steps to comprehensive literature review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• Find My Rep

You are here

Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review A Multimodal and Cultural Approach

• Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
• Rebecca Frels - Lamar University, USA
• Description

What makes this book unique:

• Focuses on multimodal texts and settings such as observations, documents, social media, experts in the field and secondary data so that your review covers the full research environment
• Puts mixed methods at the centre of the process
• Shows you how to synthesize information thematically, rather than merely summarize the existing literature and findings
• Brings culture into the process to help you address bias and understand the role of knowledge interpretation, guiding you through
• Teaches the CORE of the literature review – Critical thinking, Organization, Reflections and Evaluation – and provides a guide for reflexivity at the end of each of the seven steps
• Visualizes the steps with roadmaps so you can track progress and self-evaluate as you learn the steps

This book is the essential best practices guide for students and researchers, providing the understanding and tools to approach both the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a rigorous, comprehensive, literature review.

This is by far the most comprehensive text on how to do comprehensive literature reviews!  Onwuegbuzie and Frels skilfully demonstrate that review has a methodology of its own.  Both novice and experienced scholars will benefit from detailed examples and step-by-step demonstrations of ways to maximize the effectiveness of literature reviews to build new theories and develop better explanations of behaviours and outcomes. 

This is the most comprehensive and user-friendly book I’ve seen on how to conduct a literature review. The authors take the distinction of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research seriously, showing how each adds something important and how being open-minded results in the use of literature based on all three approaches. Overall, the book provides a process theory of literature review, that is done before, during, and after each research study.  It is a must read for both PhD students and research faculty.

With noteworthy scope of content, this book  is a must-have resource for beginning and experienced researchers alike. In addition to its effective pedagogical features such as visuals and end of chapter questions, this resource enables researchers to make informed decisions about the purposes of and procedures for undertaking a literature review. In so doing, the authors innovate and advance our understandings of the processes and products involved in a comprehensive literature review and provide practical guidance for each of the steps. I have been seeking such a book and plan to make this required reading for the graduate students I instruct, mentor, and supervise.

Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review is a comprehensive text book written to instruct master’s-level students, doctoral-level students, and new and experienced researchers in the process of writing a comprehensive literature review... Hopefully, this book will become an important text used by instructors as they guide college students into the writing of the literature review.

Sadly this book never arrived despite me being very interested to adopt for my MSc students dissertation stage.

The literature review is one of the toughest parts of any proposal (or postgraduate piece of work) for students to complete successfully because it asks the student to engage with the theory they will be using from the perspective of ideas alone. IT also asks the student to investigate other academics' work in a manner that they haven't really experienced before. All these "firsts" make the literature review a very confusing and oftentimes daunting process. Fortunately, "Seven Steps" provides the specific guidance that so many students need to navigate this difficult process. The systematic way in which the book approaches a topic that can be said to change with each application (e.g. How do you go about it? What to include? What to leave out? and most importantly, Why?) is indispensable for anyone teaching students new to postgraduate work, or for researchers looking for an alternative approach to a process they are otherwise well-acquainted with.

Very accessible book for students who wish to increase their capabilites in working at the front end of their papers.

Comprehensive, well structured book, which will be very useful to students planning a literature review.

this book is more relevant for the MSc students. it will be a good supplement for the student who wants to go a little further

it was actually a little more complex than I was hoping for. the text is dense and it is big book. for my BSc students it is jut a little too much

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Chapter 1: Foundations of the Literature Review

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

• Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Related Products

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

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

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

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

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

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys 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 explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

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 collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon 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 identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Collections
• Services & Support

Steps in a Systematic, Scoping, or Comprehensive Review

What is a literature review, is your review systematic.

• Steps in a Review
• Other Resources
• How to Read a Journal Article
• Systematic Review Workshop Materials

Health Sciences Librarian

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, dissertations, conference proceedings and other resources which are relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory and provides context for a dissertation by identifying past research. Research tells a story and the existing literature helps us identify where we are in the story currently. It is up to those writing a dissertation to continue that story with new research and new perspectives but they must first be familiar with the story before they can move forward. 

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: Apr 22, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core Collection This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• Collections
• Research Help
• Teaching & Learning
• Library Home

Comprehensive Literature Review

• The Basic Steps
• Advanced Searching for the Literature Review
• Writing the Literature Review
• Mini-Video Demonstrations

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Jennifer Corbin for permission to use content from her research guide “Comprehensive Literature Review" ( http://libguides.tulane.edu/c.php?g=182708&p=1204573 ), Howard-TiltonLibrary, Tulane University.  And thank you to the University of Santa Cruz Library for permission to incorporate content from their guide "Write a Literature Review" ( http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/write-a-literature-review).

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review is an overview of selected articles, books and other sources about a specific subject. The purpose is to summarize the existing research that has been done on the subject in order to put your research in context and to highlight what your research will add to the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews are typically organized in some way (chronological, thematic, methodological).

Note that your literature review is separate from your works cited page or bibliography, although sources used in your literature review will need to be cited properly in them.

Let's take a look at an example of a literature review in an article, a dissertation, and a review article.

• Article Example: Abused Drugs in Insects Oliveira, J. S.; Baia, T. C.; Gama, R. A.; Lima, K. M. G. Development of a novel non-destructive method based on spectral fingerprint for determination of abused drug in insects: An alternative entomotoxicology approach. Microchemical Journal 2014, 115, 39-46.
• Dissertation Example: Forensic Entomotoxicology Peace, Michelle Renee'. "Forensic Entomotoxicology: A Study in the Deposition and Effects of Amphetamines and Barbiturates in the Larvae of the Black Blow Fly, Phormia Regina." Order No. 3177624 Virginia Commonwealth University, 2005. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 18 Aug. 2016.
• Review Article: Determination of Post-Burial Entomology Singh R, Sharma S, Sharma A. 2016. Determination of post-burial interval using entomology: A review. J Forensic Leg Med. 42:37-40.

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

• Next: The Basic Steps >>
• Last Updated: Oct 4, 2023 12:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wvu.edu/LitReview

How To Write A Systematic Literature Review In 7 Simple Step

Follow these seven steps to conduct a systematic literature review and gather valuable insights for your research project. Start today!

Table of Contents

What Is Systematic Literature Review

Related reading, characteristics of systematic literature review, key characteristics of systematic reviews, protocols of systematic reviews, i need to know why i'm looking for a study., i need to know what i'm looking for, read faster and write better, pros and cons of systematic literature review, pros of systematic literature reviews, cons of systematic literature reviews, how to write a systematic literature review effectively, identifying a research question, developing a review protocol, conducting systematic searching, screening studies, critical appraisal and evaluation, data extraction, writing and publishing the review, unriddle allows you to read faster and write better, complete step-by-step guide on how to use unriddle's ai research tool, interact with documents, automatic relations, citing your sources, writing with ai, chat settings, is rapid literature review the same as systematic literature review, key difference between a rapid review and a systematic review, rapid review vs. systematic review: the main difference, systematic reviews: the standard in research, time frame: rapid reviews vs. systematic reviews, read faster & write better with unriddle for free today.

• Literature Review Example
• How To Write A Literature Review
• How To Write An Abstract For A Literature Review
• Literature Review Generator
• Systematic Review Vs Literature Review
• Literature Review Outline Example
• Thematic Literature Review

• I need to know what I'm looking for and why I'm looking for it.
• I need to have a reproducible methodology, which means that I need to have a defined set of rules that I follow so that anyone who follows those rules should get the same results.
• I need to have a systematic search strategy that should help me to find every single study that I'm looking for.
• I need to make sure that my search strategy is not biased. I need to assess the quality of the studies that I find.
• I need to make sure that the results of the studies that I find make sense.
• I need to bring all of the results of these studies together so that I can make sense of them all. Otherwise, I'm just looking at a bunch of confusing data that doesn't tell me anything.
• Unriddle generates an AI assistant on top of any document so you can quickly find, summarize, and understand info. No more endless skimming.
• Unriddle understands the meaning behind your writing and automatically links you to relevant things you’ve read and written about in the past.
• Highlight text and Unriddle will show you the most relevant sources from your library using AI. Never lose a citation again.
• Generate text with AI autocomplete to improve and expand your writing, with all suggestions based on the context of what you're working on.

• Interact with documents via AI so you can quickly find and understand info.
• Then start writing in a new Note and Unriddle will show you relevant content from your library as you type.
• Get started by uploading a document .
• Or read on for the full rundown.

• Model: the machine learning model used to generate responses.
• Temperature: the amount of creative license you give to the AI.
• Max length: the maximum number of words generated in a response.

• Literature Review Topics
• Systematic Literature Review Example
• Literature Review Introduction Example
• Google Scholar Alternative
• Dissertation Literature Review Example
• Systematic Review Software
• Narrative Literature Review
• Literature Review Vs Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review Abstract Example
• Ai Literature Review Generator
• Scientific Literature Review Example
• Apa Literature Review Format
• How To Write A Scientific Literature Review
• Thesis Literature Review
• Consensus Ai Tool
• Review Of Related Literature
• Paper Digest Literature Review
• How To Do A Systematic Literature Review
• Scite Ai Assistant
• Best Literature Review Writing Service
• Literature Review Online Tool
• Methods Section Of Literature Review Example
• Sources Of Literature Review
• How To Structure Literature Review
• Chatgpt For Literature Review
• Methodology For Literature Review
• Scoping Review Vs Literature Review

Share this post

Ready to take the next big step for your research?

Join 500K+ researchers now

Related posts.

15 Best AI Literature Review Tools

Conducting a literature review? Make your research process easier with these literature review tools designed to enhance your review experience.

Complete Literature Review Example Guides

Stuck on how to write a literature review? These literature review example articles showcase approaches and help guide you in crafting your own.

How To Write A Literature Review In 9 Simple Steps

Need help on how to write a literature review? Follow these 9 simple steps to create a well-structured and comprehensive literature review.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• Education & Teaching
• Schools & Teaching

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Buy new: $53.48

Return this item for free.

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select the return method

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach First Edition

Purchase options and add-ons.

What makes this book unique:

• Focuses on multimodal texts and settings such as observations, documents, social media, experts in the field and secondary data so that your review covers the full research environment
• Puts mixed methods at the centre of the process
• Shows you how to synthesize information thematically, rather than merely summarize the existing literature and findings
• Brings culture into the process to help you address bias and understand the role of knowledge interpretation, guiding you through
• Teaches the CORE of the literature review – Critical thinking, Organization, Reflections and Evaluation – and provides a guide for reflexivity at the end of each of the seven steps
• Visualizes the steps with roadmaps so you can track progress and self-evaluate as you learn the steps

This book is the essential best practices guide for students and researchers, providing the understanding and tools to approach both the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a rigorous, comprehensive, literature review.

• ISBN-10 1446248925
• ISBN-13 978-1446248928
• Edition First Edition
• Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd
• Publication date March 10, 2016
• Language English
• Dimensions 7.32 x 1 x 9.13 inches
• Print length 440 pages
• See all details

Frequently bought together

Customers who bought this item also bought

Editorial Reviews

This is the most comprehensive and user-friendly book I’ve seen on how to conduct a literature review. The authors take the distinction of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research seriously, showing how each adds something important and how being open-minded results in the use of literature based on all three approaches. Overall, the book provides a process theory of literature review, that is done before, during, and after each research study. It is a must read for both PhD students and research faculty.

With noteworthy scope of content, this book is a must-have resource for beginning and experienced researchers alike. In addition to its effective pedagogical features such as visuals and end of chapter questions, this resource enables researchers to make informed decisions about the purposes of and procedures for undertaking a literature review. In so doing, the authors innovate and advance our understandings of the processes and products involved in a comprehensive literature review and provide practical guidance for each of the steps. I have been seeking such a book and plan to make this required reading for the graduate students I instruct, mentor, and supervise.

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ SAGE Publications Ltd; First Edition (March 10, 2016)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 440 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1446248925
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1446248928
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.76 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 7.32 x 1 x 9.13 inches
• #773 in Study & Test-Taking Skills (Books)
• #857 in Education Research (Books)
• #1,030 in Social Sciences Research

About the author

Anthony j. onwuegbuzie.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top review from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

TechBullion

A comprehensive guide to systematic literature review software.

Systematic literature review is an integral part of academic and scientific research that helps to acquire a deeper understanding of the problem space to identify gaps, contradictions, or consensus in the works that have already been published. It is also a tedious, thorough, and time-consuming process, yet software for SLR plays a significant role as it increases reviews’ efficiency and accuracy and simplifies the process. In the following guide, the basics of the SLR, the role of SLR software in the review, and the criteria for selecting the right software are covered together with practical usage and future considerations of this technology.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR): Basics and Essentials

According to Booth, “the main goal of an SLR is to collect all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a pre-determined research question.” The process provides a rigorous methodology that produces minimal bias and high levels of evidence. SLR starts with a statement of a review question and ends with conclusions based on carefully controlled methodology. The main steps of the SLR process include the formulation of a review question, identification and selection of studies, the collection of data from studies included in the review, the risk of bias assessment, the analysis and interpretation, and the data synthesis. Each step is crucial and peculiar, so skilled management, presentation, and interpretation are required.

Selecting SLR Software Criteria

Selecting SLR software that best suits a particular approach will include several criteria. Choose those that would help a researcher simplify and streamline the review process while maintaining all the necessary functions in the diverse spectrum of available tools. These criteria will include functionality, support quality, the possibility of working with large amounts of data, customization to fit a researcher’s needs and requirements, and integration with other tools.  CiteMed Systematic Review Software , for instance, complies with the mentioned criteria.

Software Integration into Your Practice

It is important to note that purchasing software is not enough, it must also be fully integrated into one’s practical work. This includes training, as people should know how to use all the functions and features they paid for, as well as data management and proper work organization to reduce the time spent reviewing. This will help reduce the time spent on the review research.

Future directions in SLR software

As technology advances, the number of options available in the field will continue to expand. Artificial intelligence and machine learning promise to change the world of systematic literature reviews in ways we cannot fathom yet. These potential future developments will help researchers automate every aspect of their work, from gathering data to realizing the presence of biases and even a more in-depth exploration of written materials through semantic studies.

To conclude,  systematic literature reviews  are essential to the structure and processes of gathering, analysing, and understanding research. Systematic Literature Review Software will boost the research process flexibility and efficiency while enhancing the researchers’ goals, it is also an excellent investment for any research professional. Plenty of available tools will become more widespread due to increased automation; therefore, scientists, writers, academicians, and students may evolve their research processes and stay at the pinnacle of the times.

Trending Stories

How AI QR Codes Could Level Up Digital Marketing

QR codes have been commonplace in society for the past decade. But what about...

Here’s How To Watch Haney Vs Garcia (Free) Live Streaming On Reddit

Boxing Streams Reddit!! Check all options to listen or watch Haney vs Garcia live...

AI in Online Reputation Management: Nadernejad Media’s Strategies

The digital world changes fast. A single tweet can make or break a brand’s...

Mastering Key Metrics for Successful Fintech Compliance Reporting

Financial Technology (FinTech) is rapidly evolving, and the ability to navigate the landscape of...

Ethereum at $3K Spurs Investor Shift to DeeStream Where Litecoin & Solana Holders See Potential for 50X Profits

The cryptocurrency market is undoubtedly quite volatile. As Ethereum reaches new lows at $3K,...

How Does AI Enhance Customer Engagement?

How Does AI Enhance Customer Engagement? Diving into the dynamic world of startups, we’ve...

Protecting the Digital Workspace with Advanced AI and ML Solutions

Imagine clicking on a seemingly harmless email only to unleash a cyber threat capable...

ICP’s New Sharing System DocuTrack; What Will This Mean for Rallying Rune and RABT? 

Last month ICP unveiled its innovative sharing system, DocuTrack. This could indirectly affect the...

From Wearables to Telemedicine: The Top Technology Trends Shaping the Future of Wellness

In a world where technology is rapidly evolving, the future of wellness is being...

From Fitness Trackers to Virtual Reality: How Technology is Paving the Way for a Healthier Future

In a world where technology is constantly evolving, it’s no surprise that it’s now...

Capitalising on the Explosive Growth of Meme Coins: Interview with CIO of Speedy, Gonzales Spidorius

The crypto world witnessed the meteoric rise of meme coins in the first quarter...

Niantic’s Engineering Program Manager Nidhi Kurani Is at the Center of the Future of AR Gaming

Each day, tens of millions of enthusiasts explore the exciting intersection of mobile gaming...

10 Top Antivirus Programs Reviewed

In our comprehensive review of antivirus programs, we’ve meticulously tested and compared the top...

Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR) and Arweave (AR) Display Progress as Koala Coin (KLC) Presale Powers Forward

Cryptocurrency will redefine global finance within the next decade, positioning tokens like Koala Coin...

Saiteja Chatrati Leverages Salesforce and AI to Shape the Global Landscape of I.T. and Healthcare

As artificial intelligence continues to streamline workplace processes and redefine the customer experience, one...

Elon Musk Tesla Asia is Celebrating 10 Years since the First Tesla Model S was Delivered in China.

Elon Musk Tesla in Asia is celebrating 10 years since the first-ever delivery of...

Bybit Institutional Report 2024 Geared Towards AI, Gaming And Infrastructure

Bybit, one of the top three cryptocurrency exchanges in the world by trading volume,...

The Power of Regulatory Technology: How It Can Revolutionize Your Business Operations

Are you tired of being bogged down by compliance issues and regulatory challenges? Are...

Investing in Paradise: Why Belize Real Estate Market is on the Rise

The Unveiling of Central America’s Tropical Gem Belize is located right at the centre...

Safeguarding Fitness Ventures: The Essential Role of Insurance for Gyms in Australia

Introduction Understanding the Vital Importance of Insurance In the dynamic realm of fitness, where...

Like Us On Facebook

Latest interview.

Technology White-label Solution for Programmatic Advertising; Interview With Anastasia-Nikita Bansal, CEO of Teqblaze

Hey there! I’m Niki. More than six years ago, I started my journey in AdTech, initially as a project manager at Smarty...

Latest Press Release

NTT DATA and Reiz Tech Announce New Venture to Target DACH 

The joint venture – LITIT — built on previous collaborative successes of its parent companies, aims to transform the IT landscape of...

Pin It on Pinterest

• Open access
• Published: 16 April 2024

Essential components of an educational program for implementing skin-to-skin contact for preterm infants in intensive care units: an integrative literature review

• Takalani T. Denge 1 ,
• Nokwanda Edith Bam 2 ,
• Welma Lubbe 1 &
• Annah Rakhudu 2  

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume  24 , Article number:  281 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

194 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Globally, prematurity is the primary factor behind the mortality of children under the age of 5 years, resulting in approximately 1 million children dying annually. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Skin-to-Skin Contact (SSC) as part of routine care for preterm infants. Evidence shows that SSC reduces mortality, possibly by improving thermoregulation, facilitating the earlier initiation of breastfeeding and reducing the risk of nosocomial infection. An educational program for implementing SSC has been demonstrated to enhance the knowledge and practice of parents and nurses in intensive care units. This study, the first of its kind in the North West Province (NWP), aims to identify the essential components of an educational program for implementing SSC for premature infants in intensive care units.

This paper presents an integrative literature review that critically synthesizes research-based literature on essential components of an educational program for implementing SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units.

A comprehensive search of electronic databases, such as CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ProQuest and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Health Source-Consumer Edition, was conducted using different keywords and references lists from the bibliography.

Twelve articles relevant to this review were identified, read and synthesized to answer the research question. Three essential components emerged from the findings of this review, namely (1) the necessity of policy and role players for implementing SSC, (2) the availability of education and training, and (3) counseling and support for parents of preterm infants.

Conclusions

The outcomes of this study have the potential to facilitate the implementation and expansion of SSC in intensive care units. This could aid program implementers, policymakers, and researchers to implement and scale up this important tool in intensive care units.

Peer Review reports

Introduction and background

An estimated 13, 4 million infants were delivered prematurely in 2020, indicating that more than 1 to 10 births are premature [ 1 ]. Up to 70% of neonatal deaths occur in preterm or Low Birth Weight (LBW) infants within the first 3 days after birth, but the mortality can be reduced by effective newborn care [ 1 ]. Although progress has been made in reducing infant mortality rate globally, more than 45% of the five million under-five mortality rate caters for infants death in the first months of life and approximately one million of these children die within the first 28 days from prematurity and LBW [ 2 ]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a preterm infant is infant born after the first day of the last menstrual period but before the completion of 37 weeks of gestation; that is, they have a small gestational age and LBW [ 3 ].

In South Africa, the neonatal mortality rate in 2017 was reported as 12 per 1000 live births [ 4 ]. Moreover, approximately 10% of the preterm infants born in South Africa do not survive and this could be viewed as a serious threat to childhood outcomes [ 4 ]. Addressing the global burden of preterm birth is essential for reducing preterm-related neonatal and child mortality and achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.2 (which commits to reducing neonatal mortality to 12 or fewer deaths per 1000 livebirths [ 5 ]. Therefore, the WHO published new recommendations on the care of preterm infants, such as skin-to-skin contact (SSC), in order to reduce mortality in preterm and low-birth-weight babies [ 3 ].

SSC has been shown to have positive effects on preterm infants in intensive care units. Several studies found that it is associated with a reduction in neonatal mortality rate, improved growth, neurodevelopmental outcomes, and breastfeeding [ 6 , 7 ]. SSC has been shown to alleviate maternal anxiety, reshape the maternal role, promote active breast pumping, and build maternal confidence in the care of the baby. Therefore, SSC should be considered as a standard of care for preterm infants, as it provides numerous benefits for both infants and mothers.

Implementing an educational program for SSC has been shown to improve the knowledge and practices of parents and nurses with preterm infants in intensive care units [ 8 , 9 ]. In addition, Ragad et al. further stated that virtual education and supportive programs improve mothers’ resilience with preterm infants in intensive care units [ 10 ]. Nurses’ knowledge and provision of SSC can be improved through structured training programs, which address barriers to early initiation of SSC in preterm infants [ 11 ]. Therefore, continuous educational programs are recommended to increase awareness and ensure sufficient knowledge and practice of SSC among parents of preterm infants.

An educational program to implement SSC and early breastfeeding in a rural hospital in Mexico was developed using a two-step approach. This study found that a simple and low-cost educational program resulted in SSC and early breastfeeding being included as part of standard care in a rural hospital [ 12 ]. This type of program is essential because mothers of preterm infants need specific information, since the type of information aimed parents in general does not meet their specific needs.

Researchers of a study conducted in Canada found that a digital educational program improved parents’ knowledge and fostered exchanges between parents and nurses [ 13 ]. A similar result was achieved in a study conducted by Mukarubayiza and Gowan [ 14 ] at a Kigali district hospital in Rwanda; they concluded that an educational program was effective in improving parents’ knowledge of caring for preterm infants. In addition, Astute and Pandin [ 15 ] highlighted that choosing the right educational method can improve the ablitiy of parents to properly care for and provide developmental care for preterm infants.

Although very limited published literature exists about educational programs regarding the care of preterm infants in intensive care units in Low to Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), there is global consensus that such countries have an urgent need to implement equitable and sustainable programs for vulnerable families. [ 16 , 17 ]. Since the premature birth population is often associated with vulnerable families, there is an urgent need to implement equitable and sustainable program for the care of preterm infants. Therefore, the no studies regarding the essential components of educational programs to implement SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units could be identified in SA, especially in the North West Province (NWP). Thus, this paper aims to conduct an integrative literature review that synthesizes research-based literature on the essential components of an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units.

Materials and methods

The researcher adopted an Integrative Literature Review (ILR) approach to answer a review question. The ILR is a method of research that explores, critically appraises, synthesizes and presents the findings on available literature regarding a review question. In this instance that question considers the essential components of an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units [ 18 ]. ILR allows for simultaneous inclusion of quantitative and qualitative data for both experimental and non-experimental studies and mixed method studies [ 19 ]. In addition, the approach incorporates a wide range of purposes: to define concepts, to review theories, to review evidence, and to analyse methodological issues of a particular topic [ 19 ].

Steps of integrative literature review

The ILR employed the framework [ 20 ], by expanding on the data analysis and synthesis stage to enhance the systematic nature and rigour of the process. The following five steps were used: review question, search strategy, critical appraisal, data analysis and synthesis (result discussion of the critical appraisal) and conclusion statement. These steps were discussed in detail with the results obtained from each step. Figure  1 provides a visual presentation of the steps.

The five steps of ILR adopted in this study [ 16 ]

Step 1: Formulation of the review question

The review question refers to the problem formulation, starting with a clear identification of the problem statement, definitions, and formulation of the review question to address the review purpose [ 20 ]. The review question was constructed by utilizing the population, intervention, outcome, and timeframe (PIOT) format as indicated in Table 1 [ 20 ]. For the purpose of this study, the population (P) refers to parents of preterm infants. The interventions (I) comprised essential components of an educational program needed for parents with preterm infants admitted in the intensive care units to implement SSC. Indicators for health and wellbeing of both parents and preterm infants were set as the outcome (O) measure. The time frame (T) was time spent by preterm infants in the intensive care units. Based on the outcomes of the PIOT, the following review question was formulated: “What is stated in published literature regarding the key components of an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants admitted in the intensive care units?” Below is a table indicating the PIOT format [ 20 ] (Table 1 ).

Step 2: Search strategy

The second step in the review process was to develop a search strategy. The inclusion criteria for this search were all national and international literature (research and non-research) on essential components of an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants admitted in intensive care units, published from 2019 to 2023. Only studies written in English were included, since it is the language shared by all the review team members and resources for translation services were limited. The studies included in this review used qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, and thus included a systematic review of documents, interventions, reports, components or strategies, reviews, theses, and dissertations.

Exclusion criteria

Prefaces, letters to editors and editorials were excluded from the search since they represent opinions and are not regarded as primary research. Duplicated articles were also excluded after deciding which one (if they were not identical) provided the most comprehensive data regarding the study. During the search stage of the ILR, studies or documents that did not discuss essential components of an educational program in the title, abstract or text were excluded. The title of each study or article was read to determine its relevance. Studies or articles were excluded if they were not accessible to the researcher via the university’s library and inter-lending options.

Literature search

Studies were collected using multiple data platforms, while a clear description of inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search process. The search was conducted from February to June 2023 on the following electronic reference databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Health Source – Nursing/Academic Edition, and Health Source – Consumer Edition. Different keywords were used as well as the reference lists from the bibliography of the documents sampled during the previous stages of the study.

The search strategy followed the phrase approach of combining any search terms and keywords with “AND”, “OR”, and the wild card symbol (*) to yield more relevant results. The following search phrases and keywords were used: essential components of an educational program OR intervention AND skin-to-skin contact OR care OR kangaroo-mother care AND parents* OR mothers AND preterm infants* OR premature AND infant or baby* AND intensive care units OR neonate units. A total of 2,050 records were identified. Along with the electronic database search, a manual search of selected records was conducted to search for additional documents or studies that could be considered for inclusion. Figure  2 presents a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram to illustrate the process of identifying and selecting studies for inclusion in the review [ 21 ].

PRISMA diagram for retrieval strategies and exclusion criteria [ 21 ]

Step 3: Critical appraisal

The third step in the ILR process entailed an in-depth appraisal of the relevant documents that were identified during the searches. A critical appraisal was needed to identify any low-quality documents that could be excluded based on the basis of methodological quality and rigour; this would strengthen the evidence included in the final ILR [ 22 ]. In the critical appraisal process, the authors evaluated all the components of each study, including the introduction, methods, findings, and discussion. The trustworthiness, credibility, congruence, and transferability of the qualitative studies’ findings were carefully and systematically determined [ 23 ]. Content validity in quantitative studies was assessed to ensure the developed self-reported instruments to collect data adequately represented the intended scope of the study [ 23 ].

The methodological quality of all 12 selected studies was assessed by means of a checklist in the form of the critical appraisal tool: Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields, which was developed by Kmet et al. [ 22 ]. The 12 studies selected for critical appraisal were assessed by authors, who have experience in the ILR of studies for methodological rigor. The procedure required the authors to check responses (yes, no, N/A) against the 10-question checklist to determine whether a study would be included or not. Scores were interpreted based on the recommended criteria: 50–100 percent denoted a “good” study, while less than 50 percent indicated a “poor” study. Studies with a score below 50 percent were excluded. After discussion, the authors were able to agree on the selected studies to be included. All articles were ranked based on the review guidelines of the tool. The results of the critical appraisal revealed that 12 studies were suitable for inclusion in the review. Table 2 presents the quality score of each of the studies included.

Step 4: Data analysis and synthesis

Throughout the critical appraisal phase that revealed 12 studies suitable for inclusion in the review, the literature was read and re-read several times. In stage four of the review, characteristics of 12 selected studies, including the citation details (authors, year, country of publication), aims, sample, results, and findings relevant to the review question were captured and are illustrated in Table  3

Step 5: Presentation of findings

After synthesizing the data, it is recommended that a summary of the evidence should be written. In order to give a summary and interpretation of outcomes and characteristics of the included documents, the review usually provides both text and tables [ 20 , 21 ]. The ILR report includes an integration of concepts, thoughts, definitions, or other relevant information that were derived from the included documents on the phenomenon being studied. Concluding statements are derived from the analysis and discussion of the synthesized information [ 21 , 33 ]. The authors further critically analyzed and produced three main themes on the essential components of an educational program for implementing SSC for preterm infants as follows:

Theme 1: Policy and role players regarding the implementation of SSC

The institution should formulate a policy regarding the implementation of SSC. The written policy documents should be accessible to the nursing staff involved in the program and should be easy to apply [ 27 ]. Posters summarizing the policy of the institute should be displayed in the centre so that people are aware of SSC, along with its benefits and implementation methods [ 27 ].

A study conducted in Indonesia [ 25 ] aimed to assess the skills of neonatal nurses one year after training found that the development of kangaroo care services in the hospital not only provided training for health personnel but also required continuation, a clear policy and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Therefore, having a policy about the SSC program enhances teaching and reinforces knowledge regarding it [ 25 ].

Theme 2: Education and training on the implementation of SSC

Health education is very important to both nursing staff and parents of preterm infants, and more time should be devoted to SSC activities. It is fundamental for them to comprehend what SSC entails and what its benefits are. In a study conducted in Zambia, mothers accepted SSC after they were given information and education through proper communication [ 27 ]. Providing education is an effort to improve knowledge levels of healthcare professionals regarding evidence-based interventions: exclusive breastfeeding, effective parenting strategies, and SSC in preterm infants [ 25 ].

A study conducted by Samsudin et al. [ 17 ] supported the application of a structured teaching program. They found that a planned teaching program on SSC was a successful method for reducing stress, producing a positive perception and good knowledge of the implementation of SSC [ 17 ]. Therefore, continuing education for healthcare professionals and parents is necessary.

A study conducted in Mexico highlighted that nurses and parents of preterm infants need to be trained through lecture methods, which covered the benefits and methodology of SSC and early breastfeeding, and incorporated recommendations based on the baby-friendly hospital initiative [ 12 ]. In addition, it was found that multiples trainings should be carried out to ensure that any challenges that arise regarding the implementation of SSC can be dealt with [ 12 ]. In order to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality due to premature birth, it is important need to increase the knowledge and skills not only for mothers but also healthcare professionals.

Furthermore, proper training for healthcare professionals and the creation of a welcoming environment for parents are also essential elements for effective implementation of SSC [ 32 ]. The program should focus on increasing awareness and knowledge about SSC, ensuring enough knowledge and practice about SSC and continuous educational programs to increase awareness about SSC [ 32 ]. Therefore, it is important to emphasize to the mothers of preterm infants that promoting and practising SSC is a cost-effective intervention with social and economic benefits [ 24 ].

Theme 3: Counselling and support for healthcare professional and parents of preterm imfants

Counseling and support for mothers and neonatal nurses as it relates to SSC for preterm infants is crucial for improving outcomes. Nurses play a significant role in providing support to mothers in intensive care units and should be equipped with strategies to reduce maternal stress [ 34 ]. Mothers of preterm infants perceive nursing support as encompassing the delivery of information, professional care and emotional support [ 34 ]. Furthermore, nurses should have a comprehensive understanding of parents' education and support needs, and standardized tools should be used to identify these needs [ 35 ]. A study conducted in Southern Ethopia concluded that mothers should be counseled during antenatal care and after delivery to improve their knowledge regarding SSC [ 31 ].

The goal of this integrative literature review was to identify, synthesize and present findings on essential components of an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units. The study highlighted the essential components of an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants. They include policy formulation and role players for the implementation of SSC, education and training as well as counseling and support nurses and mothers of preterm infants.

The evidence supports the importance of policy implementation and the involvement of various role players, including nursing staff and parents, in promoting and facilitating SSC for preterm infants. This finding concurs with the study conducted by Nuraini et al. [ 25 ] who concluded that the development of SSC leads to the clear formulation of policy and SOP.

The included studies revealed that structured education on the evidence-based practice and benefits of SSC helps to overcome a lack of knowledge regarding SSC for parents of preterm infants and healthcare professionals. An educational program was found to be effective in improving parental knowledge in caring for preterm infants in a district hospital in neonatal intensive care unit in Kigali [ 14 , 29 ]. Therefore, the findings of a study can serve as an instructive demonstration for healthcare professionals and parents who are able to effectively employ SSC and enable the advantages to be obtained by preterm infants. In addition, a study conducted by Herzberg et al. [ 34 ] indicated that the nurse manager plays a role in providing support and opportunities for ongoing education.

The findings from this study confirmed that more research is needed on educational programs in order to reduce mortality and morbidity rates among preterm infants [ 36 ]. Despite recent changes in the provision of health care for preterm infants, nurses still experience several barriers in successfully implementing SSC in the healthcare settings. The review conducted by Maniago et al. [ 26 ] reported strategies to reduce barriers and to improve utilization of SSC as clear guidelines, sufficient supplies and equipment, capacity building among staff and proper information dissemination for parents regarding SSC. Moreover, after the implementation of advocacy, training, and promotion of intermittent SSC to premature infants, it was well-received by their parents [ 28 , 37 ].

By identifying the essential components for implementation of SSC, it becomes possible to design an educational program that can support the continued growth and development of premature infants and the overall well-being of parents. This can be achieved more quickly by including the parents’ and nurses’ inputs to ensure their needs are incorporated into the program. Therefore, this study recommends the continuous promotion of SSC education as proven to be safe and efficacious in managing preterm infants. Additional research and investigations are warranted to ascertain the effectiveness of various educational methods with regard to enhancing knowledge and practice related to SSC for parents of preterm infants. The urgency for research in the domain of awareness and practice is thus underscored.

This study has several limitations. The current ILR shows the absence of published studies in LMICs in Africa. Further research beyond the boundaries of high-income countries is required to determine the essential components to be incorporated in an educational program to implement SSC for preterm infants in LMICs. Moreover, only studies published in English were selected for inclusion due to limited resources for translation services. Therefore, some studies published in other languages may provide varying or more diverse perspectives on the essential components of such an educational program. Despite these limitations, the current study's findings can serve as a foundation for the development of an educational program that targets healthcare professionals and parents of preterm infants in intensive care units.

A comprehensive literature search spanning the recent literature identified twelve studies on essential components of an educational program for implementing SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units. The integrative review captured the following essential components: policy and role players on implementation of SSC, education and training as well as counseling and support needs for nurses and parents of preterm infants. The results of this study could aid program implementers, policy makers, and researchers to implement and scale up this important tool of SSC in intensive care units and its potential to improve breastfeeding practices. Further research regarding educational program for implementing SSC for preterm infants in intensive care units is warranted.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used and analysed during the current reviews are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Critical Appraisal Skills Program

Integrative Literature Review

Kangaroo Mother Care

Low Birth Weight

Low-to-Middle Income Countries

Population, Intervention, Outcome and Time frame

North West Province

South Africa

Standard Operating Procedure

Skin to Skin Contact

World Health Organization

Ohuma EO, Moller AB, Bradley E, Chakwera S, Hussain-Alkhateeb L, Lewin A, Okwaraji YB, Mahanani WR, Johansson EW, Lavin T, Fernandez DE. National, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth in 2020, with trends from 2010: a systematic analysis. The Lancet. 2023;402(10409):1261–71.

Article   Google Scholar  

Perin J, Mulick A, Yeung D, Villavicencio F, Lopez G, Strong KL, Prieto-Merino D, Cousens S, Black RE, Liu L. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–19: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the sustainable development goals. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022;6(2):106–15.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

WHO. Preterm birth. WHO Publication. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth WHO. Care of the preterm and low-birth-weight newborn World Prematurity Day-17. Cited 2024 Mar 27

Dorrington RE, Bradshaw D, Laubscher R, Nannan N. Rapid mortality surveillance report 2012. Cape Town, South Africa: Medical Research Council, Burden of Disease Research Unit. 2014;1:1–36.

Howden-Chapman P, Siri J, Chisholm E, Chapman R, Doll CN, Capon A. SDG 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages. A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation. Paris, France: International Council for Science; 2017. p. 81–126.

Google Scholar  

Bedetti L, Lugli L, Bertoncelli N, Spaggiari E, Garetti E, Lucaccioni L, Cipolli F, Berardi A. Early skin-to-skin contact in preterm infants: is it safe? An Italian experience. Children. 2023;10(3):570.

Li L, Ji F, Wang Y, Wang L, Yu L, Wu X, Lyu T, Dou Y, Cao Y, Hu XJ. The clinical experience of early skin-to-skin contact combined with non-nutritive comfort sucking in mothers of preterm infants: a qualitative study. BMC Pregn Childb. 2023;23(1):281.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ahmed Mohammed Sabry F, Mohamed Ahmed Ayed M, Farouk Mohamed M, Mohamed-Nabil Ismail L, Ahmed MR, AbdElkhalek Kamal N. Effect of Kangaroo mother care discharge guide program on mothers and preterm neonates outcomes. Egypt J Health Care. 2023;14(1):833–53.

Khoshnood Z, Nematollahi M, Monemi E. The effect of a virtual educational and supportive Intervention on the mothers’ resilience with preterm infants: A quasi-experimental study. Middle East J Rehab Health Stud. 2023;10(1):e129812.

Ragab FE, Ismail SS, Tantawi HR. The effect of kangaroo care educational program for mother on weight gain of premature infants in neonatal intensive care units. Midwifery. 2022;5(3):126–45.

Paynda DJ, Kartikerswar GA, Kadam SS. Early kangaroo mother care in preterms weighing ≤ 1250 grams: before and after training program in neonatal nurses. Int J Contemp Pediatr (Int J Contemp Pediatr). 2022;9(5):457–457.

Sanchez-Espino LF, Zuniga-Villanueva G, Ramirenz-GarciaLuna JL. An educational intervention to implement skin-to-skin contact and early breastfeeding in a rural hospital in Mexico. Int Breastfeed J. 2019;14(Suppl 1):1–9.

Level V, Héon M, Juneau AL, Collette K, Feeley N. The development of a digital educational program with parents of preterm infants and neonatal nurses to meet parents educational needs. J Neonatal Nurs. 2021;27(1):52–7.

Mukarubayiza MR, Gowan M. Educational intervention to increase parental care of preterm neonates at district hospital in Kigali. Rwanda J Med Health Sci. 2019;2(2):105–11.

Astuti IT, Pandin MG. Educational methods to improve the ability of parents to provide developmental care For premature infants: A literature review. Reprint. 2021;2:1–17.

Ong SL, Abdullah KL, Danaee M, Soh KL, Soh KG, Lee DS, Hussin EO. The effectiveness of a structured nursing intervention program on maternal stress and ability among mothers of premature infants in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(3–4):641–9.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Samsudin S, Chui PL, Kamar AB, Abdullah KL. Maternal Kangaroo care education program in the neonatal intensive care unit improved mothers’ perceptions, knowledge, perceived barriers and stress relates to premature infant. Nurs Open. 2023;10(1):349–57.

Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L. Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016;30(Suppl 4):662–9.

Whittemore R, Knalf K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(Suppl 5):546–53.

Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(Suppl 15):11–5.

Shelby LB, Vaske JJ. Understanding meta-analysis: a review of the methodological literature. Leis Sci. 2008;30:96–110.

Kmet LM, Lee RC, Cook LS. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research: Edmontom; 2004.

LoBiondo-Wood G, Haber J, 2023. Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice.

Medhanyie AA, Alemu H, Asefa A, Beyene SA, Gebregizabher FA, Aziz K, Bhandari N, Beyene H, Brune T, Chan G, Cranmer JN. Kangaroo mother care implementation research to develop models for accelerating scale-up in India and Ethiopia: study protocol for an adequacy evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(Suppl11):e025879.

Nuraini N, Pratomo H, Hadi EN, Noviati T, Sianipar E. Neonatal nurse skills and kangaroo mother care training: one year post-training evaluation. J Neonatal Nurs. 2019;25(Suppl 4):209–12.

Maniago JD, Almazan JU, Albougami AS. Nurses’ kangaroo mother care practice implementation and future challenges: an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020;34(Suppl 2):293–304.

World Health Organization (WHO). Impact of continuous kangaroo mother care initiated immediately after birth on survival of newborns with birth weight between 1.0 to 1,8kg: study protocol for a randomised controlled trail. Trials. 2020;21:1–13.

Almutairi WM. Survey of skin-to-skin contact with obstetrics and pediatrics nurses. Nurs Rep. 2022;12:13–31.

Fatma ER, Safaa SI, Hyam RT. The effect of kangaroo care educational program for mother on weight gain of premature infants in neonatal intensive care units. Afr J Health Nurs Midw. 2022;5(Suppl 3):126–45.

Muttau N, Mwendafilumba M, Lewis B, Kasprzyk K, Travers C, Menon JA, Mutesu-Kapembwa K, Mangangu A, Kapesa H, Manasyan A. Strengthening kangaroo mother care at tertiary level hospital in Zambia: a prospective descriptive study. Plos One. 2022;17:9.

Habte A, Tamene A, Gizachew A. Compliance toward key elements of kangaroo mother care and its predators among postnatal mothers with preterm and low birth weight newborns in southern Ethopia, 2021: account analysis. Women’s Health. 2023;19:174.

Moran C, Thomson G, Moran V, Fallon V. The content, experiences and outcomes of interventions designed to increase early skin to skin contact in high-income settings: a mixed-methods systematic review. Acta Paediatrica. 2023;112(Suppl 2):200-221.29.

Mickenautsch S. Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(Suppl 53):1–7.

Herzberg J, Thierfelder I, Tannen A. Needs-based educational support for parents in the neonatal intensive care unit-perspectives of parent counsellors/Bedarfsorientierte edukative Unterstützung für Eltern nach einer Frühgeburt aus der Perspektive von Elternberaterinnen. Int J Health Prof. 2023;10(Suppl1);11–23.

Chugh Sachdeva R, Mondkar J, Shanbhag S. A qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators for breastfeeding and kangaroo mother care among service providers, mothers and influencers of neonates admitted in two urban hospitals in India. J Breastf Med. 2019;14(Suppl):108–14.

Huff K, Rose RS, Engle WA. Late preterm infants’ recommendations morbidity and mortality monitoring management. Pediatr Clin. 2019;66(Suppl 2):387–402.

Liu X, Li Z, Chen X, Cao B, Yue S, Yang C, Liu Q, Yang C, Zhao G, Feng Q. Utilization pattern of kangaroo mother care after introduction in eight selected neonatal intensive care units in China. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20(Suppl 1):1–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The reviewers express gratitude to the NWU research team for the guidance and assistance through the process of this review by means of online workshops.

Conflict of interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Open access funding provided by North-West University. Open access funding provided by North-West University. The NWU provided financial support in the form of a bursary for the review (grant number-not applicable).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

NuMIQ (Quality in Nursing and Midwifery), Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Takalani T. Denge & Welma Lubbe

NuMIQ (Quality in Nursing and Midwifery), Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Mafikeng, South Africa

Nokwanda Edith Bam & Annah Rakhudu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TD has conceptualised, designed, conducted and wrote this manuscript and NED, WL, AR co-reviewed, read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takalani T. Denge .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The NWU Research Ethics Committee approved this review as part of a large study (NWU-0006–23-A1).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interest

Additional information, publisher’s note.

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

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.

Denge, T.T., Bam, N.E., Lubbe, W. et al. Essential components of an educational program for implementing skin-to-skin contact for preterm infants in intensive care units: an integrative literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24 , 281 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06447-6

Download citation

Received : 09 September 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06447-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Educational program
• Preterm infants
• Intensive care units
• Skin-to-skin contact

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

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

• Case Report
• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2024

Pediatric upper lip myopericytoma: a case report and comprehensive review

• Bin Wei 1 , 2 ,
• Gui Liu 2 , 3 ,
• Kun Li 1 , 2 &
• Hongzhi Quan 1 , 2  

BMC Oral Health volume  24 , Article number:  478 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

41 Accesses

Metrics details

Myopericytoma is a rare spindle cell tumor of mesenchymal origin, typically benign, characterized by concentric proliferation of tumor cells around blood vessels within subcutaneous tissue. It primarily occurs in middle-aged adults and is often located in distal extremities, although cases have been reported in proximal extremities and head-neck regions. However, occurrences within the oral cavity are exceedingly rare. To date, literature reviews have identified only two cases in children under 10 years old and reported only five cases of myopericytoma occurring in the lip region. We provide a comprehensive review and analysis of all documented cases to better understand this condition.

Case presentation

A 7-year-old girl presented to oral and maxillofacial surgery with the discovery of a painless mass on the inner aspect of the upper lip. The diagnosis of myopericytoma was confirmed by histological examination (HE staining), alcian blue staining, and immunohistochemistry.

Conclusions

Following surgical excision, there were no signs of recurrence at a 3-month follow-up. The pathological diagnosis of myopericytoma is quite challenging, and immunohistochemical testing is necessary.

Peer Review reports

Myopericytoma (MPC) is a histopathologically benign subcutaneous tumor distinguished by the concentric organization of oval to spindle-shaped myoid cells surrounding delicate vascular channels, exhibiting a distinctive concentric perivascular cell proliferation [ 1 ]. Myopericytoma can manifest at any age but is most prevalent in middle-aged individuals. It typically originates in subcutaneous tissues, frequently impacting the distal extremities, but it can also arise in the proximal extremities, neck, thoracic spine, and various other regions. Nevertheless, documented cases of MPC within the oral cavity are exceedingly scarce [ 2 ]. Clinically, it manifests as painless subcutaneous nodules characterized by slow growth, and the disease course may span several years. While it frequently appears as a solitary nodule, multiple lesions are not uncommon. Multiple lesions often develop asynchronously, typically affecting a specific anatomical region, such as the foot or head-neck region [ 3 ]. To date, a comprehensive literature review has unveiled a total of 41 documented cases of myopericytoma manifesting in the oral cavity, summarized in Table  1 . Cases classified by gender, age, and anatomical site are summarized in Supplementary Table 1 . In this report, we present a case involving myopericytoma located in the upper lip of a 7-year-old girl.

On August 10, 2023, a 7-year-old girl was brought to Xiang Ya Stomatological Hospital in Hunan Province, China. Her mother reported the discovery of a painless swelling on the inner aspect of the upper lip two weeks before the visit. The patient had a history of overall good health, with no known drug allergies or other systemic medical conditions. During a specialized examination, an upper lip lesion was identified on the left side. The lesion exhibited a color resembling that of the surrounding mucosa, had a firm texture, unclear borders, and dimensions measuring approximately 0.5 × 1.0 × 1.0 cm. The treatment involves surgical excision. Subsequently, the excised lesion was dispatched to the pathology department for thorough examination. Following consultation with the pathology department at Xiang Ya Hospital, the comprehensive pathological assessment, which encompassed hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), alcian blue staining and immunohistochemistry, conclusively established the diagnosis of a benign myopericytoma originating from the mesenchyme in the upper lip. Histological Features: Grossly, the lesion displayed indistinct boundaries with surrounding tissues and was enclosed by a complete capsule, measuring approximately 0.5 × 1.0 × 1.0 cm. Microscopic examination of hematoxylin & eosin and alcian blue stained sections revealed the following characteristics: First, the presence of relatively uniform oval or spindle-shaped myoid cells arranged in whirlpool patterns. Additionally, there were some blood vessels with occasional red blood cells in the lumens, and certain tumor cells displayed vacuolar changes with centrally located nuclei, which is typical feature of myopericytoma. And the myoid cells exhibited acidophilic cytoplasm, uniform nuclear chromatin, and lacked notable nuclear pleomorphism. Furthermore, mucinous degeneration was detected within the matrix between whirlpool structures by alcian blue staining. Moreover, the fibrous capsule exhibited distinct demarcation from the surrounding normal tissues. Cross-sections within the central part of the tumor revealed the presence of nerve fiber. Equally important is the presence of plump myoid cells encircling rounded, thin-walled vessels. (Fig.  1 A ∼ 1 F) and (Supplementary material Fig.  1 ). To corroborate the diagnosis, immunohistochemical staining was conducted, yielding the following outcomes: SMA (+++), h-caldesmon (+ focally), β-catenin (-), Ki-67 (20%), Desmin (-), and CD34 (-) (Fig.  2 A ∼ 2 F). Consequently, the ultimate diagnosis aligns with a benign myopericytoma originating from the mesenchyme in the upper lip.

( A ) relatively uniform oval or spindle-shaped myoid cells arranged in a whirlpool pattern (box) (bar = 100 μm). ( B ) In the clefts, a few red blood cells (short arrow) were observed within the blood vessels, and some tumor cells exhibited vacuolar changes with nuclei located centrally within the cells (long arrow), which is typical feature of myopericytoma. (bar = 100 μm). ( C ) The myoid cells exhibited acidophilic cytoplasm, uniform nuclear chromatin, and lacked notable nuclear pleomorphism (bar = 100 μm). ( D ) Nerve fiber (arrow) could be observed in cross-sections located within the center of the tumor (bar = 100 μm). ( E ) The presence of plump myoid cells encircling rounded, thin-walled vessels (bar = 50 μm). ( F ) The fibrous capsule had a clear boundary (arrows) with the surrounding normal tissue (bar = 100 μm)

( A ) Positivity for α-SMA accentuates the perivascular arrangement (bar = 50 μm). ( B ) The expression of h-caldesmon is focal to smooth muscle in visceral organs and blood vessels, as well as myoepithelial cells. (bar = 50 μm). ( C ) The tumor cells are negative for CD34 but endothelial cells lining the lumen of small blood vessels are positive. (bar = 50 μm). ( D ) Positive results for β-catenin can serve as evidence to exclude solitary fibrous tumors. (bar = 50 μm) ( E ) The tumor cells are negative for Desmin (bar = 50 μm). ( F ) The tumor cells showing a high Ki-67 labeling index (20%). (bar = 50 μm)

The term myopericytoma (MPC) was first introduced by Granter et al. in 1998 [ 4 ]. This category encompasses tumors in adults displaying features akin to infantile myofibromatosis, as well as glomangiopericytoma (GPC), glomus tumors, and angioleiomyoma (ALM). In the same year, Kutzner, from the Friedrichshafen Institute of Dermatopathology, introduced the concept of perivascular myoma, essentially referring to the same tumor [ 5 ]. In both instances, the tumor cells exhibit characteristics associated with perivascular myoid cells or myopericytic differentiation. MPC most commonly originates in the subcutaneous tissues of the skin, with a predilection for the distal extremities [ 2 ]. The lower limbs are the primary sites of occurrence, followed by the upper limbs, head, neck, and trunk [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. In literature reports related to oral myopericytomas, there have been 6 cases occurring in the tongue, 10 cases in the salivary glands [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], and 5 cases in the lips [ 7 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. There have been reports of a few cases occurring in AIDS patients with concurrent EBV infection [ 6 ]. Unlike those occurring in soft tissues, such as the limbs, EBV-positive myopericytomas tend to be located in specific regions, such as around the bronchi, tongue, and periprostatic area, and they may exhibit multifocality [ 22 ]. While most MPC cases are benign, there have been a few reported instances of malignancy or recurrence. Oral presentations are exceedingly rare [ 6 , 10 , 23 , 24 ]. Typically, they manifest as solitary, well-defined, slow-growing, painless nodules [ 5 , 25 , 26 ]. However, multiple lesions can also occur [ 2 ]. Benign tumors typically measure less than 2 cm in diameter, although tumors that have recurred may reach dimensions of 5.6*5.5*3 cm [ 4 ]. To date, 41 cases of oral MPC have been reported, with ages of onset ranging from 21 months to 80 years and a median age of 43 years. The incidence rate ratio between males and females is 0.7:1. Furthermore, MPCs can occur multifocally across various anatomical regions [ 27 ]. Multiple-nodular tumors or deep-seated lesions generally demonstrate a greater degree of invasiveness in comparison to superficial nodules [ 4 ]. Malignant transformation within the oral cavity has been reported twice in the literature. In detailed, Terada reported a case of malignant tumor occurring in the buccal mucosa of a 61-year-old male. Through immunohistochemical and HE staining tests, a pathological diagnosis of low-grade malignant myopericytoma was made due to the presence of some atypical and scattered mitotic figures, positive p53 expression in tumor cells, and a relatively high Ki67 labeling index [ 28 ]. A malignant myopericytoma was reported to occur in the left neck region of an 80-year-old female, as documented by McMenamin. Intraoperatively, a tumor of approximately 20 mm was identified, invading into the sternocleidomastoid muscle. Nine months after excision, a tumor with morphological similarities measuring 70 mm was discovered in the liver, suggesting a metastatic lesion [ 29 ]. Ultrastructurally, tumor cells display characteristics consistent with pericytic differentiation [ 30 ]. In molecular genetics research, Dahle´n identified a t(7;12)(p21-22;q13-15) translocation in 5 cases of perivascular tumors. This translocation leads to the fusion of the ACTB gene on 7p22 with the GLI gene on 12q13 [ 31 ]. However, there have been no reports of extensive case series analyzing these lesions or providing a more comprehensive characterization of their biological potential. Some researchers, including Mito and Sadow, have proposed that BRAF mutations may constitute a novel genetic anomaly in the pathogenesis of myopericytomas, along with related biomarkers. Nevertheless, this viewpoint remains a topic of debate [ 32 , 33 ].

A definitive diagnosis necessitates an excisional biopsy followed by histological examination. The primary characteristic of MPC is the concentric arrangement of pericytic myoid cells around thin-walled vascular channels [ 1 ]. In this case, H&E and alcian blue staining results reveal identical pathological features: relatively uniform oval or spindle-shaped myoid cells arranged in concentric circles or whirlpool patterns. Even in specific areas, mucinous degeneration is detected within the matrix between concentric circles or whirlpool structures. Additionally, some blood vessels contain occasional red blood cells, and certain tumor cells exhibit vacuolar changes with centrally located nuclei, which is typical feature of myopericytoma. Equally important is the presence of plump myoid cells encircling rounded, thin-walled vessels. In the current case, the site of onset is on the upper lip. Therefore, clinical differential diagnoses include fibrous hyperplasia, fibrous histiocytoma, pyogenic granuloma, minor salivary gland diseases (such as mucous cysts, adenomatoid hyperplasia), neurofibroma, lymphangioma, etc. Fibrous histiocytoma also presents as solitary, painless, well-defined nodular masses [ 34 ]. Pyogenic granuloma typically manifests as exophytic lesions with smooth or lobulated surfaces, presenting as pedunculated or sometimes sessile small red nodules on a base, often with a tendency to bleed [ 35 ]. Mucocoeles commonly occur on the lower lip, located beneath the mucosa, with a surface covered by a thin layer of mucosa, often appearing as translucent vesicles resembling water blisters, with a soft and elastic texture [ 36 ]. Adenomatoid hyperplasia is a rare non-neoplastic proliferation of minor salivary glands, presenting as asymptomatic, firm, papillary, non-tender nodular masses without ulceration [ 37 ]. Approximately 6.5% of neurofibromas involve oral lesions, with the tongue being the most commonly affected site and a low incidence rate in the lips. They appear as soft, flesh-colored nodules with characteristic central umbilication [ 38 ]. Lymphangiomas are benign developmental malformations characterized by abnormal proliferation of lymphatic vessels, relatively uncommon in oral lesions, with the lips being a rare site of involvement [ 39 ].While clinical features may appear similar, microscopic features are distinctive. Fibrous proliferation is characterized by mature connective tissue stroma [ 26 ]. The H&E-stained sections of fibrous histiocytoma reveal stratified squamous epithelium along with connective tissue stroma. The connective tissue stroma exhibits a dual cell population of fibroblasts and histiocytes. Fibroblasts are spindle-shaped and arranged in a twisted pattern (intersecting fibroblastic cell clusters) [ 34 ]. Pyogenic granuloma is identified by numerous dilated capillaries within a loose inflammatory stroma [ 35 ]. In H&E-stained sections of Mucocoeles, granulation tissue surrounding the mucoid cystic cavity is commonly observed, along with diffuse extrusion of mucin into the interstitial spaces [ 36 ]. Histopathological findings of adenomatoid hyperplasia include enlarged mucous gland acini, filled with secretory granules. Cell nuclei are compressed at the basal portion, accompanied by focal inflammation and ductal dilation [ 37 ]. Neurofibroma histology reveals an encapsulated lesion composed of proliferating neural elements with a background of mucin and enlarged cells. Lymphangiectasia is characteristic of lymphangioma [ 38 ]. Additionally, odontogenic lesions can be ruled out in lip lesions since they lack odontogenic epithelium [ 26 ]. Similarly, giant cell lesions are typically ruled out; however, there are rare reports of osteoclast-like giant cell tumors occurring in the lips [ 38 ].

Histological differential diagnoses include conditions such as myofibroma, glomus tumor, angioleiomyoma, and solitary fibrous tumor, especially myofibroma [ 4 ]. Glomus tumors are composed of cuboidal cells with clear cell borders and round central nuclei, lacking spindled cell morphology [ 5 ]. Angioleiomyomas show significant proliferation of thick-walled vessels [ 26 ]. Histologically, myofibromas exhibit nodular or multinodular growth patterns and distinct zonation: consisting of a peripheral area with lightly stained cells and a central area with darker staining, the proportions of which vary within the tumor. The peripheral area comprises spindle cells arranged in nodular or short fascicular patterns, with eosinophilic cytoplasm, morphologically intermediate between fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells. The central area is composed of round or polygonal primitive mesenchymal cells, arranged in solid sheets or around branching blood vessels resembling pericytes, with visible mitotic figures and necrosis [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Nevertheless, immunohistochemical differentiation is still necessary. In terms of immunohistochemistry, MPCs consistently demonstrate strong immunoreactivity for SMA, smooth muscle actin heavy chain, muscle-specific actin, and muscle-specific actin [ 5 , 7 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Moreover, the application of h-caldesmon in the diagnosis of leiomyoma is also quite important [ 46 ]. Most cases are negative for Desmin, although some occasional cases with focal Desmin reactivity have been reported. This suggests that possible precursor cell sources may include pericytic or myofibroblastic cells [ 5 ]. Strong SMA expression and negative CD34 staining effectively differentiate MPCs from other perivascular myoid tumors, such as solitary fibrous tumors and myofibromas [ 3 , 21 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. The distinctive feature distinguishing MPC from angioleiomyoma is the concentric arrangement of cells and the absence of Desmin staining, a characteristic more frequently observed in MPC. As anticipated, we performed immunohistochemical testing on the specimen, including SMA, Desmin, and CD34. The test results are consistent with the reported characteristics of MPC in the literature: SMA (+++), Desmin (-), CD34 (-). It is noteworthy that a study by Matsuyama et al. demonstrated that up to 20% of angioleiomyoma cases exhibit focal perivascular concentric growth. This suggests that this feature alone cannot serve as a reliable means of differentiation between these two tumors. Additionally, while angioleiomyomas generally exhibit positive staining, they do not display positivity for Desmin within concentric cell structures. This necessitates further immunohistochemistry and consideration of molecular differences for improved discrimination between MPC and angioleiomyoma [ 50 ]. Differentiating MPC from epithelioid smooth muscle cell tumors, such as Pecomas, can be accomplished by observing their negativity for HMB45 [ 28 ].

Thus, pathological examination remains the gold standard for distinguishing MPC. Jo and colleagues conducted immunohistochemical staining for nuclear β-catenin in 50 soft tissue tumors located in the nasal sinuses or oral cavity. They recorded the staining intensity and extent in a semi-quantitative manner. Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) all exhibited nuclear β-catenin expression, and 90% of synovial sarcomas showed varying degrees of staining intensity from weak to strong. In contrast, none of the myopericytoma cases exhibited this expression [ 43 ]. Therefore, the immunohistochemical expression of nuclear β-catenin can be considered significant for distinguishing it from other diseases. In this case, the immunohistochemical staining results for nuclear β-catenin were also negative (Figure 2 D), thereby excluding the possibility of solitary fibrous tumor. Immunohistochemical antibodies may lack absolute specificity, but they provide a degree of relative specificity. Multiple antibody combinations are frequently employed to enhance diagnostic accuracy. In the future, distinguishing these types of lesions may be facilitated through cytogenetics and/or molecular genetic studies. The immunohistochemical findings from the 41 cases are summarized in Table  1 .

The standard treatment for benign MPC is surgical excision, typically resulting in a favorable prognosis [ 25 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Extensive local excision is recommended to prevent recurrence, followed by meticulous follow-up. Among the 41 reported cases, only two patients experienced recurrences [ 4 , 7 ]. These recurrences typically stem from unclear margins, tumor extension into other areas, or exceedingly rare malignant transformations. A single case report detailed an MPC situated in the parotid area, which recurred as a larger and multicentric lesion after two incomplete excisions [ 4 ]. While benign MPCs occurring in the lips are relatively straightforward to surgically remove, their removal often necessitates considering the patient’s age, lesion location, and potential postoperative adverse reactions. Compared to the case reported by Porat Ben Amy, which involved a 6-year-old boy with an MPC in the upper jaw involving teeth, our patient—a 7-year-old girl with a lesion in the upper lip that did not involve teeth—underwent a relatively straightforward excision [ 25 ]. Given the child’s young age, we chose a conservative direct excision, and she exhibited an excellent recovery during a three-month follow-up visit, showing no signs of recurrence.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

• Myopericytoma

Glomangiopericytoma

Angioleiomyoma

Not available

Hematoxylin and Eosin

Board WCoTE. Soft tissue and Bone Tumours. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Agrawal N, Nag K. Myopericytoma of the thoracic spine: a case report and review of literature. Spine J. 2013;13(11):e23–7.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jung YI, Chung YK, Chung S. Multiple myopericytoma of the face and parotid gland. Arch Plast Surg. 2012;39(2):158–61.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Xia L, Chen Y, Geng N, Jiang J, Yang M, Zhang W. Multifocal myopericytoma in the maxillofacial region: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109(2):e59–62.

Granter SR, Badizadegan K, Fletcher CD. Myofibromatosis in adults, glomangiopericytoma, and myopericytoma: a spectrum of tumors showing perivascular myoid differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22(5):513–25.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ju WT, Zhao TC, Liu Y, Dong MJ, Wang LZ, Li J, et al. Clinical and pathologic analysis of myopericytoma in the oral and maxillofacial region. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;128(4):393–9.

Strayer E, Throndson R, Clement C, McDaniel K. Myopericytoma of the lip: a Case Report of this rare lesion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(7):1464–7.

Rubino S, De Berardinis R, Colombo D, De Padova A. Myopericytoma of the tongue base: a case report. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018;69(5):304–5.

Akbulut S, Berk D, Demir MG, Kayahan S. Myopericytoma of the tongue: a case report. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 2013;56(3):124–5.

Lau PP, Wong OK, Lui PC, Cheung OY, Ho LC, Wong WC, et al. Myopericytoma in patients with AIDS: a new class of Epstein-Barr virus-associated tumor. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):1666–72.

Datta V, Rawal YB, Mincer HH, Anderson MK. Myopericytoma of the oral cavity. Head Neck. 2007;29(6):605–8.

Roig NJ, Wu M, Hernandez O, Liu CZ, Brandler TC. Myopericytoma of the parotid and molecular profiling: report of a rare case and review of the literature. Int J Surg Pathol. 2022;30(5):574–80.

Pan Y, Chen L, Shi D, Chen Y, Yu RS. Imaging features of myopericytoma arising from the parotid gland: report of 2 cases and literature review. Med (Baltim). 2021;100(14):e25471.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bates AS, Craig P, Knepil GJ. Myopericytoma of the parotid region treated by extracapsular dissection. Case Rep. 2014;2014(apr09 1):bcr2013201924–bcr.

Wu F, Sun J, Dong J, Wang X, Gao Q. Management of multicentric myopericytoma in the maxillofacial region: a case report. Case Rep Oncol. 2013;6(2):350–5.

Kuczkowski J, Rzepko R, Szurowska E. Myopericytoma of the parotid gland–a pathological conundrum. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010;38(8):595–6.

Chu ZG, Yu JQ, Yang ZG, Zhu ZY, Yuan HM. Myopericytoma involving the parotid gland as depicted on multidetector CT. Korean J Radiol. 2009;10(4):398–401.

Tan MWP, Wei Tay AY, Tang PY, Chew KY, Nicholas Yeo EM, Myopericytoma. A review of twenty-three cases over twelve years and a case report of a Rare Neoplasm. Am J Dermatopathol. 2022;44(9):623–31.

Ralli M, D’Aguanno V, De Vincentiis L, de Vincentiis M, Corsi A. Glomangiopericytoma-type glomus tumour/myopericytoma of the lip. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(9):923–5.

Vasenwala SM, Afroz N, Ansari HA, Khan AH, Basari R, Rehman S. Myopericytoma of lip: a rare lesion in an unusual location. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2015;58(2):211–3.

Sapelli S, Ribas M, Martins WD, de Noronha L, Gomes AP. Myopericytoma of the lip: report of case. Head Neck. 2009;31(4):561–4.

Ramdial PK, Sing Y, Deonarain J, Singh B, Allopi L, Moodley P. Periampullary Epstein-Barr virus-associated myopericytoma. Hum Pathol. 2011;42(9):1348–54.

Ide F, Mishima K, Yamada H, Saito I, Horie N, Shimoyama T, et al. Perivascular myoid tumors of the oral region: a clinicopathologic re-evaluation of 35 cases. J Oral Pathol Med. 2008;37(1):43–9.

Ide F, Obara K, Yamada H, Mishima K, Saito I. Intravascular myopericytoma of the oral mucosa: a rare histologic variant in an uncommon location. Virchows Arch. 2007;450(4):475–7.

Porat Ben Amy D, Yaffe V, Kawar R, Akrish S, Abu El-Naaj I. Oral myopericytoma: a rare pediatric case report and a review of the literature. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):176.

Almeida LKY, Jabur RO, Silveira HA, Polanco XBJ, da Silva RAB, Ribeiro-Silva A et al. Gingival ossifying myopericytoma in a pediatric patient: immunohistochemical analysis and literature review. Oral Oncol. 2020;107.

Laga AC, Tajirian AL, Islam MN, Bhattacharyya I, Cohen DM, Plamondon CJ, et al. Myopericytoma: report of two cases associated with trauma. J Cutan Pathol. 2008;35(9):866–70.

Terada T. Myopericytoma of low grade malignancy in the oral cavity. Rare Tumors. 2012;4(1):e9.

McMenamin ME, Fletcher CD. Malignant myopericytoma: expanding the spectrum of tumours with myopericytic differentiation. Histopathology. 2002;41(5):450–60.

Diaz-Flores L, Gutierrez R, Garcia MP, Diaz-Flores L Jr., Valladares F, Madrid JF. Ultrastructure of myopericytoma: a continuum of transitional phenotypes of myopericytes. Ultrastruct Pathol. 2012;36(3):189–94.

Dahlen A, Fletcher CD, Mertens F, Fletcher JA, Perez-Atayde AR, Hicks MJ, et al. Activation of the GLI oncogene through fusion with the beta-actin gene (ACTB) in a group of distinctive pericytic neoplasms: pericytoma with t(7;12). Am J Pathol. 2004;164(5):1645–53.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mito JK, Jo VY. BRAF V600E is not a consistent feature of myopericytoma. J Cutan Pathol. 2016;43(12):1248–9.

Sadow PM, Priolo C, Nanni S, Karreth FA, Duquette M, Martinelli R et al. Role of BRAFV600E in the first preclinical model of multifocal infiltrating myopericytoma development and microenvironment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(8).

Anand N, Kaur R, Saxena S, Bhardwaj N. Benign fibrous histiocytoma of the lower lip. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2020;24(Suppl 1):S97–100.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Komakech D, Ssenkumba B. Pyogenic Granuloma. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(21):1979.

Valdec S, Stadlinger B. Mucocoele of the lower lip. CMAJ. 2023;195(33):E1125.

Sharma GK, Sharma M, Vanaki SS. Adenomatoid hyperplasia of lower lip. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011;8(4):226–8.

Jartarkar SR, Spoorthy B, Kareddy S. Solitary neurofibroma over lower lip: a rare manifestation. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2022;15(2):189–92.

Ha J, Yu YC, Lannigan F. A review of the management of lymphangiomas. Curr Pediatr Rev. 2014;10(3):238–48.

Vokuhl C. [Pediatric tumors with spindle cell morphology]. Pathologe. 2019;40(4):381–92.

Priya NS, Rao K, Keerthi R, Ashwin DP. Myofibroma of mandibular alveolus: a case report. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2023;27(2):416–9.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sawaf T, Wasman J, Mowry SE. A rare case of Myopericytoma in the Mastoid. Otol Neurotol. 2021;42(9):e1404–5.

Jo VY, Fletcher CDM. Nuclear β-Catenin expression is frequent in Sinonasal Hemangiopericytoma and its mimics. Head Neck Pathol. 2016;11(2):119–23.

Maheshwari V, Alam K, Jain A, Sharma SC. Myopericytoma of neck region - a case report. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;60(2):179–80.

Rho BH, Lee SK, Kwon SY. Myopericytoma of the neck: sonographic appearance and sonographically guided needle biopsy. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011;39(8):469–72.

Terada T. Minute myopericytoma of the neck: a case report with literature review and differential diagnosis. Pathol Oncol Res. 2010;16(4):613–6.

Mathew NK, Zhang KY, Batstone MD. Myopericytoma of the coronoid process: a case report and review of the literature. Oral Maxillofacial Surg Cases. 2015;1(2):25–8.

Li Q, Chen HJ, Zhang HY, Li XJ, Bu H. [Myopericytoma in the right submandible: a case report]. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi. 2005;34(5):318–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kim EK, Lee JH, Kim SY, Kim GM. Myopericytoma of the facial cheek. Ann Dermatol. 2013;25(1):122–4.

Matsuyama A, Hisaoka M, Hashimoto H. Angioleiomyoma: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical reappraisal with special reference to the correlation with myopericytoma. Hum Pathol. 2007;38(4):645–51.

Chaskes MB, Bishop JW, Bobinski M, Farwell DG. Myopericytoma of the Neck originating from the Middle Scalene: a Case Report. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;99(7):NP72–4.

Prado-Calleros HM, Galarza-Lozano D, Arrieta-Gomez JR, Pombo-Nava A, Parraguirre-Martinez S, Gutierrez CJ. Myopericytoma arising adjacent to the common carotid artery: case report and systematic review of deep located neck myopericytomas. Head Neck. 2016;38(9):E2479–82.

Cebeci D, Yaşar Ş, Güneş P, Aytekin S. Cutaneous myopericytoma on the forehead: a rare localization. Indian J Dermatol. 2020;65(2):169–71.

Slack JC, Hollowell ML, Khouri KS, Church AJ, Ganske IM, Delano S, et al. Expanding the spectrum of Perioral Myogenic Tumors in Pediatric patients: an SRF::NCOA2 fused Perivascular Tumor of the Philtrum. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2023;26(1):65–71.

Mentzel T, Dei Tos AP, Sapi Z, Kutzner H. Myopericytoma of skin and soft tissues: clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 54 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(1):104–13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Dr. Yi Xiang from the Department of Pathology at Changsha Stomatological Hospital for her support in histopathology and immunohistochemistry.

This work was supported by grants to Hongzhi Quan from Hunan Province Natural Science Foundation (2023JJ30814) and Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of Central South University(1053320184374).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Xiangya Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, P.R. China

Bin Wei, Kun Li & Hongzhi Quan

Hunan Key Laboratory of Oral Health Research & Hunan 3D Printing Engineering Research Center of Oral Care & Hunan Clinical Research Center of Oral Major Diseases and Oral Health & Xiangya Stomatological Hospital, Xiangya School of Stomatology, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, P.R. China

Bin Wei, Gui Liu, Kun Li & Hongzhi Quan

Department of Oral Pathology, Xiangya Stomatological Hospital & School of Stomatology, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, P.R. China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.W contributed to the conception and design of study. B.W, HZ.Q, G.L and K.L contributed to the data acquisition of study. B.W, HZ.Q, G.L and K.L contributed the preparing of the manuscript. B.W, HZ.Q, G.L and K.L participated in reviewing the manuscript. All authors approved the version submitted for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongzhi Quan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

A written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images.

Consent for publication

A written informed consent was obtained from the parent of the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, 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.

Wei, B., Liu, G., Li, K. et al. Pediatric upper lip myopericytoma: a case report and comprehensive review. BMC Oral Health 24 , 478 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04106-y

Download citation

Received : 30 December 2023

Accepted : 05 March 2024

Published : 20 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04106-y

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

• Pediatric oral diseases
• Immunohistochemical staining
• Hematoxylin and Eosin staining

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

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

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review A Multimodal and Cultural Approach

• Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
• Rebecca Frels - Lamar University, USA
• Description

What makes this book unique:

• Focuses on multimodal texts and settings such as observations, documents, social media, experts in the field and secondary data so that your review covers the full research environment
• Puts mixed methods at the centre of the process
• Shows you how to synthesize information thematically, rather than merely summarize the existing literature and findings
• Brings culture into the process to help you address bias and understand the role of knowledge interpretation, guiding you through
• Teaches the CORE of the literature review – Critical thinking, Organization, Reflections and Evaluation – and provides a guide for reflexivity at the end of each of the seven steps
• Visualizes the steps with roadmaps so you can track progress and self-evaluate as you learn the steps

This book is the essential best practices guide for students and researchers, providing the understanding and tools to approach both the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a rigorous, comprehensive, literature review.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This is by far the most comprehensive text on how to do comprehensive literature reviews!  Onwuegbuzie and Frels skilfully demonstrate that review has a methodology of its own.  Both novice and experienced scholars will benefit from detailed examples and step-by-step demonstrations of ways to maximize the effectiveness of literature reviews to build new theories and develop better explanations of behaviours and outcomes. 

This is the most comprehensive and user-friendly book I’ve seen on how to conduct a literature review. The authors take the distinction of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research seriously, showing how each adds something important and how being open-minded results in the use of literature based on all three approaches. Overall, the book provides a process theory of literature review, that is done before, during, and after each research study.  It is a must read for both PhD students and research faculty.

With noteworthy scope of content, this book  is a must-have resource for beginning and experienced researchers alike. In addition to its effective pedagogical features such as visuals and end of chapter questions, this resource enables researchers to make informed decisions about the purposes of and procedures for undertaking a literature review. In so doing, the authors innovate and advance our understandings of the processes and products involved in a comprehensive literature review and provide practical guidance for each of the steps. I have been seeking such a book and plan to make this required reading for the graduate students I instruct, mentor, and supervise.

Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review is a comprehensive text book written to instruct master’s-level students, doctoral-level students, and new and experienced researchers in the process of writing a comprehensive literature review... Hopefully, this book will become an important text used by instructors as they guide college students into the writing of the literature review.

Sadly this book never arrived despite me being very interested to adopt for my MSc students dissertation stage.

The literature review is one of the toughest parts of any proposal (or postgraduate piece of work) for students to complete successfully because it asks the student to engage with the theory they will be using from the perspective of ideas alone. IT also asks the student to investigate other academics' work in a manner that they haven't really experienced before. All these "firsts" make the literature review a very confusing and oftentimes daunting process. Fortunately, "Seven Steps" provides the specific guidance that so many students need to navigate this difficult process. The systematic way in which the book approaches a topic that can be said to change with each application (e.g. How do you go about it? What to include? What to leave out? and most importantly, Why?) is indispensable for anyone teaching students new to postgraduate work, or for researchers looking for an alternative approach to a process they are otherwise well-acquainted with.

Very accessible book for students who wish to increase their capabilites in working at the front end of their papers.

Comprehensive, well structured book, which will be very useful to students planning a literature review.

this book is more relevant for the MSc students. it will be a good supplement for the student who wants to go a little further

it was actually a little more complex than I was hoping for. the text is dense and it is big book. for my BSc students it is jut a little too much

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

Chapter 1: Foundations of the Literature Review

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, related products.

Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination and Intramuscular Vaccine Administration

Vaccines are a public health success story, as they have prevented or lessened the effects of many infectious diseases. To address concerns around potential vaccine injuries, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provide compensation to those who assert that they were injured by routine vaccines or medical countermeasures, respectively. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have contributed to the scientific basis for VICP compensation decisions for decades.

HRSA asked the National Academies to convene an expert committee to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence about the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and specific adverse events, as well as intramuscular administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. This report outlines the committee findings and conclusions.

Read Full Description

• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination
• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of Shoulder Injuries from Intramuscular Administration of Vaccines
• Press Release

Recent News

The Challenge of Predicting Climate Migration

Celebrating Earth Day with the National Academies

Rohr Named U.S. Winner of Frontiers Planet Prize

NAS Launches Science and Innovation Fund for Ukraine

• Load More...