reading and Writing
• Research and Library
• General Education & Other
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Research Papers
• Last Updated May 14, 2021
• Views 39110
• Answered By Kate Anderson, Librarian

FAQ Actions

• Share on Facebook

Comments (0)

Hello! We're here to help! Please log in to ask your question.

Need an answer now? Search our FAQs !

How can I find my course textbook?

You can expect a prompt response, Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM-4:00 PM Central Time (by the next business day on weekends and holidays).

Questions may be answered by a Librarian, Learning Services Coordinator, Instructor, or Tutor. 

•   [email protected]

Getting Started with Research at Shapiro Library

Writing help.

• SNHU Wolak Learning Center (Campus Students) This link opens in a new window
• SNHU Academic Support (Online) This link opens in a new window

Writing Literature Reviews

What is a literature review.

"A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant." Source: The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. (2013). Literature Reviews. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/ This link opens in a new window

Need help writing a literature review?

Check out these resources:

Helpful Books from the Library

Helpful Web Resources

• Literature Reviews (UNC Writing Center) This link opens in a new window
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature (The Writing Center at the Univ. of Wisconsin) This link opens in
• The Literature Review (Univ. of Toronto) This link opens in a new window
• Write a Literature Review (University Library at Univ. Of California Santa Cruz) This link opens in a new wi
• Literature Reviews (Ithaca) This link opens in a new window
• << Previous: Writing Papers
• Next: APA Annotated Bibliography >>

How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review

• Step #1: Choosing a Topic
• Step #2: Finding Information
• Step #3: Evaluating Content
• Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• #5 Writing the Review
• Citing Your Sources

WRITING THE REVIEW 

You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.

The actual review generally has 5 components:

Abstract  -  An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:

• A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
• Your thesis statement
• A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
• Summarize your findings
• Conclusion(s) based upon your findings

Introduction :   Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
• Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)  - 

Body :  The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-

• Chronological -  by publication or by trend
• Thematic -  organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
• Methodical -  the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing

You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.

Conclusion :  In the conclusion, you should:

Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography :   Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.

• Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
• Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
• << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

• 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

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 23 May 2024

Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i

• Veronique Lambert   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-0038 1 ,
• Sarah Kane   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-9341-4836 2   na1 ,
• Belal Howidi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1166-7631 2   na1 ,
• Bao-Ngoc Nguyen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-2270 2   na1 ,
• David Chandiwana   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0002-3499-2565 3 ,
• Yan Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-3348-9232 1 ,
• Michelle Edwards   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-4292-3140 3 &
• Imtiaz A. Samjoo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1415-8055 2   na1  

BMC Cancer volume  24 , Article number:  631 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

258 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) are currently recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines as the first-line (1 L) treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC). Although there are many treatment options, there is no clear standard of care for patients following 1 L CDK4/6i. Understanding the real-world effectiveness of subsequent therapies may help to identify an unmet need in this patient population. This systematic literature review qualitatively synthesized effectiveness and safety outcomes for treatments received in the real-world setting after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in patients with HR+/ HER2- LABC/mBC.

MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane were searched using the Ovid® platform for real-world evidence studies published between 2015 and 2022. Grey literature was searched to identify relevant conference abstracts published from 2019 to 2022. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383914). Data were qualitatively synthesized and weighted average median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was calculated for NCCN/ESMO-recommended post-1 L CDK4/6i treatment regimens.

Twenty records (9 full-text articles and 11 conference abstracts) encompassing 18 unique studies met the eligibility criteria and reported outcomes for second-line (2 L) treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i; no studies reported disaggregated outcomes in the third-line setting or beyond. Sixteen studies included NCCN/ESMO guideline-recommended treatments with the majority evaluating endocrine-based therapy; five studies on single-agent ET, six studies on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) ± ET, and three studies with a mix of ET and/or mTORi. Chemotherapy outcomes were reported in 11 studies. The most assessed outcome was median rwPFS; the weighted average median rwPFS was calculated as 3.9 months (3.3-6.0 months) for single-agent ET, 3.6 months (2.5–4.9 months) for mTORi ± ET, 3.7 months for a mix of ET and/or mTORi (3.0–4.0 months), and 6.1 months (3.7–9.7 months) for chemotherapy. Very few studies reported other effectiveness outcomes and only two studies reported safety outcomes. Most studies had heterogeneity in patient- and disease-related characteristics.

Conclusions

The real-world effectiveness of current 2 L treatments post-1 L CDK4/6i are suboptimal, highlighting an unmet need for this patient population.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most diagnosed form of cancer in women with an estimated 2.3 million new cases diagnosed worldwide each year [ 1 ]. BC is the second leading cause of cancer death, accounting for 685,000 deaths worldwide per year [ 2 ]. By 2040, the global burden associated with BC is expected to surpass three million new cases and one million deaths annually (due to population growth and aging) [ 3 ]. Numerous factors contribute to global disparities in BC-related mortality rates, including delayed diagnosis, resulting in a high number of BC cases that have progressed to locally advanced BC (LABC) or metastatic BC (mBC) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In the United States (US), the five-year survival rate for patients who progress to mBC is three times lower (31%) than the overall five-year survival rate for all stages (91%) [ 6 , 7 ].

Hormone receptor (HR) positive (i.e., estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive) coupled with negative human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression is the most common subtype of BC, accounting for ∼ 60–70% of all BC cases [ 8 , 9 ]. Historically, endocrine therapy (ET) through estrogen receptor modulation and/or estrogen deprivation has been the standard of care for first-line (1 L) treatment of HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) mBC [ 10 ]. However, with the approval of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) palbociclib in combination with the aromatase inhibitor (AI) letrozole in 2015 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1 L treatment practice patterns have evolved such that CDK4/6i (either in combination with AIs or with fulvestrant) are currently considered the standard of care [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Other CDK4/6i (ribociclib and abemaciclib) in combination with ET are approved for the treatment of HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC; 1 L use of ribociclib in combination with an AI was granted FDA approval in March 2017 for postmenopausal women (with expanded approval in July 2018 for pre/perimenopausal women and for use in 1 L with fulvestrant for patients with disease progression on ET as well as for postmenopausal women), and abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant was granted FDA approval in September 2017 for patients with disease progression following ET and as monotherapy in cases where disease progression occurs following ET and prior chemotherapy in mBC (with expanded approval in February 2018 for use in 1 L in combination with an AI for postmenopausal women) [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].

Clinical trials investigating the addition of CDK4/6i to ET have demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and significant (ribociclib) or numerical (palbociclib and abemaciclib) improvement in overall survival (OS) compared to ET alone in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or mBC, making this combination treatment the recommended option in the 1 L setting [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. However, disease progression occurs in a significant portion of patients after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment [ 28 ] and the optimal treatment sequence after progression on CDK4/6i remains unclear [ 29 ]. At the time of this review (literature search conducted December 14, 2022), guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend various options for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced BC in the second-line (2 L) setting, including fulvestrant monotherapy, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi; e.g., everolimus) ± ET, alpelisib + fulvestrant (if phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha mutation positive [PIK3CA-m+]), poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) including olaparib or talazoparib (if breast cancer gene/partner and localizer of BRCA2 positive [BRCA/PALB2m+]), and chemotherapy (in cases when a visceral crisis is present) [ 15 , 16 ]. CDK4/6i can also be used in 2 L [ 16 , 30 ]; however, limited data are available to support CDK4/6i rechallenge after its use in the 1 L setting [ 15 ]. Depending on treatments used in the 1 L and 2 L settings, treatment in the third-line setting is individualized based on the patient’s response to prior treatments, tumor load, duration of response, and patient preference [ 9 , 15 ]. Understanding subsequent treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i, and their associated effectiveness, is an important focus in BC research.

Treatment options for HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC continue to evolve, with ongoing research in both clinical trials and in the real-world setting. Real-world evidence (RWE) offers important insights into novel therapeutic regimens and the effectiveness of treatments for HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. The effectiveness of the current treatment options following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in the real-world setting highlights the unmet need in this patient population and may help to drive further research and drug development. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to qualitatively summarize the effectiveness and safety of treatment regimens in the real-world setting after 1 L treatment with CDK4/6i in patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC.

Literature search

An SLR was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 31 ] and reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [ 32 ] to identify all RWE studies assessing the effectiveness and safety of treatments used for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy and received subsequent treatment in 2 L and beyond (2 L+). The Ovid® platform was used to search MEDLINE® (including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid MEDLINE® Daily, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by an experienced medical information specialist. The MEDLINE® search strategy was peer-reviewed independently by a senior medical information specialist before execution using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist [ 33 ]. Searches were conducted on December 14, 2022. The review protocol was developed a priori and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO; CRD42023383914) which outlined the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) criteria and methodology used to conduct the review (Table  1 ).

Search strategies utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., “HER2 Breast Cancer” or “HR Breast Cancer”) and keywords (e.g., “Retrospective studies”). Vocabulary and syntax were adjusted across databases. Published and validated filters were used to select for study design and were supplemented using additional medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and keywords to select for RWE and nonrandomized studies [ 34 ]. No language restrictions were included in the search strategy. Animal-only and opinion pieces were removed from the results. The search was limited to studies published between January 2015 and December 2022 to reflect the time at which FDA approval was granted for the first CDK4/6i agent (palbociclib) in combination with AI for the treatment of LABC/mBC [ 35 ]. Further search details are presented in Supplementary Material 1 .

Grey literature sources were also searched to identify relevant abstracts and posters published from January 2019 to December 2022 for prespecified relevant conferences including ESMO, San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR US), and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). A search of ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to validate the findings from the database and grey literature searches.

Study selection, data extraction & weighted average calculation

Studies were screened for inclusion using DistillerSR Version 2.35 and 2.41 (DistillerSR Inc. 2021, Ottawa, Canada) by two independent reviewers based on the prespecified PICOS criteria (Table  1 ). A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies during the screening process. Studies were included if they reported RWE on patients aged ≥ 18 years with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC who received 1 L CDK4/6i treatment and received subsequent treatment in 2 L+. Studies were excluded if they reported the results of clinical trials (i.e., non-RWE), were published in any language other than English, and/or were published prior to 2015 (or prior to 2019 for conference abstracts and posters). For studies that met the eligibility criteria, data relating to study design and methodology, details of interventions, patient eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics, and outcome measures such as efficacy, safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), were extracted (as available) using a Microsoft Excel®-based data extraction form (Microsoft Corporation, WA, USA). Data extraction was performed by a single reviewer and was confirmed by a second reviewer. Multiple publications identified for the same RWE study, patient population, and setting that reported data for the same intervention were linked and extracted as a single publication. Weighted average median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) values were calculated by considering the contribution to the median rwPFS of each study proportional to its respective sample size. These weighted values were then used to compute the overall median rwPFS estimate.

Quality assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for nonrandomized (cohort) studies was used to assess the risk of bias for published, full-text studies [ 36 ]. The NOS allocates a maximum of nine points for the least risk of bias across three domains: (1) Formation of study groups (four points), (2) Comparability between study groups (two points), (3) Outcome ascertainment (three points). NOS scores can be categorized in three groups: very high risk of bias (0 to 3 points), high risk of bias (4 to 6), and low risk of bias (7 to 9) [ 37 ]. Risk of bias assessment was performed by one reviewer and validated by a second independent reviewer to verify accuracy. Due to limited methodological data by which to assess study quality, risk of bias assessment was not performed on conference abstracts or posters. An amendment to the PROSPERO record (CRD42023383914) for this study was submitted in relation to the quality assessment method (specifying usage of the NOS).

The database search identified 3,377 records; after removal of duplicates, 2,759 were screened at the title and abstract stage of which 2,553 were excluded. Out of the 206 reports retrieved and assessed for eligibility, an additional 187 records were excluded after full-text review; most of these studies were excluded for having patients with mixed lines of CDK4/6i treatment (i.e., did not receive CDK4/6i exclusively in 1 L) (Fig.  1 and Table S1 ). The grey literature search identified 753 records which were assessed for eligibility; of which 752 were excluded mainly due to the population not meeting the eligibility criteria (Fig.  1 ). In total, the literature searches identified 20 records (9 published full-text articles and 11 conference abstracts/posters) representing 18 unique RWE studies that met the inclusion criteria. The NOS quality scores for the included full-text articles are provided in Table S2 . The scores ranged from four to six points (out of a total score of nine) and the median score was five, indicating that all the studies suffered from a high risk of bias [ 37 ].

Most studies were retrospective analyses of chart reviews or medical registries, and all studies were published between 2017 and 2022 (Table S3 ). Nearly half of the RWE studies (8 out of 18 studies) were conducted in the US [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], while the remaining studies included sites in Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Sample sizes ranged from as few as 4 to as many as 839 patients across included studies, with patient age ranging from 26 to 86 years old.

Although treatment characteristics in the 1 L setting were not the focus of the present review, these details are captured in Table S3 . Briefly, several RWE studies reported 1 L CDK4/6i use in combination with ET (8 out of 18 studies) or as monotherapy (2 out of 18 studies) (Table S3 ). Treatments used in combination with 1 L CDK4/6i included letrozole, fulvestrant, exemestane, and anastrozole. Where reported (4 out of 18 studies), palbociclib was the most common 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. Many studies (8 out of 18 studies) did not report which specific CDK4/6i treatment(s) were used in 1 L or if its administration was in combination or monotherapy.

Characteristics of treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy

Across all studies included in this review, effectiveness and safety data were only available for treatments administered in the 2 L setting after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. No studies were identified that reported outcomes for patients treated in the third-line setting or beyond after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. All 18 studies reported effectiveness outcomes in 2 L, with only two of these studies also describing 2 L safety outcomes. The distribution of outcomes reported in these studies is provided in Table S4 . Studies varied in their reporting of outcomes for 2 L treatments; some studies reported outcomes for a group of 2 L treatments while others described independent outcomes for specific 2 L treatments (i.e., everolimus, fulvestrant, or chemotherapy agents such as eribulin mesylate) [ 42 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 55 ]. Due to the heterogeneity in treatment classes reported in these studies, this data was categorized (as described below) to align with the guidelines provided by NCCN and ESMO [ 15 , 16 ]. The treatment class categorizations for the purpose of this review are: single-agent ET (patients who exclusively received a single-agent ET after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment), mTORi ± ET (patients who exclusively received an mTORi with or without ET after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment), mix of ET and/or mTORi (patients who may have received only ET, only mTORi, and/or both treatments but the studies in this group lacked sufficient information to categorize these patients in the “single-agent ET” or “mTOR ± ET” categories), and chemotherapy (patients who exclusively received chemotherapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment). Despite ESMO and NCCN guidelines indicating that limited evidence exists to support rechallenge with CDK4/6i after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment [ 15 , 16 ], two studies reported outcomes for this treatment approach. Data for such patients were categorized as “ CDK4/6i ± ET ” as it was unclear how many patients receiving CDK4/6i rechallenge received concurrent ET. All other patient groups that lacked sufficient information or did not report outcome/safety data independently (i.e., grouped patients with mixed treatments) to categorize as one of the treatment classes described above were grouped as “ other ”.

The majority of studies reported effectiveness outcomes for endocrine-based therapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment; five studies for single-agent ET, six studies for mTORi ± ET, and three studies for a mix of ET and/or mTORi (Fig.  2 ). Eleven studies reported effectiveness outcomes for chemotherapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment, and only two studies reported effectiveness outcomes for CDK4/6i rechallenge ± ET. Eight studies that described effectiveness outcomes were grouped into the “other” category. Safety data was only reported in two studies: one study evaluating the chemotherapy agent eribulin mesylate and one evaluating the mTORi everolimus.

Effectiveness outcomes

Real-world progression-free survival

Median rwPFS was described in 13 studies (Tables  2 and Table S5 ). Across the 13 studies, the median rwPFS ranged from 2.5 months [ 49 ] to 17.3 months [ 39 ]. Out of the 13 studies reporting median rwPFS, 10 studies reported median rwPFS for a 2 L treatment recommended by ESMO and NCCN guidelines, which ranged from 2.5 months [ 49 ] to 9.7 months [ 45 ].

Weighted average median rwPFS was calculated for 2 L treatments recommended by both ESMO and NCCN guidelines (Fig.  3 ). The weighted average median rwPFS for single-agent ET was 3.9 months ( n  = 92 total patients) and was derived using data from two studies reporting median rwPFS values of 3.3 months ( n  = 70) [ 38 ] and 6.0 months ( n  = 22) [ 40 ]. For one study ( n  = 7) that reported outcomes for single agent ET, median rwPFS was not reached during the follow-up period; as such, this study was excluded from the weighted average median rwPFS calculation [ 49 ].

The weighted average median rwPFS for mTORi ± ET was 3.6 months ( n  = 128 total patients) and was derived based on data from 3 studies with median rwPFS ranging from 2.5 months ( n  = 4) [ 49 ] to 4.9 months ( n  = 25) [ 54 ] (Fig.  3 ). For patients who received a mix of ET and/or mTORi but could not be classified into the single-agent ET or mTORi ± ET treatment classes, the weighted average median rwPFS was calculated to be 3.7 months ( n  = 17 total patients). This was calculated based on data from two studies reporting median rwPFS values of 3.0 months ( n  = 5) [ 46 ] and 4.0 months ( n  = 12) [ 49 ]. Notably, one study of patients receiving ET and/or everolimus reported a median rwPFS duration of 3.0 months; however, this study was excluded from the weighted average median rwPFS calculation for the ET and/or mTORi class as the sample size was not reported [ 53 ].

The weighted average median rwPFS for chemotherapy was 6.1 months ( n  = 499 total patients), calculated using data from 7 studies reporting median rwPFS values ranging from 3.7 months ( n  = 249) [ 38 ] to 9.7 months ( n  = 121) [ 45 ] (Fig.  3 ). One study with a median rwPFS duration of 5.6 months was not included in the weighted average median rwPFS calculation as the study did not report the sample size [ 53 ]. A second study was excluded from the calculation since the reported median rwPFS was not reached during the study period ( n  = 7) [ 41 ].

Although 2 L CDK4/6i ± ET rechallenge lacks sufficient information to support recommendation by ESMO and NCCN guidelines, the limited data currently available for this treatment have shown promising results. Briefly, two studies reported median rwPFS for CDK4/6i ± ET with values of 8.3 months ( n  = 302) [ 38 ] and 17.3 months ( n  = 165) (Table  2 ) [ 39 ]. The remaining median rwPFS studies reported data for patients classified as “Other” (Table S5 ). The “Other” category included median rwPFS outcomes from seven studies, and included a myriad of treatments (e.g., ET, mTOR + ET, chemotherapy, CDK4/6i + ET, alpelisib + fulvestrant, chidamide + ET) for which disaggregated median rwPFS values were not reported.

Overall survival

Median OS for 2 L treatment was reported in only three studies (Table  2 ) [ 38 , 42 , 43 ]. Across the three studies, the 2 L median OS ranged from 5.2 months ( n  = 3) [ 43 ] to 35.7 months ( n  = 302) [ 38 ]. Due to the lack of OS data in most of the studies, weighted averages could not be calculated. No median OS data was reported for the single-agent ET treatment class whereas two studies reported median OS for the mTORi ± ET treatment class, ranging from 5.2 months ( n  = 3) [ 43 ] to 21.8 months ( n  = 54) [ 42 ]. One study reported 2 L median OS of 24.8 months for a single patient treated with chemotherapy [ 43 ]. The median OS data in the CDK4/6i ± ET rechallenge group was 35.7 months ( n  = 302) [ 38 ].

Patient mortality was reported in three studies [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. No studies reported mortality for the single-agent ET treatment class and only one study reported this outcome for the mTORi ± ET treatment class, where 100% of patients died ( n  = 3) as a result of rapid disease progression [ 43 ]. For the chemotherapy class, one study reported mortality for one patient receiving 2 L capecitabine [ 43 ]. An additional study reported eight deaths (21.7%) following 1 L CDK4/6i treatment; however, this study did not disclose the 2 L treatments administered to these patients [ 44 ].

Other clinical endpoints

The studies included limited information on additional clinical endpoints; two studies reported on time-to-discontinuation (TTD), two reported on duration of response (DOR), and one each on time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), time-to-progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and stable disease (Tables  2 and Table S5 ).

Safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes

Safety and tolerability data were reported in two studies [ 40 , 45 ]. One study investigating 2 L administration of the chemotherapy agent eribulin mesylate reported 27 patients (22.3%) with neutropenia, 3 patients (2.5%) with febrile neutropenia, 10 patients (8.3%) with peripheral neuropathy, and 14 patients (11.6%) with diarrhea [ 45 ]. Of these, neutropenia of grade 3–4 severity occurred in 9 patients (33.3%) [ 45 ]. A total of 55 patients (45.5%) discontinued eribulin mesylate treatment; 1 patient (0.83%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events [ 45 ]. Another study reported that 5 out of the 22 patients receiving the mTORi everolimus combined with ET in 2 L (22.7%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity [ 40 ]. PROs were not reported in any of the studies included in the SLR.

The objective of this study was to summarize the existing RWE on the effectiveness and safety of therapies for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. We identified 18 unique studies reporting specifically on 2 L treatment regimens after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. The weighted average median rwPFS for NCCN- and ESMO- guideline recommended 2 L treatments ranged from 3.6 to 3.9 months for ET-based treatments and was 6.1 months when including chemotherapy-based regimens. Treatment selection following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy remains challenging primarily due to the suboptimal effectiveness or significant toxicities (e.g., chemotherapy) associated with currently available options [ 56 ]. These results highlight that currently available 2 L treatments for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC who have received 1 L CDK4/6i are suboptimal, as evidenced by the brief median rwPFS duration associated with ET-based treatments, or notable side effects and toxicity linked to chemotherapy. This conclusion is aligned with a recent review highlighting the limited effectiveness of treatment options for HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC patients post-CDK4/6i treatment [ 56 , 57 ]. Registrational trials which have also shed light on the short median PFS of 2–3 months achieved by ET (i.e., fulvestrant) after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy emphasize the need to develop improved treatment strategies aimed at prolonging the duration of effective ET-based treatment [ 56 ].

The results of this review reveal a paucity of additional real-world effectiveness and safety evidence after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment in HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. OS and DOR were only reported in two studies while other clinical endpoints (i.e., TTD, TTNT, TTP, ORR, CBR, and stable disease) were only reported in one study each. Similarly, safety and tolerability data were only reported in two studies each, and PROs were not reported in any study. This hindered our ability to provide a comprehensive assessment of real-world treatment effectiveness and safety following 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. The limited evidence may be due to the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since CDK4/6i first received US FDA approval for 1 L treatment of HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC (2015) [ 35 ]. As such, almost half of our evidence was informed by conference abstracts. Similarly, no real-world studies were identified in our review that reported outcomes for treatments in the third- or later-lines of therapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. The lack of data in this patient population highlights a significant gap which limits our understanding of the effectiveness and safety for patients receiving later lines of therapy. As more patients receive CDK4/6i therapy in the 1 L setting, the number of patients requiring subsequent lines of therapy will continue to grow. Addressing this data gap over time will be critical to improve outcomes for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy.

There are several strengths of this study, including adherence to the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook to ensure a standardized and reliable approach to the SLR [ 58 ] and reporting of the SLR following PRISMA guidelines to ensure transparency and reproducibility [ 59 ]. Furthermore, the inclusion of only RWE studies allowed us to assess the effectiveness of current standard of care treatments outside of a controlled environment and enabled us to identify an unmet need in this patient population.

This study had some notable limitations, including the lack of safety and additional effectiveness outcomes reported. In addition, the dearth of studies reporting PROs is a limitation, as PROs provide valuable insight into the patient experience and are an important aspect of assessing the impact of 2 L treatments on patients’ quality of life. The studies included in this review also lacked consistent reporting of clinical characteristics (e.g., menopausal status, sites of metastasis, prior surgery) making it challenging to draw comprehensive conclusions or comparisons based on these factors across the studies. Taken together, there exists an important gap in our understanding of the long-term management of patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. Additionally, the effectiveness results reported in our evidence base were informed by small sample sizes; many of the included studies reported median rwPFS based on less than 30 patients [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 51 , 60 ], with two studies not reporting the sample size at all [ 47 , 53 ]. This may impact the generalizability and robustness of the results. Relatedly, the SLR database search was conducted in December 2022; as such, novel agents (e.g., elacestrant and capivasertib + fulvestrant) that have since received FDA approval for the treatment of HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC may impact current 2 L rwPFS outcomes [ 61 , 62 ]. Finally, relative to the number of peer-reviewed full-text articles, this SLR identified eight abstracts and one poster presentation, comprising half (50%) of the included unique studies. As conference abstracts are inherently limited by how much content that can be described due to word limit constraints, this likely had implications on the present synthesis whereby we identified a dearth of real-world effectiveness outcomes in patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC treated with 1 L CDK4/6i therapy.

Future research in this area should aim to address the limitations of the current literature and provide a more comprehensive understanding of optimal sequencing of effective and safe treatment for patients following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy. Specifically, future studies should strive to report robust data related to effectiveness, safety, and PROs for patients receiving 2 L treatment after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy. Future studies should also aim to understand the mechanism underlying CDK4/6i resistance. Addressing these gaps in knowledge may improve the long-term real-world management of patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. A future update of this synthesis may serve to capture a wider breadth of full-text, peer-reviewed articles to gain a more robust understanding of the safety, effectiveness, and real-world treatment patterns for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. This SLR underscores the necessity for ongoing investigation and the development of innovative therapeutic approaches to address these gaps and improve patient outcomes.

This SLR qualitatively summarized the existing real-world effectiveness data for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. Results of this study highlight the limited available data and the suboptimal effectiveness of treatments employed in the 2 L setting and underscore the unmet need in this patient population. Additional studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes, in addition to PROs, for this patient population are necessary and should be the focus of future research.

PRISMA flow diagram. *Two included conference abstracts reported the same information as already included full-text reports, hence both conference abstracts were not identified as unique. Abbreviations: 1 L = first-line; AACR = American Association of Cancer Research; ASCO = American Society of Clinical Oncology; CDK4/6i = cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor; ESMO = European Society for Medical Oncology; ISPOR = Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research; n = number of studies; NMA = network meta-analysis; pts = participants; SABCS = San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; SLR = systematic literature review.

Number of studies reporting effectiveness outcomes exclusively for each treatment class. *Studies that lack sufficient information on effectiveness outcomes to classify based on the treatment classes outlined in the legend above. Abbreviations: CDK4/6i = cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor; ET = endocrine therapy; mTORi = mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor.

Weighted average median rwPFS for 2 L treatments (recommended in ESMO/NCCN guidelines) after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. Circular dot represents weighted average median across studies. Horizontal bars represent the range of values reported in these studies. Abbreviations: CDK4/6i = cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor; ESMO = European Society for Medical Oncology; ET = endocrine therapy, mTORi = mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor; n = number of patients; NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network; rwPFS = real-world progression-free survival.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023383914).

Abbreviations

Second-line

Second-line treatment setting and beyond

American Association of Cancer Research

Aromatase inhibitor

American Society of Clinical Oncology

• Breast cancer

breast cancer gene/partner and localizer of BRCA2 positive

Clinical benefit rate

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor

Complete response

Duration of response

European Society for Medical Oncology

Food and Drug Administration

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative

Hormone receptor

Hormone receptor positive

Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research

Locally advanced breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online

Medical subject headings

Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Objective response rate

Poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor

Progression-free survival

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design

Partial response

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Patient-reported outcomes

• Real-world evidence

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

• Systematic literature review

Time-to-discontinuation

Time-to-next-treatment

Time-to-progression

United States

Łukasiewicz S, Czeczelewski M, Forma A, Baj J, Sitarz R, Stanisławek A, Breast, Cancer—Epidemiology. Risk factors, classification, prognostic markers, and current treatment Strategies—An. Updated Rev Cancers. 2021;13(17):4287.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organization (WHO). Breast Cancer Facts Sheet [updated July 12 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer .

Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, Mafra A, Singh D, Laversanne M, et al. Current and future burden of breast cancer: global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast. 2022;66:15–23.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a global health concern. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1130):20211033.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Kramer JL, Newman LA, Minihan A et al. Breast Cancer Statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2022;72(6):524– 41.

National Cancer Institute (NIH). Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer [updated 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html .

American Cancer Society. Key Statistics for Breast Cancer [ https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html .

Zagami P, Carey LA. Triple negative breast cancer: pitfalls and progress. npj Breast Cancer. 2022;8(1):95.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Matutino A, Joy AA, Brezden-Masley C, Chia S, Verma S. Hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: redrawing the lines. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(Suppl 1):S131–41.

Lloyd MR, Wander SA, Hamilton E, Razavi P, Bardia A. Next-generation selective estrogen receptor degraders and other novel endocrine therapies for management of metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: current and emerging role. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022;14:17588359221113694.

Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, Papadopoulos E, Aapro M, André F, et al. 4th ESO-ESMO International Consensus guidelines for advanced breast Cancer (ABC 4)†. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1634–57.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

US Food Drug Administration. Palbociclib (Ibrance) 2017 [updated March 31, 2017. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/palbociclib-ibrance .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA expands ribociclib indication in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer 2018 [updated July 18. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-expands-ribociclib-indication-hr-positive-her2-negative-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves abemaciclib for HR positive, HER2-negative breast cancer 2017 [updated Sept 28. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-abemaciclib-hr-positive-her2-negative-breast-cancer .

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Breast Cancer 2022 [ https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf .

Gennari A, André F, Barrios CH, Cortés J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(12):1475–95.

Beaver JA, Amiri-Kordestani L, Charlab R, Chen W, Palmby T, Tilley A, et al. FDA approval: Palbociclib for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Patients with estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative metastatic breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(21):4760–6.

US Food Drug Administration. Ribociclib (Kisqali) [ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/ribociclib-kisqali#:~:text=On%20March%2013%2C%202017%2C%20the,hormone%20receptor%20(HR)%2Dpositive%2C .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves new treatment for certain advanced or metastatic breast cancers [ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-certain-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancers .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA expands ribociclib indication in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. 2018 [ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-expands-ribociclib-indication-hr-positive-her2-negative-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves abemaciclib as initial therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer [ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-abemaciclib-initial-therapy-hr-positive-her2-negative-metastatic-breast-cancer .

Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, Bondarenko I, Im S-A, Masuda N, et al. Overall survival with Palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1926–36.

Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, De Laurentiis M, Im SA, et al. Phase III randomized study of Ribociclib and Fulvestrant in hormone Receptor-Positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-Negative advanced breast Cancer: MONALEESA-3. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2465–72.

Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, Sohn J, Paluch-Shimon S, Huober J, et al. MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3638–46.

Gopalan PK, Villegas AG, Cao C, Pinder-Schenck M, Chiappori A, Hou W, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition stabilizes disease in patients with p16-null non-small cell lung cancer and is synergistic with mTOR inhibition. Oncotarget. 2018;9(100):37352–66.

Watt AC, Goel S. Cellular mechanisms underlying response and resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2022;24(1):17.

Goetz M. MONARCH 3: final overall survival results of abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as first-line therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. SABCS; 2023.

Munzone E, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, Montagna E, Cancello G, Dellapasqua S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of post-progression outcomes in ER+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer after CDK4/6 inhibitors within randomized clinical trials. ESMO Open. 2021;6(6):100332.

Gennari A, André F, Barrios CH, Cortés J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2021;32(12):1475-95.

European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). ESMO ​Metastatic Breast Cancer Living Guideline: ER-positive HER2-negative​ Breast Cancer​ [updated May 2023. https://www.esmo.org/living-guidelines/esmo-metastatic-breast-cancer-living-guideline/er-positive-her2-negative-breast-cancer .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Welch PM VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook : Cochrane; 2021.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021;18(3):e1003583.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Fraser C, Murray A, Burr J. Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(1):41.

US Food Drug Administration. Palbociclib (Ibrance). Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

GA Wells BS, D O’Connell J, Peterson V, Welch M, Losos PT. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [ https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp .

Lo CK-L, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):45.

Martin JM, Handorf EA, Montero AJ, Goldstein LJ. Systemic therapies following progression on first-line CDK4/6-inhibitor treatment: analysis of real-world data. Oncologist. 2022;27(6):441–6.

Kalinsky KM, Kruse M, Smyth EN, Guimaraes CM, Gautam S, Nisbett AR et al. Abstract P1-18-37: Treatment patterns and outcomes associated with sequential and non-sequential use of CDK4 and 6i for HR+, HER2- MBC in the real world. Cancer Research. 2022;82(4_Supplement):P1-18-37-P1-18-37.

Choong GM, Liddell S, Ferre RAL, O’Sullivan CC, Ruddy KJ, Haddad TC, et al. Clinical management of metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (MBC) after CDK 4/6 inhibitors: a retrospective single-institution study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;196(1):229–37.

Xi J, Oza A, Thomas S, Ademuyiwa F, Weilbaecher K, Suresh R, et al. Retrospective Analysis of Treatment Patterns and effectiveness of Palbociclib and subsequent regimens in metastatic breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(2):141–7.

Rozenblit M, Mun S, Soulos P, Adelson K, Pusztai L, Mougalian S. Patterns of treatment with everolimus exemestane in hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the era of targeted therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23(1):14.

Bashour SI, Doostan I, Keyomarsi K, Valero V, Ueno NT, Brown PH, et al. Rapid breast Cancer Disease Progression following cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor discontinuation. J Cancer. 2017;8(11):2004–9.

Giridhar KV, Choong GM, Leon-Ferre R, O’Sullivan CC, Ruddy K, Haddad T, et al. Abstract P6-18-09: clinical management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after CDK 4/6 inhibitors: a retrospective single-institution study. Cancer Res. 2019;79:P6–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Mougalian SS, Feinberg BA, Wang E, Alexis K, Chatterjee D, Knoth RL, et al. Observational study of clinical outcomes of eribulin mesylate in metastatic breast cancer after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor therapy. Future Oncol. 2019;15(34):3935–44.

Moscetti LML, Riggi L, Sperduti I, Piacentini FOC, Toss A, Barbieri E, Cortesi L, Canino FMA, Zoppoli G, Frassoldati A, Schirone A, Dominici MECF. SEQUENCE OF TREATMENTS AFTER CDK4/6 THERAPY IN ADVANCED BREAST CANCER (ABC), A GOIRC MULTICENTER RETRO/ PROSPECTIVE STUDY. PRELIMINARY RESULTS IN THE RETROSPECTIVE SERIES OF 116 PATIENTS. Tumori. 2022;108(4S):80.

Menichetti AZE, Giorgi CA, Bottosso M, Leporati R, Giarratano T, Barbieri C, Ligorio F, Mioranza E, Miglietta F, Lobefaro R, Faggioni G, Falci C, Vernaci G, Di Liso E, Girardi F, Griguolo G, Vernieri C, Guarneri V, Dieci MV. CDK 4/6 INHIBITORS FOR METASTATIC BREAST CANCER: A MULTICENTER REALWORLD STUDY. Tumori. 2022;108(4S):70.

Marschner NW, Harbeck N, Thill M, Stickeler E, Zaiss M, Nusch A, et al. 232P Second-line therapies of patients with early progression under CDK4/6-inhibitor in first-line– data from the registry platform OPAL. Annals of Oncology. 2022;33:S643-S4

Gousis C, Lowe KMH, Kapiris M. V. Angelis. Beyond First Line CDK4/6 Inhibitors (CDK4/6i) and Aromatase Inhibitors (AI) in Patients with Oestrogen Receptor Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (ERD MBC): The Guy’s Cancer Centre Experience. Clinical Oncology2022. p. e178.

Endo Y, Yoshimura A, Sawaki M, Hattori M, Kotani H, Kataoka A, et al. Time to chemotherapy for patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast Cancer and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor use. J Breast Cancer. 2022;25(4):296–306.

Li Y, Li W, Gong C, Zheng Y, Ouyang Q, Xie N, et al. A multicenter analysis of treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of subsequent therapies after progression on palbociclib in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2021;13:17588359211022890.

Amaro CP, Batra A, Lupichuk S. First-line treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus an aromatase inhibitor for metastatic breast Cancer in Alberta. Curr Oncol. 2021;28(3):2270–80.

Crocetti SPM, Tassone L, Marcantognini G, Bastianelli L, Della Mora A, Merloni F, Cantini L, Scortichini L, Agostinelli V, Ballatore Z, Savini A, Maccaroni E. Berardi R. What is the best therapeutic sequence for ER-Positive/HER2- Negative metastatic breast cancer in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors? A single center experience. Tumori. 2020;106(2S).

Nichetti F, Marra A, Giorgi CA, Randon G, Scagnoli S, De Angelis C, et al. 337P Efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane in CDK 4/6 inhibitors-pretreated or naïve HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients: A secondary analysis of the EVERMET study. Annals of Oncology. 2020;31:S382

Luhn P, O’Hear C, Ton T, Sanglier T, Hsieh A, Oliveri D, et al. Abstract P4-13-08: time to treatment discontinuation of second-line fulvestrant monotherapy for HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer in the real-world setting. Cancer Res. 2019;79(4Supplement):P4–13.

Mittal A, Molto Valiente C, Tamimi F, Schlam I, Sammons S, Tolaney SM et al. Filling the gap after CDK4/6 inhibitors: Novel Endocrine and Biologic Treatment options for metastatic hormone receptor positive breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(7).

Ashai N, Swain SM. Post-CDK 4/6 inhibitor therapy: current agents and novel targets. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(6).

Higgins JPTTJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook : Cochrane; 2022.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021;31(1):010502.

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves elacestrant for ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer [updated January 27 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-elacestrant-er-positive-her2-negative-esr1-mutated-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves capivasertib with fulvestrant for breast cancer [updated November 16 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-capivasertib-fulvestrant-breast-cancer .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Joanna Bielecki who developed, conducted, and documented the database searches.

This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY, USA) and Arvinas (New Haven, CT, USA).

Author information

Sarah Kane, Belal Howidi, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen and Imtiaz A. Samjoo contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Pfizer, 10017, New York, NY, USA

Veronique Lambert & Yan Wu

EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada

Sarah Kane, Belal Howidi, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen & Imtiaz A. Samjoo

Arvinas, 06511, New Haven, CT, USA

David Chandiwana & Michelle Edwards

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME participated in the conception and design of the study. IAS, SK, BH and BN contributed to the literature review, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME contributed to the interpretation of the data and critically reviewed for the importance of intellectual content for the work. VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME were responsible for drafting or reviewing the manuscript and for providing final approval. VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Imtiaz A. Samjoo .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors of this manuscript declare that the research presented was funded by Pfizer Inc. and Arvinas. While the support from Pfizer Inc. and Arvinas was instrumental in facilitating this research, the authors affirm that their interpretation of the data and the content of this manuscript were conducted independently and without bias to maintain the transparency and integrity of the research. IAS, SK, BH, and BN are employees of EVERSANA, Canada, which was a paid consultant to Pfizer in connection with the development of this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lambert, V., Kane, S., Howidi, B. et al. Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i. BMC Cancer 24 , 631 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12269-8

Download citation

Received : 26 January 2024

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12269-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• First-line CDK4/6i

ISSN: 1471-2407

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Mini-Module: How to Write a Literature Review

• 1. What is a Literature Review?
• 2. Features of a Literature Review

3. Writing a Literature Review

• 4. Structuring a Literature Review
• 5. What Should I do Next?

Mini-Modules

Back to Skills for Success: Home

Academic Skills Home

Get ready for university, get ready for university, when writing a literature review, you should think about the following stages:  , thinking of ideas.

Brainstorm and source key literature in your area(s) — Books, papers, articles and so on written by key authors in the field — Policy and guidance documents

These are the stages when you find you are reading a lot – and it may not all make sense yet! Don’t worry, this is perfectly natural.

Identify journal and magazine articles appropriate to your area of study and check the indexes for suitable articles. Follow up references and bibliographies in books and articles. Browse the library catalogues, look at the shelves. Refer to specialist reader lists from other parts of your course.

Narrowing it down

After so much reading, you need to refine! There are four key elements to consider:

• Identify the focus of the field – this will be the general topic or subject area within which the problem of issue you are investigating is set.
• Select the appropriate sources of information – from what you have read, what can you use directly? Indirectly?
• Extract information of direct relevance – a Literature Review isn’t the time to show off how much you have read. Keep it relevant!
• Concentrate on those texts which provide information you need – you will need to have clarity in your writing

 Notes

Some top tips:

• Paraphrase 
• Ask questions and make comments – this is your criticality!
• Keep detailed referencing information in your notes – author, date, title, publisher

Sort and prioritise the literature you have already See which authors/ideas compliment each other See which authors/ideas disagree with each other.

Think about the best way to organise your literature Review: – Chronologically? – Thematically? – By ‘different schools of thought’?

Write, and rewrite

This stage can feel quite laborious and repetitive – but remember that high quality work is always the result of a careful drafting and redrafting process.

• << Previous: 2. Features of a Literature Review
• Next: 4. Structuring a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 11:26 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/c.php?g=719086

What Is A Bibliography?

Bibliography Definition: Overview

A bibliography is a list of sources used in researching and writing a work, such as a book, article, or academic paper. It includes detailed information about each source, like the author's name, title, and publication date. Bibliographies serve to credit authors, avoid plagiarism, provide references for readers, and demonstrate the research scope. They can be annotated, which includes summaries or evaluations, or simply list the sources. Proper formatting depends on the required citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago.

Simply put, a bibliography lists all the sources you’ve used while working on a paper. It’s a window where your readers can check and verify the validity of your claims, and to know the origins of your research. Academic papers aren’t the only works that have bibliographies. Websites, interviews, and articles can also have them. 

The definition of bibliography encompasses many of these resource lists. Adding an extensive and authentic bibliography to your work credits the original authors and enhances credibility and trustworthiness.

Purpose of A Bibliography

The purpose of a bibliography is to help you keep track of your research, assist readers in finding more information on the topic, prove that your information comes from trustworthy sources, and give credit to the original sources and authors.

A bibliography has many purposes. That’s why your academic paper must have one. It serves to help in many different things:

• Improves your work’s credibility : It backs up your information and makes it credible and trustworthy.
• Counters plagiarism : It helps give credit to your sources and their authors which helps uphold integrity and counters plagiarism.
• Serves as guidance : By demonstrating your sources, your bibliography helps your readers the ability to explore your topic further and gain a deeper understanding of it.

Struggling with your Annotated Bibliography?

Our experts are here to help! Get professional assistance in creating an annotated bibliography for any academic assignment and save your precious time.

Types of Bibliographies

Now we’ve gone over the basics of what’s a bibliography, let’s explore the different types. There are several types of them, each having a different purpose:

• Descriptive bibliographies : These provide very detailed information about the sources. They provide information on physical attributes, printing history, format, and edition.
• Enumerative bibliographies : These are not as detailed. They are organized either chronologically, alphabetically, or chronologically.
• Analytical bibliographies : These types examine the sources’ history, context, and production. They offer a deeper analytical view of the sources.

Annotated Bibliographies

A hard entry is the annotated bibliography. Here’s a more extensive guide on how to write an annotated bibliography for your convenience. These go beyond just listing sources. You typically include summaries and evaluations of your source entries with this type.

By doing so, you help your readers grasp the importance of each source and how it contributes to your work. When you properly create an annotated bibliography, you showcase your critical thinking capabilities. This, in turn, can enhance your paper’s overall credibility, and it also helps your readers in their further research.

We’ve explored the many aspects of what is a bibliography and answered the main questions. So, in the spirit of better understanding, let’s also learn about footnotes. 

Footnotes give additional information or citations at the bottom of a page. Footnotes are used to give credit or to highlight your sources without disrupting the flow of your main work. They can also be used to provide additional details that support your writing.

Footnotes can provide context and explanations and can highlight references. This, in turn, guides your readers and helps them fully understand your message. 

Common Mistakes When Creating Your Bibliography

There are many avoidable pitfalls you can counter just by reading our guides, but if you’re tired and need an extra hand, you can always send in a request for help with your bibliography or even a request to ‘ Write my book report .’ We’ll be on that task ASAP. If you’re feeling fit to learn more, here are some crucial pointers to remember:

• Incomplete citations : Be sure to finish your citations by providing all the necessary information like author, title, publication date, and publisher. 
• Bad formatting : Be consistent and stick to one citation style for your bibliography.
• Missing sources : Make sure all the sources you reference in your work are in your bibliography.
• Wrong order : Make sure you’ve organized your entries accordingly.

Formatting and Style

We’ve tackled all the definitions and the bibliography meaning. Now, let’s take a look at the crucial elements of formatting and style. Here’s what to remember:

• APA (American Psychological Association) : This style is commonly used in the social sciences. It highlights the author and publication year in in-text citations.
• MLA (Modern Language Association) : Very widely used in literature and language studies. It highlights the author and page number for in-text citations.
• Chicago/Turabian : This style is used in many different disciplines since it’s considered versatile. This style has two systems. One is the notes and bibliography style, used widely in the humanities. The other one is the author-date system, which is used in the sciences. Turabian is a simplified version of Chicago and is used by students.
• Harvard : This one uses author-date in-text citations and uses a reference list. It’s used in many different fields and is quite popular in Australia and the UK.

Key Takeaways

“What is a bibliography?” Now we know. Let’s remember some of the key points we’ve encountered in this guide for future reference:

• Different types : descriptive, enumerative, analytical.
• Avoiding common pitfalls : complete citations, be consistent, organize and include all sources.
• Choose one style : Choose MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian or Harvard and stick to one style for your whole bibliography.

We hope you’ll retain all the information we’ve given you. You can always come back to our article if you need more time to memorize. We wish you luck in all your academic ventures.

Did you like our Bibliography Guide?

Need more help? Tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert writing services!

What is a bibliography page?

It’s a section at the end of your paper or your book. Here, you list all the sources that you used. You include details about the books, articles, websites, and every other material you used when researching.

What is bibliographic information?

This refers to the details about a source in your bibliography. This refers to the author’s name, the work’s title, the publication date, the publisher, and so on. This information helps your readers verify and find your sources.

What is a bibliography in an essay?

It’s the list of your sources that can be found at the end of your essay. It gives credit to your sources and backs up your claims.

What is the purpose of a bibliography?

Its purpose is to provide you and your readers with a clear, authentic, and organized list of sources. Sources you’ve used to back up your research and writing. It improves your work’s credibility, trustworthiness, and professionalism.

A good annotated bibliography is essentially a brief description of works cited. An important difference between your own ideas and scientific writing is how credible the sources are. The works cited in your annotated bibliography offer a brief description of your research process.

What is an annotated bibliography?

It’s like a standard bibliography but has an additional summary and evaluation of each source. It can be difficult to make, that's why an annotated bibliography writing service can be helpful when you’re having trouble. 

A high-quality bibliography writing service knows every detail of the citation process - from the author date style and page numbers to multi source volumes and style guides. Give it a try and feel the difference!

What is a bibliographic reference?

This simply refers to a source you’ve used in your research. They serve to acknowledge the authors and works you’ve sourced to avoid plagiarism, give credit, and guide your readers. 

When working on an annotated bibliography, the works cited from doing your own research, have to be on the references page. A good annotated bibliography entry has a references list in a style guide proposed by the university in APA format, MLA works cited format or any format for bibliographic information.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Book Review: Emil Ferris tackles big issues through a small child with a monster obsession

This cover image released by Fantagraphics Books shows “My Favorite Thing is Monsters, Book 2" by Emil Ferris. (Fantagraphics Books via AP)

• Copy Link copied

There are two types of monsters: Ones that simply appear scary and ones that are scary by their cruelty. Karen Reyes is the former, but what does that make her troubled older brother, Deeze?

Emil Ferris has finally followed up on her visually stunning, 2017 debut graphic novel with its concluding half, “My Favorite Thing Is Monsters Book 2.” It picks up right where Book 1 left off (spoilers for Book 1 … now), with 10-year-old Karen in a fever dream as she processes her mother’s death from cancer and the revelation that she had another brother named Victor before his twin Deeze killed him.

For the uninitiated, the story is essentially Karen’s diary as she dons a detective hat and oversized coat to solve mysteries — like who killed the upstairs neighbor and where her emaciated classmate disappeared to — in 1968 Chicago , featuring historical events like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination and Vietnam War protests. Karen, a monster-loving Catholic school student who identifies more with werewolves than with girls, sketches her experiences in lined notebooks. She has an astounding ability to capture people — a technically skilled artist who also sees through her subjects and depicts their nature alongside their features. And she’s gay, something her beloved Mama definitely did not approve of and which she must now reconcile with the society she lives in.

“Monsters” may be narrated by a kid, but it is definitely an adult book with adult language and themes. Ferris raises complicated issues ranging from the patriarchy’s role in homophobia and America’s role in eugenics to the merits of capitalism, socialism and communism. Along with why school sucks.

And I cannot give Ferris enough accolades for acknowledging the depth of children, who often see and understand more than most adults want to admit.

Ferris revels in gray areas and often calls taboos and moral lines into question, using Karen’s elementary-age perspective as an opportunity to see people not as their profession, race or sexuality, but as people — or, in any case, monsters, but equalizing regardless.

Although Book 2 has an introduction and brief callbacks to remind readers who’s who and what happened, it’s really best to read or reread Book 1 first. There are tons of characters at play and it’s a multi-faceted story that requires deep reading. The recaps are decent reminders, but they can’t possibly capture the nuance from Book 1 in just a page or two.

If Book 2 seems almost too familiar, that’s because it follows the same basic plot arc as Book 1, even down to starting and ending with wild dreams. But unlike its prequel, the plot jumps around with considerably more frequency and suddenness. Ferris leans on her readers to read between the lines and apply the same techniques for viewing her art that her characters use when they visit the Art Institute of Chicago .

“Monsters” is an incredible feat of both storytelling and artistic achievement that makes for a brag-worthy coffee table art book, as well as a compelling story with a seriously intense moral and philosophical workout. Ferris is a must-have for any comic-lover’s collection.

AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews