literature review on science

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved March 25, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Writing a Literature Review

Hundreds of original investigation research articles on health science topics are published each year. It is becoming harder and harder to keep on top of all new findings in a topic area and – more importantly – to work out how they all fit together to determine our current understanding of a topic. This is where literature reviews come in.

In this chapter, we explain what a literature review is and outline the stages involved in writing one. We also provide practical tips on how to communicate the results of a review of current literature on a topic in the format of a literature review.

7.1 What is a literature review?

Literature reviews provide a synthesis and evaluation  of the existing literature on a particular topic with the aim of gaining a new, deeper understanding of the topic.

Published literature reviews are typically written by scientists who are experts in that particular area of science. Usually, they will be widely published as authors of their own original work, making them highly qualified to author a literature review.

However, literature reviews are still subject to peer review before being published. Literature reviews provide an important bridge between the expert scientific community and many other communities, such as science journalists, teachers, and medical and allied health professionals. When the most up-to-date knowledge reaches such audiences, it is more likely that this information will find its way to the general public. When this happens, – the ultimate good of science can be realised.

A literature review is structured differently from an original research article. It is developed based on themes, rather than stages of the scientific method.

In the article Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Marco Pautasso explains the importance of literature reviews:

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications. 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. Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests. 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. For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way (Pautasso, 2013, para. 1).

An example of a literature review is shown in Figure 7.1.

Video 7.1: What is a literature review? [2 mins, 11 secs]

Watch this video created by Steely Library at Northern Kentucky Library called ‘ What is a literature review? Note: Closed captions are available by clicking on the CC button below.

Examples of published literature reviews

• Strength training alone, exercise therapy alone, and exercise therapy with passive manual mobilisation each reduce pain and disability in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
• Traveler’s diarrhea: a clinical review
• Cultural concepts of distress and psychiatric disorders: literature review and research recommendations for global mental health epidemiology

7.2 Steps of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a very challenging task. Figure 7.2 summarises the steps of writing a literature review. Depending on why you are writing your literature review, you may be given a topic area, or may choose a topic that particularly interests you or is related to a research project that you wish to undertake.

Chapter 6 provides instructions on finding scientific literature that would form the basis for your literature review.

Once you have your topic and have accessed the literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Next, we look at these important cognitive skills student scientists will need to develop and employ to successfully write a literature review, and provide some guidance for navigating these stages.

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are three essential skills required by scientists  and you will need to develop these skills if you are to write a good literature review ( Figure 7.3 ). These important cognitive skills are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

The first step in writing a literature review is to analyse the original investigation research papers that you have gathered related to your topic.

Analysis requires examining the papers methodically and in detail, so you can understand and interpret aspects of the study described in each research article.

An analysis grid is a simple tool you can use to help with the careful examination and breakdown of each paper. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of  an analysis grid. When filling in the grid, the aim is to draw out key aspects of each research paper. Use a different row for each paper, and a different column for each aspect of the paper ( Tables 7.2 and 7.3 show how completed analysis grid may look).

Before completing your own grid, look at these examples and note the types of information that have been included, as well as the level of detail. Completing an analysis grid with a sufficient level of detail will help you to complete the synthesis and evaluation stages effectively. This grid will allow you to more easily observe similarities and differences across the findings of the research papers and to identify possible explanations (e.g., differences in methodologies employed) for observed differences between the findings of different research papers.

Table 7.1: Example of an analysis grid

Table 7.3: Sample filled-in analysis grid for research article by Ping and colleagues

Source: Ping, WC, Keong, CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41. Used under a CC-BY-NC-SA licence.

Step two of writing a literature review is synthesis.

Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a connected whole.

You will use the results of your analysis to find themes to build your literature review around. Each of the themes identified will become a subheading within the body of your literature review.

A good place to start when identifying themes is with the dependent variables (results/findings) that were investigated in the research studies.

Because all of the research articles you are incorporating into your literature review are related to your topic, it is likely that they have similar study designs and have measured similar dependent variables. Review the ‘Results’ column of your analysis grid. You may like to collate the common themes in a synthesis grid (see, for example Table 7.4 ).

Step three of writing a literature review is evaluation, which can only be done after carefully analysing your research papers and synthesising the common themes (findings).

During the evaluation stage, you are making judgements on the themes presented in the research articles that you have read. This includes providing physiological explanations for the findings. It may be useful to refer to the discussion section of published original investigation research papers, or another literature review, where the authors may mention tested or hypothetical physiological mechanisms that may explain their findings.

When the findings of the investigations related to a particular theme are inconsistent (e.g., one study shows that caffeine effects performance and another study shows that caffeine had no effect on performance) you should attempt to provide explanations of why the results differ, including physiological explanations. A good place to start is by comparing the methodologies to determine if there are any differences that may explain the differences in the findings (see the ‘Experimental design’ column of your analysis grid). An example of evaluation is shown in the examples that follow in this section, under ‘Running performance’ and ‘RPE ratings’.

When the findings of the papers related to a particular theme are consistent (e.g., caffeine had no effect on oxygen uptake in both studies) an evaluation should include an explanation of why the results are similar. Once again, include physiological explanations. It is still a good idea to compare methodologies as a background to the evaluation. An example of evaluation is shown in the following under ‘Oxygen consumption’.

7.3 Writing your literature review

Once you have completed the analysis, and synthesis grids and written your evaluation of the research papers , you can combine synthesis and evaluation information to create a paragraph for a literature review ( Figure 7.4 ).

The following paragraphs are an example of combining the outcome of the synthesis and evaluation stages to produce a paragraph for a literature review.

Note that this is an example using only two papers – most literature reviews would be presenting information on many more papers than this ( (e.g., 106 papers in the review article by Bain and colleagues discussed later in this chapter). However, the same principle applies regardless of the number of papers reviewed.

The next part of this chapter looks at the each section of a literature review and explains how to write them by referring to a review article that was published in Frontiers in Physiology and shown in Figure 7.1. Each section from the published article is annotated to highlight important features of the format of the review article, and identifies the synthesis and evaluation information.

In the examination of each review article section we will point out examples of how the authors have presented certain information and where they display application of important cognitive processes; we will use the colour code shown below:

This should be one paragraph that accurately reflects the contents of the review article.

Introduction

The introduction should establish the context and importance of the review

Body of literature review

The reference section provides a list of the references that you cited in the body of your review article. The format will depend on the journal of publication as each journal has their own specific referencing format.

It is important to accurately cite references in research papers to acknowledge your sources and ensure credit is appropriately given to authors of work you have referred to. An accurate and comprehensive reference list also shows your readers that you are well-read in your topic area and are aware of the key papers that provide the context to your research.

It is important to keep track of your resources and to reference them consistently in the format required by the publication in which your work will appear. Most scientists will use reference management software to store details of all of the journal articles (and other sources) they use while writing their review article. This software also automates the process of adding in-text references and creating a reference list. In the review article by Bain et al. (2014) used as an example in this chapter, the reference list contains 106 items, so you can imagine how much help referencing software would be. Chapter 5 shows you how to use EndNote, one example of reference management software.

Click the drop down below to review the terms learned from this chapter.

Copyright note:

• The quotation from Pautasso, M 2013, ‘Ten simple rules for writing a literature review’, PLoS Computational Biology is use under a CC-BY licence. 
• Content from the annotated article and tables are based on Schubert, MM, Astorino, TA & Azevedo, JJL 2013, ‘The effects of caffeinated ‘energy shots’ on time trial performance’, Nutrients, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2062–2075 (used under a CC-BY 3.0 licence ) and P ing, WC, Keong , CC & Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Effects of acute supplementation of caffeine on cardiorespiratory responses during endurance running in a hot and humid climate’, Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 132, pp. 36–41 (used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence ). 

Bain, A.R., Morrison, S.A., & Ainslie, P.N. (2014). Cerebral oxygenation and hyperthermia. Frontiers in Physiology, 5 , 92.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149.

How To Do Science Copyright © 2022 by University of Southern Queensland is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

The beauty of what science can do when urgently needed

Career Q&A 26 MAR 24

‘Woah, this is affecting me’: why I’m fighting racial inequality in prostate-cancer research

Career Q&A 20 MAR 24

So … you’ve been hacked

Technology Feature 19 MAR 24

Superconductivity case shows the need for zero tolerance of toxic lab culture

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Peer-replication model aims to address science’s ‘reproducibility crisis’

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Postdoctoral Fellow

We are seeking a highly motivated PhD and/or MD graduate to work in the Cardiovascular research lab in the Tulane University Department of Medicine.

New Orleans, Louisiana

School of Medicine Tulane University

Posdoctoral Fellow Positions in Epidemiology & Multi-Omics Division of Network Medicine BWH and HMS

Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School are seeking applicants for 3 postdoctoral positions.

Boston, Massachusetts

Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH)

Postdoctoral Scholar - Ophthalmology

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Principal Investigator in Modeling of Plant Stress Responses

Join our multidisciplinary and stimulative research environment as Associate Professor in Modeling of Plant Stress Responses

Umeå (Kommun), Västerbotten (SE)

Umeå Plant Science Centre and Integrated Science Lab

Postdoctoral Associate- Cellular Neuroscience

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

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

Quick links

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

Research in the Biological and Life Sciences: A Guide for Cornell Researchers: Literature Reviews

• Books and Dissertations
• Databases and Journals
• Locating Theses
• Resource Not at Cornell?
• Citing Sources
• Staying Current
• Measuring your research impact
• Plagiarism and Copyright
• Data Management
• Literature Reviews
• Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews
• Writing an Honors Thesis
• Poster Making and Printing
• Research Help

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge on a particular topic. Most often associated with science-oriented literature, such as a thesis, the literature review usually proceeds a research proposal, methodology and results section. Its ultimate goals is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms that basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. (retrieved from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review )

Writing a Literature Review

The literature review is the section of your paper in which you cite and briefly review the related research studies that have been conducted. In this space, you will describe the foundation on which  your  research will be/is built. You will:

• discuss the work of others
• evaluate their methods and findings
• identify any gaps in their research
• state how  your  research is different

The literature review should be selective and should group the cited studies in some logical fashion.

If you need some additional assistance writing your literature review, the Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines offers a  Graduate Writing Service .

Demystifying the Literature Review

For more information, visit our guide devoted to " Demystifying the Literature Review " which includes:

• guide to conducting a literature review,
• a recorded 1.5 hour workshop covering the steps of a literature review, a checklist for drafting your topic and search terms, citation management software for organizing your results, and database searching.

Online Resources

• A Guide to Library Research at Cornell University
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students North Carolina State University 
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting Written by Dena Taylor, Director, Health Sciences Writing Centre, and Margaret Procter, Coordinator, Writing Support, University of Toronto
• How to Write a Literature Review University Library, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Review of Literature The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Print Resources

• << Previous: Writing
• Next: Evidence Synthesis and Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Oct 25, 2023 11:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/bio

Literature review: your definitive guide

Joanna Wilkinson

This is our ultimate guide on how to write a narrative literature review. It forms part of our Research Smarter series . 

How do you write a narrative literature review?

Researchers worldwide are increasingly reliant on literature reviews. That’s because review articles provide you with a broad picture of the field, and help to synthesize published research that’s expanding at a rapid pace .

In some academic fields, researchers publish more literature reviews than original research papers. The graph below shows the substantial growth of narrative literature reviews in the Web of Science™, alongside the percentage increase of reviews when compared to all document types.

It’s critical that researchers across all career levels understand how to produce an objective, critical summary of published research. This is no easy feat, but a necessary one. Professionally constructed literature reviews – whether written by a student in class or an experienced researcher for publication – should aim to add to the literature rather than detract from it.

To help you write a narrative literature review, we’ve put together some top tips in this blog post.

Best practice tips to write a narrative literature review:

• Don’t miss a paper: tips for a thorough topic search
• Identify key papers (and know how to use them)
• Tips for working with co-authors
• Find the right journal for your literature review using actual data
• Discover literature review examples and templates

We’ll also provide an overview of all the products helpful for your next narrative review, including the Web of Science, EndNote™ and Journal Citation Reports™.

1. Don’t miss a paper: tips for a thorough topic search

Once you’ve settled on your research question, coming up with a good set of keywords to find papers on your topic can be daunting. This isn’t surprising. Put simply, if you fail to include a relevant paper when you write a narrative literature review, the omission will probably get picked up by your professor or peer reviewers. The end result will likely be a low mark or an unpublished manuscript, neither of which will do justice to your many months of hard work.

Research databases and search engines are an integral part of any literature search. It’s important you utilize as many options available through your library as possible. This will help you search an entire discipline (as well as across disciplines) for a thorough narrative review.

We provide a short summary of the various databases and search engines in an earlier Research Smarter blog . These include the Web of Science , Science.gov and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Like what you see? Share it with others on Twitter:

[bctt tweet=”Writing a #LiteratureReview? Check out the latest @clarivateAG blog for top tips (from topic searches to working with coauthors), examples, templates and more”]

Searching the Web of Science

The Web of Science is a multidisciplinary research engine that contains over 170 million papers from more than 250 academic disciplines. All of the papers in the database are interconnected via citations. That means once you get started with your keyword search, you can follow the trail of cited and citing papers to efficiently find all the relevant literature. This is a great way to ensure you’re not missing anything important when you write a narrative literature review.

We recommend starting your search in the Web of Science Core Collection™. This database covers more than 21,000 carefully selected journals. It is a trusted source to find research papers, and discover top authors and journals (read more about its coverage here ).

Learn more about exploring the Core Collection in our blog, How to find research papers: five tips every researcher should know . Our blog covers various tips, including how to:

• Perform a topic search (and select your keywords)
• Explore the citation network
• Refine your results (refining your search results by reviews, for example, will help you avoid duplication of work, as well as identify trends and gaps in the literature)
• Save your search and set up email alerts

Try our tips on the Web of Science now.

2. Identify key papers (and know how to use them)

As you explore the Web of Science, you may notice that certain papers are marked as “Highly Cited.” These papers can play a significant role when you write a narrative literature review.

Highly Cited papers are recently published papers getting the most attention in your field right now. They form the top 1% of papers based on the number of citations received, compared to other papers published in the same field in the same year.

You will want to identify Highly Cited research as a group of papers. This group will help guide your analysis of the future of the field and opportunities for future research. This is an important component of your conclusion.

Writing reviews is hard work…[it] not only organizes published papers, but also positions t hem in the academic process and presents the future direction.   Prof. Susumu Kitagawa, Highly Cited Researcher, Kyoto University

3. Tips for working with co-authors

Writing a narrative review on your own is hard, but it can be even more challenging if you’re collaborating with a team, especially if your coauthors are working across multiple locations. Luckily, reference management software can improve the coordination between you and your co-authors—both around the department and around the world.

We’ve written about how to use EndNote’s Cite While You Write feature, which will help you save hundreds of hours when writing research . Here, we discuss the features that give you greater ease and control when collaborating with your colleagues.

Use EndNote for narrative reviews

Sharing references is essential for successful collaboration. With EndNote, you can store and share as many references, documents and files as you need with up to 100 people using the software.

You can share simultaneous access to one reference library, regardless of your colleague’s location or organization. You can also choose the type of access each user has on an individual basis. For example, Read-Write access means a select colleague can add and delete references, annotate PDF articles and create custom groups. They’ll also be able to see up to 500 of the team’s most recent changes to the reference library. Read-only is also an option for individuals who don’t need that level of access.

EndNote helps you overcome research limitations by synchronizing library changes every 15 minutes. That means your team can stay up-to-date at any time of the day, supporting an easier, more successful collaboration.

Start your free EndNote trial today .

4.Finding a journal for your literature review

Finding the right journal for your literature review can be a particular pain point for those of you who want to publish. The expansion of scholarly journals has made the task extremely difficult, and can potentially delay the publication of your work by many months.

We’ve written a blog about how you can find the right journal for your manuscript using a rich array of data. You can read our blog here , or head straight to Endnote’s Manuscript Matcher or Journal Citation Report s to try out the best tools for the job.

5. Discover literature review examples and templates

There are a few tips we haven’t covered in this blog, including how to decide on an area of research, develop an interesting storyline, and highlight gaps in the literature. We’ve listed a few blogs here that might help you with this, alongside some literature review examples and outlines to get you started.

Literature Review examples:

• Aggregation-induced emission
• Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering
• Object based image analysis for remote sensing

(Make sure you download the free EndNote™ Click browser plugin to access the full-text PDFs).

Templates and outlines:

• Learn how to write a review of literature , Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison
• Structuring a literature review , Australian National University
• Matrix Method for Literature Review: The Review Matrix , Duquesne University

Additional resources:

• Ten simple rules for writing a literature review , Editor, PLoS Computational Biology
• Video: How to write a literature review , UC San Diego Psychology

Related posts

Unlocking u.k. research excellence: key insights from the research professional news live summit.

For better insights, assess research performance at the department level

Getting the Full Picture: Institutional unification in the Web of Science

How to Write a Good Scientific Literature Review

Nowadays, there is a huge demand for scientific literature reviews as they are especially appreciated by scholars or researchers when designing their research proposals. While finding information is less of a problem to them, discerning which paper or publication has enough quality has become one of the biggest issues. Literature reviews narrow the current knowledge on a certain field and examine the latest publications’ strengths and weaknesses. This way, they are priceless tools not only for those who are starting their research, but also for all those interested in recent publications. To be useful, literature reviews must be written in a professional way with a clear structure. The amount of work needed to write a scientific literature review must be considered before starting one since the tasks required can overwhelm many if the working method is not the best.

Designing and Writing a Scientific Literature Review

Writing a scientific review implies both researching for relevant academic content and writing , however, writing without having a clear objective is a common mistake. Sometimes, studying the situation and defining the work’s system is so important and takes equally as much time as that required in writing the final result. Therefore, we suggest that you divide your path into three steps.

Define goals and a structure

Think about your target and narrow down your topic. If you don’t choose a well-defined topic, you can find yourself dealing with a wide subject and plenty of publications about it. Remember that researchers usually deal with really specific fields of study.

It is time to be a critic and locate only pertinent publications. While researching for content consider publications that were written 3 years ago at the most. Write notes and summarize the content of each paper as that will help you in the next step.

Time to write

Check some literature review examples to decide how to start writing a good literature review . When your goals and structure are defined, begin writing without forgetting your target at any moment.

Related: Conducting a literature survey? Wish to learn more about scientific misconduct? Check out this resourceful infographic.

Here you have a to-do list to help you write your review :

• A scientific literature review usually includes a title, abstract, index, introduction, corpus, bibliography, and appendices (if needed).
• Present the problem clearly.
• Mention the paper’s methodology, research methods, analysis, instruments, etc.
• Present literature review examples that can help you express your ideas.
• Remember to cite accurately.
• Limit your bias
• While summarizing also identify strengths and weaknesses as this is critical.

Scholars and researchers are usually the best candidates to write scientific literature reviews, not only because they are experts in a certain field, but also because they know the exigencies and needs that researchers have while writing research proposals or looking for information among thousands of academic papers. Therefore, considering your experience as a researcher can help you understand how to write a scientific literature review.

Have you faced challenges while drafting your first literature review? How do you think can these tips help you in acing your next literature review? Let us know in the comments section below! You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to copyrights answered by our team that comprises eminent researchers and publication experts.

Thank you for your information. It adds knowledge on critical review being a first time to do it, it helps a lot.

yes. i would like to ndertake the course Bio ststistics

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

• Manuscripts & Grants

Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!

Literature review is both a process and a product. It involves searching within a defined…

• AI in Academia

How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time — Why not do it with an AI-based article summarizer?

Researcher 1: “It’s flooding articles every time I switch on my laptop!” Researcher 2: “Why…

How to Master at Literature Mapping: 5 Most Recommended Tools to Use

This article is also available in: Turkish, Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Your Chances of Publication in International Peer-reviewed Journals

Types of literature reviews Tips for writing review articles Role of meta-analysis Reporting guidelines

How to Scan Through Millions of Articles and Still Cut Down on Your Reading Time —…

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

8 Tips for Writing a Scientific Literature Review Article

A scientific literature review article provides a thorough overview of the current knowledge on a certain topic. The main goal is to consider the difficulties or knowledge gaps in the field and help to fill them out. To write one requires lots of reading, but it can be an intensely satisfying process and produce a work that will be referenced and serve as a resource for students and young researchers.

Unlike an original research article, a literature review usually does not present results, such as from surveys or experiments. It’s mainly based on the combination of a thorough literature survey of published work together with the author’s critical discussion on the subject.

There are different types of literature reviews , like systematic, scoping, and conceptual, but overall, they’re all extremely valuable and useful for the scientific community, in their own way.

The eight steps below will give a simple how on writing a review.

Why to write a scientific literature review

One final note on the why before the how regarding reviews, 8 tips on how to write a scientific literature review (and a good one), 1. define a relevant question or questions that you intend to answer with the review (critical step), 2. do a literature survey, 3. create a datasheet to organize all the important information contained in each material collected, 4. define a structure for the text, 5. add context to your work, 6. extract relevant information from the literature material you selected, 7. add critical discussion, 8. make sure the english is sharp, clear, and well-edited.

There are plenty of reasons to take on the task of writing a review rather than conducting novel research.

First, as a review’s author, you can improve your knowledge of the theme and be on top of the recent findings. You can start to more closely follow the work of leading researchers and get new insights for your own research. And you position yourself as a thought-leader and knowledge-leader in the area. For an up-and-coming area, this is extremely useful.

For example, this review of the remote work literature by Charalampous et al. has been very valuable to me when I completed my dissertation. I connected with the lead author on ResearchGate. and I value our interaction .

If you’re a master’s or PhD candidate, by writing a review you’ll be producing starting material to be used on your dissertation or thesis, not to mention, obviously, that you’ll learn about the review-writing process.

And as mentioned, a good literature review article garners recognition and a considerable number of citations.

Reviews are the mark of a true scholar.

Research studies can be classified as qualitative or quantitative and whether your literature review is focused on one of these classes or the other will have an influence on its design.

The following tips below generally fit both qualitative and quantitative articles, although adaptations can be made in specific topics.

These tips don’t necessarily need to follow the exact order. Reviews can be iterative, and you’ll naturally happen across new references .

That will be your scope. Importantly, keep lists of topics that are and are not within your scope. This will help to determine what you’ll ultimately include in your initial survey.

Search for articles on the theme using appropriate keywords (research terms) and filters.

Include keywords associated with concepts or variables of your interest and also list synonyms or related terms.

For example, let’s say you want to write about drug abuse among college students. You can use the keywords such as “drug abuse”, “substance abuse”, “college students”, “university students”, and “undergraduate students”.

You can add filters to select articles in a specific language (e.g., English or Spanish) or that have been published recently (e.g., last 5 years), for example.

As we see with “college” and “university”, there are commonly different ways to say the same thing, and Boolean operators will help you here. Specifics are given below.

You can do the search directly on publishers’ and journals’ websites, on the reference lists of relevant papers, and using.

For these databases, ideally, you’ll have a good online library to use. There are also ways to find research articles for free .

You can choose from multidisciplinary sources (e.g., Google Scholar , Scopus , Web of Science ), or sources specific to a given area (e.g., Open Edition for social sciences, PubMed for biomedical sciences).

To complement the review, look for materials other than research articles by visiting government websites, international organization websites, and credible newspaper articles.

However you do your search, keep the following in mind:

• Check that there are no similar recent reviews addressing the very same question. Otherwise, there’s obviously no point in going further unless you’re taking a different angle.
• Consider if there’s enough research material to write about. Available literature can vary significantly from topic to topic. Try to examine if there are sufficient articles to make a robust discussion, contrast results and ideas, or make any conclusion. If there is no previous literature review on the subject, even a small number of papers may be OK. If other reviews have already been published, investigate what else has emerged since it was released.
• If your survey results in too many articles, narrow it down by adding new keywords or filters that match the specifications you consider most important. Look for topics that haven’t yet been thoroughly reviewed or for which there are conflicting data worthy of discussion.
• Use Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”, “NOT”, etc.) together with the keywords to filter the results. Let’s take the same example on drug abuse among college students and imagine you don’t want alcohol to be included as a type of drug abuse in your search. In this case, you can combine keywords and operators this way: “drug abuse” OR “substance abuse” AND “college students” NOT alcohol.

Do a first selection of the articles by reading their titles and abstracts. If that doesn’t provide enough information for you, read the results and conclusions. There’s usually no need to get into the introduction or methods until later.

Eliminate works that don’t match the scope of the review. Then, organize the final data in a way to facilitate the writing process later on.

A based way to do this is using an Excel or Google Sheets spreadsheet. The rows represent each article and columns represent important groups of information such as authors, year of publication, methodology, main findings, etc.

Even better can be to use referencing software such as Mendeley to label and organize the works you download.

Although a literature review’s structure may vary based on journal guidelines and your preferences, it should at least contain a title, keywords, abstract, introduction, main text, discussion, conclusion, and references.

If you’re working on a systematic review, you can add a Methods section to describe the criteria you’ve used to select articles to review. You may also end the review with Future Perspectives for the field, considering your knowledge of the theme.

At this point, you can start considering journals for submission.

As there are many journal options out there, you may find it helpful to use journal finder tools like those at Elsevier , Springer , Wiley , and others .

Carefully read the instructions for authors and the formatting requirements of the journal you choose. Not all journals accept review articles, but there are some journals exclusively dedicated to them.

If publication time is important for you, check the journal or inquire directly to find the normal time for publication.

Start by creating an introduction, ideally not too long, addressing the main concepts and the current state of the field.

Call attention to the relevance of the theme and make clear why a review is needed and how it can be helpful. Then specify the goals of the review and what exactly the reader will find in your text.

If you are doing a more rigorous review, mention data sources and research methods used to select articles and define inclusion and exclusion criteria.

See this systematic literature review about social media and mental health problems in adolescents.

Note that already in the introduction the authors explore the scenario of mental health in adolescents, explain the concept of social media and contextualize what is known and what are the gaps regarding the relationship between social media and mental health problems in adolescents.

As a rigorous systematic literature review, a Methods section gives full details on how the survey was conducted.

In the main text, write about the articles’ findings, including the methods and parameters used. Does this especially if your review is focused on quantitative studies.

When dealing with qualitative studies, you may present the sampling methods applied.

Extract enough information to answer your research questions. You can group articles with similar characteristics and split the text on subheadings accordingly.

You also have the option to mention articles chronologically, if that’s relevant to the work.

Remember to summarize information so the text is objective and clear. You can work with appropriate graphical schemes, images, and tables – these can help the reader to better understand and memorize the important information.

See this literature review on the detection of depression and mental illness signs using social media . The authors divided the main text into subtopics according to the methods used by the analyzed articles to detect signs of mental illness.

A figure is provided to illustrate each method and the number of articles that used it. The review also presents a table summarizing important information from the articles.

Include your point of view and indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the works you wrote about. Address debate on conflicting results, when necessary.

This fits interestingly into the discussion of contrasting concepts, theories, and assumptions presented in different qualitative studies, for instance. Also, recognize the limitations of your own work.

Provide the main conclusion of your literature review. In this final section of the review, it may be interesting to make suggestions for future research.

See this review about the associations between maternal nutrition and breast milk composition . In the subheadings of the main text (“Main results” section), the authors discuss the results of the articles investigated and emphasize conflicting information among studies.

A final discussion is provided addressing the limitations of the studies. The main conclusions obtained from the literature review are presented in the final paragraph.

See this review about maternal obesity and breastfeeding characteristics . The authors present the findings of their literature survey and a “Discussion” section with explanations and possible confounding factors involved.

An individual topic is dedicated to the limitations of their review (for example, the authors say that “9 of the 18 studies included used self-reported maternal weight and height. Such estimates are not completely accurate with the possible risk of misclassification of BMI categories” [Turcksin et al., 2014, p. 180). Special sections approaching the implications of their findings for future research and for clinical practice are also provided.

Check for spelling and grammar mistakes and add all the references correctly. Use reference management software to avoid wasting time with formatting. There are free and user-friendly options to do so (e.g., Zotero , Mendeley ).

Better is to get a professional scientific edit . There are options available for editing. Choose the one that works for you, and make sure they’re capable and qualified.

Good luck with your review!

Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review . Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24 (2):218i234.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2):91-108.

Turcksin, R., Bel, S., Galjaard, S., & Devlieger, R. (2014). Maternal obesity and breastfeeding intention, initiation, intensity and duration: a systematic review.  Maternal & Child Nutrition ,  10 (2), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8709.2012.00439.x

Wee,  B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper? Transport Reviews, 36 (2), 278-288.

Privacy Overview

Privacy Policy - Terms and Conditions

How to write a good scientific review article

Affiliation.

• 1 The FEBS Journal Editorial Office, Cambridge, UK.
• PMID: 35792782
• DOI: 10.1111/febs.16565

Literature reviews are valuable resources for the scientific community. With research accelerating at an unprecedented speed in recent years and more and more original papers being published, review articles have become increasingly important as a means to keep up to date with developments in a particular area of research. A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits. Thus, the importance of building review-writing into a scientific career cannot be overstated. In this instalment of The FEBS Journal's Words of Advice series, I provide detailed guidance on planning and writing an informative and engaging literature review.

© 2022 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.

Publication types

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

What is a literature review, traditional (narrative) literature review, integrative literature review, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, scoping review.

• Developing a Research Question
• Selection Criteria
• Database Search
• Documenting Your Search
• Organize Key Findings
• Reference Management

Ask Us! Health Sciences Library

The health sciences library.

Call toll-free:  (844) 352-7399 E-mail:   Ask Us More contact information

Related Guides

• Systematic Reviews by Roy Brown Last Updated Oct 17, 2023 282 views this year
• Write a Literature Review by John Glover Last Updated Oct 16, 2023 1700 views this year

A literature review provides an overview of what's been written about a specific topic. There are many different types of literature reviews. They vary in terms of comprehensiveness, types of study included, and purpose. 

The other pages in this guide will cover some basic steps to consider when conducting a traditional health sciences literature review. See below for a quick look at some of the more popular types of literature reviews.

For additional information on a variety of review methods, the following article provides an excellent overview.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.

• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-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
• Browse Titles

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

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

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

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

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

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

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

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

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

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

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

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

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

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

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

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

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

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

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

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

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

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

9.4. Summary

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

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

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

9.5. Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

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

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Exercise & Nutrition Sciences: Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Literature Review Videos/Tutorials
• Anatomy This link opens in a new window
• Where to Find Grey Literature
• Professional Associations
• Citation Support
• Writing Support
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Software & Images

Web Resources

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of published information on a subject area. Conducting a literature review demands a careful examination of a body of literature that has been published that helps answer your research question (See PICO). Literature reviewed includes scholarly journals, scholarly books, authoritative databases, primary sources and grey literature .

A literature review attempts to answer the following:

• What is known about the subject?
• What is the chronology of knowledge about my subject?
• Are there any gaps in the literature?
• Is there a consensus/debate on issues?
• Create a clear research question/statement
• Define the scope of the review include limitations (i.e. gender, age, location, nationality...)
• Search existing literature including classic works on your topic and grey literature
• Evaluate results and the evidence (Avoid discounting information that contradicts your research)
• Track and organize references

Suggested Search Terms:

The PICO model can help you formulate a good clinical question. Sometimes it's referred to as PICO-T, containing an optional 5th factor. 

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Literature Review Videos/Tutorials >>

• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 12:18 PM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/exercisescience

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2850
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

Political Science Research Methods

• Best Practices

Overviews and Background--Reference Materials

New search feature: what is articles+, literature sources, other useful databases.

• Citation Checking and Tracing
• Citation Tools/Building Your Bibliography
• Managing All These Citations?
• Assistance with Methods
• Data Support and Contacts

Reference works and handbooks are an important means to help you gather some initial resources, identify concepts, approaches, terminology, and theories, and refine your topic before delving into more detailed research.

• Routledge Handbooks
• Oxford Research Encyclopedias
• Oxford Handbooks
• Oxford Bibliographies
• Annual Reviews

What is a literature review?

A literature review provides an overview of the scholarly literature (e.g. books, articles, dissertations, proceedings) relevant to an area of research or theory. The review typically will include a summary of the major questions in a area and critical evaluations of work that has already been done. Literature reviews are also helpful for their comprehensive bibliographies. This  webpage by the UC Santa Cruz Library  does a good job of explaining lit reviews.

Literature reviews typically include these components:

• An overview of the subject
• Organization of relevant publications into subtopics, theoretical areas, or key debate
• An analysis and discussion of how various works relate to one another the the relevant questions
• A discussion of unresolved questions or future directions
• Some will also include discussions of key data collection and analysis methodologies

Another good way to think about literature reviews:

• Relevant literature
• Seminal literature
• Narrative and literature development
• Branches/schools of thought
• Self-placement (where does my literature fit?)

[Borrowed from Nordyke and Yacobucci (2021) "Beyond the Annotated Bibliography: Improving Student Literature Reviews through Structured Heuristics" in Teaching Research Methods in Political Science , Jeffrey Bernstein, ed. Edward Elgar.]

What is Articles+?

Articles+ provides Emory users with access to millions of scholarly e-resources including articles, images, conference proceedings, audio-visual materials, books, and dissertations. Search Articles+ by selecting the header on Library Search or by following the link in your search results.

Political Science Complete

 Political Science Complete contains full text for over 450 journals, and indexing and abstracts for nearly 2,100 titles, (including top-ranked scholarly journals). The database also features 330 full-text reference books and monographs, and over 35,000 full-text conference papers. A pro tip is to search for specific methodologies or data sources in your search terms, and fully utilize the filters.

• Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature with bibliometric tools to track, analyze and visualize research. It contains over 19,500 titles from more than 5,000 publishers around the world, covering the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities.
• Full text for more than 400 publications including titles from the American economic Association such as: American Economic Review, Journal of Economic Literature, and Journal of Economic Perspectives . Can search concurrently with Sociological Abstracts and Political Science Complete.
• Covers major international literature (journals, books, book chapters, book reviews, dissertations and conference papers) in sociology and related disciplines.  Can search concurrently with Econlit and Political Science Complete
• << Previous: Best Practices
• Next: Citation Checking and Tracing >>
• Last Updated: Sep 6, 2023 1:09 PM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/political_science_methods

Urban river recovery: a systematic review on the effectiveness of water clean-up programs

• Review Article
• Published: 26 March 2024

Cite this article

• Caroline Ferreira da Silva 1 ,
• Elisabete Alves Pereira 1 ,
• Mayara de Almeida Ribeiro Carvalho 1 ,
• Wander Gustavo Botero 2 &
• Luciana Camargo de Oliveira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6125-2154 1  

Urban rivers are affected at different levels by the intensification of human activities, representing a serious threat to the maintenance of terrestrial life and sustainable urban development. Consequently, great efforts have been dedicated to the ecological restoration of urban rivers around the world, as a solution to recovering the environmental functionality of these environments. In this sense, the present work aimed to investigate the effectiveness of interventions carried out aimed at the recovery of urban rivers, through a systematic review of the literature between 2010 and 2022, using the search term “rivers recovery.” The results showed that there have been notable advances in the implementation of river recovery programs in urban areas around the world between the years analyzed. The ecosystems studied were affected, for the most part, by the increase in the supply of nutrients from domestic and industrial effluents, in addition to having highly urbanized surroundings and with several changes in land use patterns. The preparation of this literature review made it possible to demonstrate that the effectiveness of river recovery is extremely complex, since river recovery projects are developed for different reasons, as well as being carried out in different ways according to the intended objective.

Graphical abstract

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Abdullah S, Adnan MSG, Barua D, Murshed MM, Kabir Z, Chowdhury MBH, Hassan QK, Dewan A (2022) Urban green and blue space changes: a spatiotemporal evaluation of impacts on ecosystem service value in Bangladesh. Ecol Inform 70:101730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101730

Article   Google Scholar  

Aksnes DW, Sivertsen G (2019) A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. J Data Inf Sci 4(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001

Aktürk E, Güneroğlu N (2021) Degradation of coastal ecosystem services in southern Black Sea: a case study of Trabzon city. Ocean Coast Manag 213:105837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105837

Angradi TR, Launspach JJ, Wick MJ (2022) Human well-being and natural capital indicators for Great Lakes waterfront revitalization. J Great Lakes Res 48(4):1104–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.04.016

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Antongiovanni M, Venticinque EM, Matsumoto M, Fonseca CR (2020) Chronic anthropogenic disturbance on Caatinga dry forest fragments. J Appl Ecol 57(10):2064–2074. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13686

Archdeacon TP, Diver TA, Reale JK (2020) Fish rescue during streamflow intermittency may not be effective for conservation of Rio Grande silvery minnow. Water 12(12):3371. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123371

Armitage PD, Murphy JF, Pretty JL, Davy-Bowker J, Tapia G, Arnold A, Jones JI (2020) Faunal community change in the sediment impacted Bovington Stream and the River Frome (Dorset, UK) between 1998 and 2016. SN Appl Sci 2:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03736-5

Bakr N, Morsy I, Yehia HA (2022) Spatio-temporal land use/cover detection and prediction in Mediterranean region: a case study in Idku ecosystem, Egypt. Remote Sens Appl: Soc Environ 25:100673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100673

Bandari A, Sadhukhan S (2021) Determinants of per capita water supply in Indian cities with low surface water availability. Clean Environ Syst 3:100062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100062

Barnett SE, Woolnough DA (2021) Variation in assemblages of freshwater mussels downstream of dams and dam removals in the Lake Michigan basin, Michigan, USA. Diversity 13(3):119. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13030119

Bouraoui F, Grizzetti B (2011) Long term change of nutrient concentrations of rivers discharging in European seas. Sci Total Environ 409(23):4899–4916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.08.015

Brazil (2005) Resolution n° 357 of March 17th. In: Provides for the classification of bodies of water and the environment for their framing, as well as establishes the conditions and standards for the discharge of effluents, and makes other provisions.

Google Scholar  

Carneiro LM, Silva DJ, Reis LC, Oliveira DA, Maciel LD, Garcia KS, Soares SA, Queiroz AF (2018) Distribuição de elementos traço em tecidos de Goniopsis cruentata (LATREILLE, 1803) capturados nos manguezais do sul da bahia - brasil e avaliação do potencial de risco no consumo. Quím Nova 41:959–968. https://doi.org/10.21577/0100-4042.20170272

Chen P, Li L, Zhang H (2016) Spatio-temporal variability in the thermal regimes of the Danjiangkou reservoir and its downstream river due to the large water diversion project system in central China. Hydrol Res 47(1):104–127. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2015.210

Cisar CR, Henderson SK, Askew ML, Risenhoover HG, McAndrews CR, Kennedy SD, Paine CS (2014) Antibiotic resistance in Aeromonas upstream and downstream of a water resource recovery facility. Water Environ Res 86(9):835–843. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143014X14062131177917

Codina L, Morales-Vargas A, Rodríguez-Martínez R, Pérez-Montoro M (2020) Uso de Scopus y Web of Science para investigar y evaluar en comunicación social: análisis comparativo y caracterización. Index.comun 10(3):235–261. https://doi.org/10.33732/ixc/10/03Usodes

Costa F, Vieira A (2021) Decision support tools for river restoration: the implementation of the “river habitat survey” methodology on the river Selho (Guimarães municipality, northwest Portugal). Hydrol 8(2):69. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8020069

Cumming GS, Buerkert A, Hoffmann EM, Schlecht E, von Cramon-Taubadel S, Tscharntke T (2014) Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature 515(7525):50–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13945

Dai D, Brouwer R, Lei K (2021) Measuring the economic value of urban river restoration. Ecol Econ 190:107186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107186

De Jager NR, Rohweder JJ (2017) Changes in aquatic vegetation and floodplain land cover in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers (1989–2000–2010). Environ Monit Assess 189:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5774-0

Demirbilek B, Benson D (2019) Between emulation and assemblage: analysing WFD policy transfer outcomes in Turkey. Water 11(2):324. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020324

Dendievel AM, Mourier B, Dabrin A, Delile H, Coynel A, Gosset A, Liber Y, Berger JF, Bedell JP (2020) Metal pollution trajectories and mixture risk assessed by combining dated cores and subsurface sediments along a major European river (Rhône River, France). Environ Int 144:106032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106032

Dewan AM, Corner R, Hashizume M, Ongee ET (2013) Typhoid fever and its association with environmental factors in the dhaka metropolitan area of Bangladesh: a spatial and time-series approach. PLOS Negl Trop Dis 7(1):e1998. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001998

dos Reis Oliveira PC, van der Geest HG, Kraak MH, Westveer JJ, Verdonschot RC, Verdonschot PF (2020) Over forty years of lowland stream restoration: lessons learned? J Environ Manage 264:110417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110417

Duan W, He B, Chen Y, Zou S, Wang Y, Nover D, Chen W, Yang G (2018) Identification of long-term trends and seasonality in high-frequency water quality data from the Yangtze River basin. China. PloS one 13(2):e0188889. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188889

Elosegi A, Sabater S (2013) Effects of hydromorphological impacts on river ecosystem functioning: a review and suggestions for assessing ecological impacts. Hydrobiol 712:129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1226-6

England J, Hayes C, White J, Johns T (2021) Evidence of taxonomic and functional recovery of macroinvertebrate communities following river restoration. Water 13(16):2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162239

Fechner LC, Versace F, Gourlay-Francé C, Tusseau-Vuillemin MH (2012) Adaptation of copper community tolerance levels after biofilm transplantation in an urban river. Aquat Toxicol 106:32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2011.09.019

Feist BE, Buhle ER, Baldwin DH, Spromberg JA, Damm SE, Davis JW, Scholz NL (2017) Roads to ruin: conservation threats to a sentinel species across an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 27(8):2382–2396. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1615

Feld CK, Birk S, Bradley DC, Hering D, Kail J, Marzin A, Melcher A, Nemitz D, Pedersen ML, Pletterbauer F, Pont D, Verdonschot PFM, Friberg N (2011) From natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and practice. Adv Ecol Res 44:119–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374794-5.00003-1

Fu H, Gaüzère P, Molinos JG, Zhang P, Zhang H, Zhang M, Niu Y, Yu H, Brown LE, Xu J (2021) Mitigation of urbanization effects on aquatic ecosystems by synchronous ecological restoration. Water Res 204:117587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117587

Galvão TF, Pereira MG (2014) Revisões sistemáticas da literatura: passos para sua elaboração. Epidemiol Serv Saúde 23(1):183–184. https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742014000100018

Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, Hallett JG, Eisenberg C, Guariguata MR, Liu J, Hua F, Echeverría C, Gonzales E, Shaw N, Decleer K, Dixon KW (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 27(S1):S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035

Garcias CM, Afonso JAC (2013) Revitalização de rios urbanos. GESTA 1(1):131–144. https://doi.org/10.9771/gesta.v1i1.7111

Gbagir AMG, Colpaert A (2020) Assessing the trend of the trophic state of Lake Ladoga based on multi-year (1997–2019) CMEMS GlobColour-Merged CHL-OC5 satellite observations. Sensors 20(23):6881. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20236881

Getu K, Bhat HG (2021) Analysis of Spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl and growth pattern using geospatial technologies and landscape metrics in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 109:105676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105676

Ghosh S, Kumar D, Kumari R (2022) Assessing spatiotemporal variations in land surface temperature and SUHI intensity with a cloud based computational system over five major cities of India. Sustain Cities Soc 85:104060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104060

Gigliotti M, Schmidt-Traub G, Bastianoni S (2019) The sustainable development goals. Encyclopedia Ecol (Second Edition) 4:426–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10986-8

Golan T (2016) The fall and rise of the Kishon River. Water 8(7):283. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8070283

Gonçalo CS, Castro CM, Bonon MM, Motta, PMR, Dahdal AB, Batista JC, Hirayama MS, de Paula Peres SM, de Barros NF (2012) Planejamento e execução de revisões sistemáticas da literatura. Brasília Med 49(2):104–110

Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195

Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE, Belt KT, Brush GS, Grove JM, Pouyat RV, Yesilonis IC, Zipperer WC (2003) Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Front Ecol Environ 1(6):315–321. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0315:DBTRUR]2.0.CO;2

Guidolini JF, Giarolla A, Toledo PM, Valera CA, Ometto JPHB (2018) Water sustainability at the River Grande Basin, Brazil: an approach based on the barometer of sustainability. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(11):2582. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112582

Gurnell AM, Scott SJ, England J, Gurnell D, Jeffries R, Shuker L, Wharton G (2020) Assessing river condition: a multiscale approach designed for operational application in the context of biodiversity net gain. River Res Appl 36(8):1559–1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3673

Happel A, Gallagher D (2021) Chicago’s fish assemblage over~ 30 years–more fish and more native species. Urban Ecosyst 24(2):311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01020-3

Hartig JH, Wallace MC (2015) Creating world-class gathering places for people and wildlife along the Detroit Riverfront, Michigan, USA. Sustainability 7(11):15073–15098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115073

Hartman KJ, Wellman DI, Kingsbury JW, Cincotta DA, Clayton JL, Eliason KM, Jernejcic FA, Owens NV, Smith DM (2021) A case study of a prymnesium parvum harmful algae bloom in the Ohio River drainage: impact, recovery and potential for future invasions/range expansion. Water 13(22):3233. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223233

Hering D, Borja A, Carstensen J, Carvalho L, Elliott M, Feld CK, Heiskanen AS, Johnson RK, Moe J, Pont D, Solheim AL, van de Bund W (2010) The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Sci Total Environ 408(19):4007–4019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031

Hoggart SP, Francis RA, Chadwick MA (2012) Macroinvertebrate richness on flood defence walls of the tidal River Thames. Urban Ecosyst 15:327–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0221-4

Houlahan JE, Findlay CS (2004) Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landsc Ecol 19:677–690. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000042912.87067.35

Ingold T (2000) The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Psychology Press

Iritani MA, Ezaki S (2008) Groundwater in the State of São Paulo. In: As águas subterrâneas do Estado de São Paulo, 2nd edn. Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente, p 104

Jacundino JS, Santos OS, Caldas JC, Botero WG, Gouveia D, Carmo JB, Oliveira LC (2015) Interactions between human and potentially toxic metals: prospect for its utilization as an environmental repair agent. J Environ Chem Eng 3:708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.03.032

Jin X, Zhang W, Li S (2020) Complex responses of suspended particulate matter in eutrophic river and its indicative function in river recovery process. Ecol Indic 115:106397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106397

Joshi A (2016) Comparison between Scopus & ISI Web of science. J Glob Values 7(1):1–11

Kabutey FT, Antwi P, Ding J, Zhao QL, Quashie FK (2019) Enhanced bioremediation of heavy metals and bioelectricity generation in a macrophyte-integrated cathode sediment microbial fuel cell (mSMFC). Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:26829–26843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05874-9

Kauffman GJ (2018) The cost of clean water in the Delaware River Basin (USA). Water 10(2):95. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020095

Kauffman GJ, Homsey AR, Belden AC, Sanchez JR (2011) Water quality trends in the Delaware River Basin (USA) from 1980 to 2005. Environ Monit Assess 177:193–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1628-8

Keefe SH, Barber LB, Hubbard LE, Bradley PM, Roth DA, Kolpin DW (2019) Behavior of major and trace elements in a transient surface water/groundwater system following removal of a long-term wastewater treatment facility source. Sci Total Environ 668:867–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.358

Khadse GK, Meshram DB, Deshmukh P, Labhasetwar PK (2019) Water quality of Tehri dam reservoir and contributing rivers in the Himalayan region, India. Sustain Water Resour Manag 5(4):1951–1961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-019-00348-9

Lazarus RS, Rattner BA, McGowan PC, Hale RC, Schultz SL, Karouna-Renier NK, Ottinger MA (2015) Decadal re-evaluation of contaminant exposure and productivity of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) nesting in Chesapeake Bay regions of concern. Environ Pollut 205:278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.05.026

Lima AT, Bastos FA, Teubner FJ, Neto RR, Cooper A, Barroso GF (2020) Strengths and weaknesses of a hybrid post-disaster management approach: the Doce River (Brazil) mine-tailing dam burst. Environ Manage 65:711–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01279-4

Luo S, Xie J, Furuya K (2021) Assessing the preference and restorative potential of urban park blue space. Land 10(11):1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111233

Martinez Bueno MJ, Hernando MD, Herrera S, Gómez MJ, Fernández-Alba AR, Bustamante I, Garcia-Calvo E (2010) Pilot survey of chemical contaminants from industrial and human activities in river waters of Spain. Int J Environ Anal Chem 90(3-6):321–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067310903045463

McGaughey LJ, Perron MAC, Phippen D, O'Hara P, Bock G, Ridal JJ (2022) Community involvement critical for revitalization: grass-roots initiative key to environmental remediation and restoration in the Great River (St. Lawrence River). J Great Lakes Res 48(6):1498–1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.04.014

McMillan SK, Noe GB (2017) Increasing floodplain connectivity through urban stream restoration increases nutrient and sediment retention. Ecol Eng 108:284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.08.006

Merhaby D, Ouddane B, Net S, Halwani J (2020) Assessment of persistent organic pollutants in surface sediments along Lebanese coastal zone. Mar Pollut Bull 153:110947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110947

Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106:213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Neff MR, Robinson JM, Bhavsar SP (2013) Assessment of fish mercury levels in the upper St. Lawrence River, Canada. J Great Lakes Res 39(2):336–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2013.03.005

Nixon R, Carlton JS, Ma Z (2022) Drivers of revitalization in Great Lakes coastal communities. J Great Lakes Res 48(6):1387–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.03.008

Norris C, Nigrelli C, Newcomer-Johnson TA, White DP, Beaubien GB, Pelka A, Mills MA (2022) Defining community revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern and investigating how revitalization can be catalyzed through remediation and restoration. J Great Lakes Res 48(6):1432–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2022.05.006

Obiahu OH, Yan Z, Uchenna UB (2021) Spatiotemporal analysis of land use land cover changes and built-up expansion projection in predominantly dystric nitosol of Ebonyi state, Southeastern, Nigeria. Environ Sci 4:100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100145

Omoniyi GE, Piscart C, Pellan L, Bergerot B (2022) Responses of macroinvertebrate communities to hydromorphological restoration of headwater streams in Brittany. Water 14(4):553. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14040553

Onyango DO, Opiyo SB (2022) Detection of historical landscape changes in Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya, using remote sensing multi-spectral indices. WEE 4:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsee.2021.12.001

Orata F, Maes A, Werres F, Wilken RD (2011) Perfluorinated compounds distribution and source identification in sediments of Lake Victoria Gulf Basin. Soil Sediment Contam 20(2):129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15320383.2011.546442

Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Follstad Shah J, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL et al (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J Appl Ecol 42(2):208–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x

Palmer MA, Hondula KL, Koch BJ (2014) Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Ann Rev Ecol Evol System 45:247–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091935

Parker J, Cao Y, Sass GG, Epifanio J (2018) Large river fish functional diversity responses to improved water quality over a 28-year period. Ecol Indic 88:322–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.035

Perkin JS, Bonner TH (2011) Long-term changes in flow regime and fish assemblage composition in the Guadalupe and San Marcos rivers of Texas. River Res Appl 27(5):566–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1373

Perkins DM, Hull T, Bubb N, Cunningham A, Glackin R, Glen T, Smith S, Davies B (2021) Putting the “Beaver” Back in Beverley Brook: rapid shifts in community composition following the restoration of a degraded urban river. Water 13(24):3530. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243530

Perló Cohen M, Zamora Saenz I (2017) Perspectivas ambientales sobre la contaminación y la recuperación del río Magdalena en la Ciudad de México. Rev Int Cont Ambient 33(3):377–391. https://doi.org/10.20937/rica.2017.33.03.02

PNGWING (2022) Revisão sistemática Revisão de literatura Medicina baseada em evidências Cochrane Research, revisão de literatura, texto, medicina, enfermagem png. https://www.pngwing.com/pt/free-png-dovt Accessed 26 october 2023.

Pociecha A, Wojtal AZ, Szarek-Gwiazda E, Cieplok A, Ciszewski D, Cichoń S (2020) Neo-and paleo-limnological studies on diatom and cladoceran communities of subsidence ponds affected by mine waters (S. Poland). Water 12(6):1581. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061581

Poleto C, Castilhos ZC (2008) Impacto por poluição difusa de sedimento em bacias urbanas. In: Poleto, C. (Org.) Ambiente e Sedimento. Porto Alegre: Ed. ABRH, pp. 193-227.

Portugués-Mollá I, Bonache-Felici X, Mateu-Bellés JF, Marco-Segura JB (2016) A GIS-based model for the analysis of an urban flash flood and its hydro-geomorphic response. The Valencia event of 1957. J Hydrol 541:582–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.048

Pourret O, Hursthouse A (2019) It’s time to replace the term “heavy metals” with “potentially toxic elements” when reporting environmental research. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(22):4446. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224446

Pranckutė R (2021) Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 9(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012

Qian Y, Dong Z, Yan Y, Tang L (2022) Ecological risk assessment models for simulating impacts of land use and landscape pattern on ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 833:155218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155218

Rocha CHB, Freitas FA, Silva TM (2014) Alterações em variáveis limnológicas de manancial de Juiz de Fora devido ao uso da terra. Rev Bras Eng Agríc Ambient 18(4):431–436. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662014000400011

Rojas C, Sepúlveda E, Jorquera F, Munizaga J, Pino J (2022) Accessibility disturbances to the biodiversity of urban wetlands due to built environment. City Environ Interact 13:100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2021.100076

Rotherham ID (2021) The impacts of recolonisation of an urbanised river by native and non-native species. Front Ecol Evol 9:77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.618371

Sánchez-Torres LD, Galvis Castaño A, Gandini MA, Almario G, Montero MV, Vergara MV (2022) Commission for the Upper Cauca River Basin recovery, collaborative governance for sustainability and water security. Front Water 4:45. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.782164

Santana FC, Francelino MR, Schaefer CEGR, Veloso GV, Fernandes-Filho EI, Santana ADJ, Santana AJP, Timo LB, Rosa AP (2021) Water quality of the Gualaxo do Norte and Carmo rivers after the Fundão dam collapse, Mariana, MG. Water Air Soil Pollut 232(155):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05113-3

Sá-Oliveira JC, Ferrari SF, Vasconcelos HCG, Mendes-Junior RNG, Araújo AS, Costa-Campos CE, Nascimento WS, Isaac VJ (2016) Restoration effects of the riparian forest on the intertidal fish fauna in an urban area of the Amazon River. The Sci World J 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2810136

Sinnatamby RN, Mayer B, Kruk MK, Rood SB, Farineau A, Post JR (2020) Considering multiple anthropogenic threats in the context of natural variability: ecological processes in a regulated riverine ecosystem. Ecohydrology 13(5):e2217. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2217

Singh VK, Singh P, Karmakar M, Leta J, Mayr P (2021) The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126:5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Søndergaard M, Jeppesen E (2007) Anthropogenic impacts on lake and stream ecosystems, and approaches to restoration. J Appl Ecol 44(6):1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01426.x

Souza CM Jr, Shimbo JZ, Rosa MR, Parente LL, Alencar AA, Rudorff BFT, Hasenack H, Matsumoto M, Ferreira LG, Souza-Filho PWM, de Oliveira SW, Rocha WF, Fonseca AV, Marques CB, Diniz CG, Costa D, Monteiro D, Rosa ER, Vélez-Martin E et al (2020) Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and earth engine. Remote Sens 12(17):2735. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172735

Spray C, Black A, Bradley D, Bromley C, Caithness F, Dodd J, Hunt J, MacDonald A, Martinez Romero R, McDermott T, Moir H, Quinn L, Reid H, Robertson H (2022) Strategic design and delivery of integrated catchment restoration monitoring: emerging lessons from a 12-year study in the UK. Water 14(15):2305. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14152305

Stets EG, Kelly VJ, Crawford CG (2014) Long-term trends in alkalinity in large rivers of the conterminous US in relation to acidification, agriculture, and hydrologic modification. Sci Total Environ 488:280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.054

Sun J, Tummers JS, Galib SM, Lucas MC (2022) Fish community and abundance response to improved connectivity and more natural hydromorphology in a post-industrial subcatchment. Sci Total Environ 802:149720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149720

Tamario C, Calles O, Watz J, Nilsson PA, Degerman E (2019) Coastal river connectivity and the distribution of ascending juvenile European eel ( Anguilla anguilla L. ): Implications for conservation strategies regarding fish-passage solutions. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 29(4):612–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3064

Tramoy R, Blin E, Poitou I, Noûs C, Tassin B, Gasperi J (2022) Riverine litter in a small urban river in Marseille, France: plastic load and management challenges. Waste Manage 140:154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.015

Tseng HC, Newton A, Gong GC, Lin CC (2021) Social–environmental analysis of estuary water quality in a populous urban area. Elem Sci Anth 9(1):00085. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00085

United Nations (2018) Sustainable development goal 6 synthesis report on water and sanitation.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021) Great Lakes Areas of Concern.

Vaughan IP, Ormerod SJ (2012) Large-scale, long-term trends in British river macroinvertebrates. Glob Chang Biol 18(7):2184–2194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02662.x

Verdonschot PFM, Spears BM, Feld CK, Brucet S, Keizer-Vlek H, Borja A, Elliott M, Kernan M, Johnson RK (2013) A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia 704:453–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1294-7

Wang Q, Waltman L (2016) Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. J Informetr 10(2):347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003

Westphal K, Graeber D, Musolff A, Fang Y, Jawitz JW, Borchardt D (2019) Multi-decadal trajectories of phosphorus loading, export, and instream retention along a catchment gradient. Sci Total Environ 667:769–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.428

Wohl E, Angermeier PL, Bledsoe B, Kondolf GM, MacDonnell L, Merritt DM, Margaret AP, Poff NL, Tarboton D (2005) River restoration. Water Resour Res 41(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003985

Wohl E, Lane SN, Wilcox AC (2015) The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resour Res 51(8):5974–5997. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016874

World Health Organization (2022) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: incorporating the first and second addenda. WHO

Wortley L, Hero JM, Howes M (2013) Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restor Ecol 21(5):537–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12028

Xu Z, Xu J, Yin H, Jin W, Li H, He Z (2019) Urban river pollution control in developing countries. Nat Sustain 2(3):158–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0249-7

Yadav R, Rajput V, Dharne M (2021) Functional metagenomic landscape of polluted river reveals potential genes involved in degradation of xenobiotic pollutants. Environ Res 192:110332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110332

Zhang H, Kang M, Shen L, Wu J, Li J, Du H, Wang C, Yang H, Zhou Q, Liu Z, Gorfine H, Wei Q (2020) Rapid change in Yangtze fisheries and its implications for global freshwater ecosystem management. Fish Fish 21(3):601–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12449

Zhang J, Ma J, Zhang Z, He B, Zhang Y, Su L, Wang B, Shao J, Tai Y, Zhang X, Huang H, Yang Y, Dai Y (2022a) Initial ecological restoration assessment of an urban river in the subtropical region in China. Sci Total Environ 838:156156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156156

Zhang W, Rong N, Jin X, Meng X, Han S, Zhang D, Shan B (2022b) Dissolved oxygen variation in the North China Plain River network region over 2011–2020 and the influencing factors. Chemosphere 287:132354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132354

Zhao M, Wada N, Shinozaki H, Seko N, Mori M, Itabashi H (2018) Monitoring of the palladium concentration in river water and sediment at an acidic hot spring spa area in gunma prefecture. Anal Sci 34(12):1357–1364. https://doi.org/10.2116/analsci.18P211

Zhu B, Smith DS, Benaquista AP, Rossi DM, Kadapuram BM, Yu ML, Partlow AS, Burtch NR (2018) Water quality impacts of small-scale hydromodification in an urban stream in Connecticut, USA. Ecol Process 7(11):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-018-0122-z

Zhu J, Liu W (2020) A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics 123:321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8

Download references

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Federal University of São Carlos, Sorocaba Campus, Graduate Program in Biotechnology and Environmental Monitoring, João Leme dos Santos Highway, km 110 - SP-264, Sorocaba, SP, 18052.780, Brazil

Caroline Ferreira da Silva, Elisabete Alves Pereira, Mayara de Almeida Ribeiro Carvalho & Luciana Camargo de Oliveira

Federal University of Alagoas, Graduate Program in Chemistry and Biotechnology, Maceió, Alagoas, 57072-900, Brazil

Wander Gustavo Botero

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CFS: deadline, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing-original draft, visualization.

EAP: writing-review and editing.

MARC: writing-review and editing, conceptualization.

WGB: writing-review and editing, conceptualization.

LCO: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing-review and editing, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciana Camargo de Oliveira .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Silva, C.F., Pereira, E.A., Carvalho, M.d. et al. Urban river recovery: a systematic review on the effectiveness of water clean-up programs. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33055-w

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2023

Accepted : 19 March 2024

Published : 26 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33055-w

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

• Urban rivers
• Environmental recovery
• Urbanization
• Environmental quality
• Water quality
• Review article
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Cryptography and Security

Title: large language models for blockchain security: a systematic literature review.

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools in various domains involving blockchain security (BS). Several recent studies are exploring LLMs applied to BS. However, there remains a gap in our understanding regarding the full scope of applications, impacts, and potential constraints of LLMs on blockchain security. To fill this gap, we conduct a literature review on LLM4BS. As the first review of LLM's application on blockchain security, our study aims to comprehensively analyze existing research and elucidate how LLMs contribute to enhancing the security of blockchain systems. Through a thorough examination of scholarly works, we delve into the integration of LLMs into various aspects of blockchain security. We explore the mechanisms through which LLMs can bolster blockchain security, including their applications in smart contract auditing, identity verification, anomaly detection, vulnerable repair, and so on. Furthermore, we critically assess the challenges and limitations associated with leveraging LLMs for blockchain security, considering factors such as scalability, privacy concerns, and adversarial attacks. Our review sheds light on the opportunities and potential risks inherent in this convergence, providing valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .