what level is a literature review

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 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, what is your plagiarism score.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Library databases
• Library website

Evidence-Based Research: Levels of Evidence Pyramid

Introduction.

One way to organize the different types of evidence involved in evidence-based practice research is the levels of evidence pyramid. The pyramid includes a variety of evidence types and levels.

• systematic reviews
• critically-appraised topics
• critically-appraised individual articles
• randomized controlled trials
• cohort studies
• case-controlled studies, case series, and case reports
• Background information, expert opinion

Levels of evidence pyramid

The levels of evidence pyramid provides a way to visualize both the quality of evidence and the amount of evidence available. For example, systematic reviews are at the top of the pyramid, meaning they are both the highest level of evidence and the least common. As you go down the pyramid, the amount of evidence will increase as the quality of the evidence decreases.

Text alternative for Levels of Evidence Pyramid diagram

EBM Pyramid and EBM Page Generator, copyright 2006 Trustees of Dartmouth College and Yale University. All Rights Reserved. Produced by Jan Glover, David Izzo, Karen Odato and Lei Wang.

Filtered Resources

Filtered resources appraise the quality of studies and often make recommendations for practice. The main types of filtered resources in evidence-based practice are:

Scroll down the page to the Systematic reviews , Critically-appraised topics , and Critically-appraised individual articles sections for links to resources where you can find each of these types of filtered information.

Systematic reviews

Authors of a systematic review ask a specific clinical question, perform a comprehensive literature review, eliminate the poorly done studies, and attempt to make practice recommendations based on the well-done studies. Systematic reviews include only experimental, or quantitative, studies, and often include only randomized controlled trials.

You can find systematic reviews in these filtered databases :

• Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Cochrane systematic reviews are considered the gold standard for systematic reviews. This database contains both systematic reviews and review protocols. To find only systematic reviews, select Cochrane Reviews in the Document Type box.
• JBI EBP Database (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database) This database includes systematic reviews, evidence summaries, and best practice information sheets. To find only systematic reviews, click on Limits and then select Systematic Reviews in the Publication Types box. To see how to use the limit and find full text, please see our Joanna Briggs Institute Search Help page .

You can also find systematic reviews in this unfiltered database :

To learn more about finding systematic reviews, please see our guide:

• Filtered Resources: Systematic Reviews

Critically-appraised topics

Authors of critically-appraised topics evaluate and synthesize multiple research studies. Critically-appraised topics are like short systematic reviews focused on a particular topic.

You can find critically-appraised topics in these resources:

• Annual Reviews This collection offers comprehensive, timely collections of critical reviews written by leading scientists. To find reviews on your topic, use the search box in the upper-right corner.
• Guideline Central This free database offers quick-reference guideline summaries organized by a new non-profit initiative which will aim to fill the gap left by the sudden closure of AHRQ’s National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC).
• JBI EBP Database (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database) To find critically-appraised topics in JBI, click on Limits and then select Evidence Summaries from the Publication Types box. To see how to use the limit and find full text, please see our Joanna Briggs Institute Search Help page .
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence-based recommendations for health and care in England.
• Filtered Resources: Critically-Appraised Topics

Critically-appraised individual articles

Authors of critically-appraised individual articles evaluate and synopsize individual research studies.

You can find critically-appraised individual articles in these resources:

• EvidenceAlerts Quality articles from over 120 clinical journals are selected by research staff and then rated for clinical relevance and interest by an international group of physicians. Note: You must create a free account to search EvidenceAlerts.
• ACP Journal Club This journal publishes reviews of research on the care of adults and adolescents. You can either browse this journal or use the Search within this publication feature.
• Evidence-Based Nursing This journal reviews research studies that are relevant to best nursing practice. You can either browse individual issues or use the search box in the upper-right corner.

To learn more about finding critically-appraised individual articles, please see our guide:

• Filtered Resources: Critically-Appraised Individual Articles

Unfiltered resources

You may not always be able to find information on your topic in the filtered literature. When this happens, you'll need to search the primary or unfiltered literature. Keep in mind that with unfiltered resources, you take on the role of reviewing what you find to make sure it is valid and reliable.

Note: You can also find systematic reviews and other filtered resources in these unfiltered databases.

The Levels of Evidence Pyramid includes unfiltered study types in this order of evidence from higher to lower:

You can search for each of these types of evidence in the following databases:

TRIP database

Background information & expert opinion.

Background information and expert opinions are not necessarily backed by research studies. They include point-of-care resources, textbooks, conference proceedings, etc.

• Family Physicians Inquiries Network: Clinical Inquiries Provide the ideal answers to clinical questions using a structured search, critical appraisal, authoritative recommendations, clinical perspective, and rigorous peer review. Clinical Inquiries deliver best evidence for point-of-care use.
• Harrison, T. R., & Fauci, A. S. (2009). Harrison's Manual of Medicine . New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Contains the clinical portions of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine .
• Lippincott manual of nursing practice (8th ed.). (2006). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Provides background information on clinical nursing practice.
• Medscape: Drugs & Diseases An open-access, point-of-care medical reference that includes clinical information from top physicians and pharmacists in the United States and worldwide.
• Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository An open-access repository that contains works by nurses and is sponsored by Sigma Theta Tau International, the Honor Society of Nursing. Note: This resource contains both expert opinion and evidence-based practice articles.
• Previous Page: Phrasing Research Questions
• Next Page: Evidence Types
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

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

Centers and Offices

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

Student Resources

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

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

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 1, 2024 9:56 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Research Process

Levels of evidence in research

• 5 minute read
• 94.4K views

Table of Contents

Level of evidence hierarchy

When carrying out a project you might have noticed that while searching for information, there seems to be different levels of credibility given to different types of scientific results. For example, it is not the same to use a systematic review or an expert opinion as a basis for an argument. It’s almost common sense that the first will demonstrate more accurate results than the latter, which ultimately derives from a personal opinion.

In the medical and health care area, for example, it is very important that professionals not only have access to information but also have instruments to determine which evidence is stronger and more trustworthy, building up the confidence to diagnose and treat their patients.

5 levels of evidence

With the increasing need from physicians – as well as scientists of different fields of study-, to know from which kind of research they can expect the best clinical evidence, experts decided to rank this evidence to help them identify the best sources of information to answer their questions. The criteria for ranking evidence is based on the design, methodology, validity and applicability of the different types of studies. The outcome is called “levels of evidence” or “levels of evidence hierarchy”. By organizing a well-defined hierarchy of evidence, academia experts were aiming to help scientists feel confident in using findings from high-ranked evidence in their own work or practice. For Physicians, whose daily activity depends on available clinical evidence to support decision-making, this really helps them to know which evidence to trust the most.

So, by now you know that research can be graded according to the evidential strength determined by different study designs. But how many grades are there? Which evidence should be high-ranked and low-ranked?

There are five levels of evidence in the hierarchy of evidence – being 1 (or in some cases A) for strong and high-quality evidence and 5 (or E) for evidence with effectiveness not established, as you can see in the pyramidal scheme below:

Level 1: (higher quality of evidence) – High-quality randomized trial or prospective study; testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients; sensible costs and alternatives; values obtained from many studies with multiway sensitivity analyses; systematic review of Level I RCTs and Level I studies.

Level 2: Lesser quality RCT; prospective comparative study; retrospective study; untreated controls from an RCT; lesser quality prospective study; development of diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients; sensible costs and alternatives; values obtained from limited stud- ies; with multiway sensitivity analyses; systematic review of Level II studies or Level I studies with inconsistent results.

Level 3: Case-control study (therapeutic and prognostic studies); retrospective comparative study; study of nonconsecutive patients without consistently applied reference “gold” standard; analyses based on limited alternatives and costs and poor estimates; systematic review of Level III studies.

Level 4: Case series; case-control study (diagnostic studies); poor reference standard; analyses with no sensitivity analyses.

Level 5: (lower quality of evidence) – Expert opinion.

By looking at the pyramid, you can roughly distinguish what type of research gives you the highest quality of evidence and which gives you the lowest. Basically, level 1 and level 2 are filtered information – that means an author has gathered evidence from well-designed studies, with credible results, and has produced findings and conclusions appraised by renowned experts, who consider them valid and strong enough to serve researchers and scientists. Levels 3, 4 and 5 include evidence coming from unfiltered information. Because this evidence hasn’t been appraised by experts, it might be questionable, but not necessarily false or wrong.

Examples of levels of evidence

As you move up the pyramid, you will surely find higher-quality evidence. However, you will notice there is also less research available. So, if there are no resources for you available at the top, you may have to start moving down in order to find the answers you are looking for.

• Systematic Reviews: -Exhaustive summaries of all the existent literature about a certain topic. When drafting a systematic review, authors are expected to deliver a critical assessment and evaluation of all this literature rather than a simple list. Researchers that produce systematic reviews have their own criteria to locate, assemble and evaluate a body of literature.
• Meta-Analysis: Uses quantitative methods to synthesize a combination of results from independent studies. Normally, they function as an overview of clinical trials. Read more: Systematic review vs meta-analysis .
• Critically Appraised Topic: Evaluation of several research studies.
• Critically Appraised Article: Evaluation of individual research studies.
• Randomized Controlled Trial: a clinical trial in which participants or subjects (people that agree to participate in the trial) are randomly divided into groups. Placebo (control) is given to one of the groups whereas the other is treated with medication. This kind of research is key to learning about a treatment’s effectiveness.
• Cohort studies: A longitudinal study design, in which one or more samples called cohorts (individuals sharing a defining characteristic, like a disease) are exposed to an event and monitored prospectively and evaluated in predefined time intervals. They are commonly used to correlate diseases with risk factors and health outcomes.
• Case-Control Study: Selects patients with an outcome of interest (cases) and looks for an exposure factor of interest.
• Background Information/Expert Opinion: Information you can find in encyclopedias, textbooks and handbooks. This kind of evidence just serves as a good foundation for further research – or clinical practice – for it is usually too generalized.

Of course, it is recommended to use level A and/or 1 evidence for more accurate results but that doesn’t mean that all other study designs are unhelpful or useless. It all depends on your research question. Focusing once more on the healthcare and medical field, see how different study designs fit into particular questions, that are not necessarily located at the tip of the pyramid:

• Questions concerning therapy: “Which is the most efficient treatment for my patient?” >> RCT | Cohort studies | Case-Control | Case Studies
• Questions concerning diagnosis: “Which diagnose method should I use?” >> Prospective blind comparison
• Questions concerning prognosis: “How will the patient’s disease will develop over time?” >> Cohort Studies | Case Studies
• Questions concerning etiology: “What are the causes for this disease?” >> RCT | Cohort Studies | Case Studies
• Questions concerning costs: “What is the most cost-effective but safe option for my patient?” >> Economic evaluation
• Questions concerning meaning/quality of life: “What’s the quality of life of my patient going to be like?” >> Qualitative study

Find more about Levels of evidence in research on Pinterest:

17 March 2021 – Elsevier’s Mini Program Launched on WeChat Brings Quality Editing Straight to your Smartphone

• Manuscript Review

Professor Anselmo Paiva: Using Computer Vision to Tackle Medical Issues with a Little Help from Elsevier Author Services

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

MSU Libraries

• Need help? Ask a Librarian

Nursing Literature and Other Types of Reviews

• Literature and Other Types of Reviews
• Starting Your Search
• Constructing Your Search
• Selecting Databases and Saving Your Search

Levels of Evidence

• Creating a PRISMA Table
• Literature Table and Synthesis
• Other Resources

Levels of evidence (sometimes called hierarchy of evidence) are assigned to studies based on the methodological quality of their design, validity, and applicability to patient care. These decisions gives the grade (or strength) of recommendation. Just because something is lower on the pyramid doesn't mean that the study itself is lower-quality, it just means that the methods used may not be as clinically rigorous as higher levels of the pyramid. In nursing, the system for assigning levels of evidence is often from Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt's 2011 book,  Evidence-based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice .  The Levels of Evidence below are adapted from Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt's (2011) model.  

Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2011)

• Meta-Analysis:  A systematic review that uses quantitative methods to summarize the results. (Level 1)
• Systematic Review:  A comprehensive review that authors have systematically searched for, appraised, and summarized all of the medical literature for a specific topic (Level 1)
• Randomized Controlled Trials:  RCT's include a randomized group of patients in an experimental group and a control group. These groups are followed up for the variables/outcomes of interest. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures, diets or other medical treatments. (can be Level 2 or Level 4, depending on how expansive the study)
• Non-Randomized Controlled Trials:  A clinical trial in which the participants are not assigned by chance to different treatment groups. Participants may choose which group they want to be in, or they may be assigned to the groups by the researchers.
• Cohort Study:  Identifies two groups (cohorts) of patients, one which did receive the exposure of interest, and one which did not, and following these cohorts forward for the outcome of interest. ( Level 5)
• Case-Control Study:  Involves identifying patients who have the outcome of interest (cases) and control patients without the same outcome, and looking to see if they had the exposure of interest.
• Background Information/Expert Opinion:  Handbooks, encyclopedias, and textbooks often provide a good foundation or introduction and often include generalized information about a condition.  While background information presents a convenient summary, often it takes about three years for this type of literature to be published. (Level 7)
• << Previous: Selecting Databases and Saving Your Search
• Next: Creating a PRISMA Table >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 3:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/nursinglitreview

Systematic Reviews

• Levels of Evidence
• Evidence Pyramid
• Joanna Briggs Institute

The evidence pyramid is often used to illustrate the development of evidence. At the base of the pyramid is animal research and laboratory studies – this is where ideas are first developed. As you progress up the pyramid the amount of information available decreases in volume, but increases in relevance to the clinical setting.

Meta Analysis  – systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

Systematic Review  – summary of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies and that uses appropriate st atistical techniques to combine these valid studies.

Randomized Controlled Trial – Participants are randomly allocated into an experimental group or a control group and followed over time for the variables/outcomes of interest.

Cohort Study – Involves identification of two groups (cohorts) of patients, one which received the exposure of interest, and one which did not, and following these cohorts forward for the outcome of interest.

Case Control Study – study which involves identifying patients who have the outcome of interest (cases) and patients without the same outcome (controls), and looking back to see if they had the exposure of interest.

Case Series   – report on a series of patients with an outcome of interest. No control group is involved.

• Levels of Evidence from The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
• The JBI Model of Evidence Based Healthcare
• How to Use the Evidence: Assessment and Application of Scientific Evidence From the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. Book must be downloaded; not available to read online.

When searching for evidence to answer clinical questions, aim to identify the highest level of available evidence. Evidence hierarchies can help you strategically identify which resources to use for finding evidence, as well as which search results are most likely to be "best".                                             

Image source: Evidence-Based Practice: Study Design from Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives. This work is licensed under a Creativ e Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

The hierarchy of evidence (also known as the evidence-based pyramid) is depicted as a triangular representation of the levels of evidence with the strongest evidence at the top which progresses down through evidence with decreasing strength. At the top of the pyramid are research syntheses, such as Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews, the strongest forms of evidence. Below research syntheses are primary research studies progressing from experimental studies, such as Randomized Controlled Trials, to observational studies, such as Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, Cross-Sectional Studies, Case Series, and Case Reports. Non-Human Animal Studies and Laboratory Studies occupy the lowest level of evidence at the base of the pyramid.

• Finding Evidence-Based Answers to Clinical Questions – Quickly & Effectively A tip sheet from the health sciences librarians at UC Davis Libraries to help you get started with selecting resources for finding evidence, based on type of question.
• << Previous: What is a Systematic Review?
• Next: Locating Systematic Reviews >>
• Getting Started
• What is a Systematic Review?
• Locating Systematic Reviews
• Searching Systematically
• Developing Answerable Questions
• Identifying Synonyms & Related Terms
• Using Truncation and Wildcards
• Identifying Search Limits/Exclusion Criteria
• Keyword vs. Subject Searching
• Where to Search
• Search Filters
• Sensitivity vs. Precision
• Core Databases
• Other Databases
• Clinical Trial Registries
• Conference Presentations
• Databases Indexing Grey Literature
• Web Searching
• Handsearching
• Citation Indexes
• Documenting the Search Process
• Managing your Review

Research Support

• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 3:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucdavis.edu/systematic-reviews

Nursing-Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model

Jhebp model for levels of evidence, jhebp levels of evidence overview.

• Levels I, II and III

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) uses a rating system to appraise evidence (usually a research study published as a journal article). The level of evidence corresponds to the research study design. Scientific research is considered to be the strongest form of evidence and recommendations from the strongest form of evidence will most likely lead to the best practices. The strength of evidence can vary from study to study based on the methods used and the quality of reporting by the researchers. You will want to seek the highest level of evidence available on your topic (Dang et al., 2022, p. 130).

The Johns Hopkins EBP model uses 3 ratings for the level of scientific research evidence 

• true experimental (level I)
• quasi-experimental (level II)
• nonexperimental (level III) 

The level determination is based on the research meeting the study design requirements  (Dang et al., 2022, p. 146-7).

You will use the Research Appraisal Tool (Appendix E) along with the Evidence Level and Quality Guide (Appendix D) to analyze and  appraise research studies . (Tools linked below.)

N onresearch evidence is covered in Levels IV and V.

• Evidence Level and Quality Guide (Appendix D)
• Research Evidence Appraisal Tool (Appendix E)

Level I Experimental study

randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-analysis

Level II Quasi-experimental Study

Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis.

Level III Non-experimental study

Systematic review of a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and non-experimental, or non-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis.

Qualitative study or systematic review, with or without meta-analysis

Level IV Opinion of respected authorities and/or nationally recognized expert committees/consensus panels based on scientific evidence.

Clinical practice guidelines

Consensus panels

Level V Based on experiential and non-research evidence.

Literature reviews

Quality improvement, program, or financial evaluation

Case reports

Opinion of nationally recognized expert(s) based on experiential evidence

These flow charts can also help you detemine the level of evidence throigh a series of questions.

Single Quantitative Research Study

Summary/Reviews 

These charts are a part of the Research Evidence Appraisal Tool (Appendix E) document.

Dang, D., Dearholt, S., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2022). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines. 4th ed. Sigma Theta Tau International

• << Previous: Start Here
• Next: Levels I, II and III >>
• Last Updated: Feb 8, 2024 1:24 PM
• URL: https://bradley.libguides.com/jhebp

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Stellar Literature Review (with Help from AI)

Table of contents

Aren’t all of us mini versions of Sherlock Holmes when browsing data and archives for a research piece? As we go through the process, a comprehensive literature review is an essential toolkit to make your research shine.

A literature review consists of scholarly sources that validate the content. Its primary objective is to offer a concise summary of the research and to let you explore relevant theories and methodologies. Through this review, you can identify gaps in the existing research and bridge them with your contribution. 

The real challenge is how to write an excellent literature review. Let’s learn.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is an introduction to your research. It helps you put your perspective to the table, along with a summary of the theme.

What does my literature review communicate?

• Explanation of your research: how the information was collected, the research method, the justification of the chosen data sources, and an overview of the data analysis.
• Framework: the journey from where the concept began and how it is presented.
• Connects the previous and current research: 

It presents the broader scope of your research by connecting it to the existing data and debates and underlining how your content fits the prevailing studies. 

In an era of information overload, a literature review must be well-structured. 

Let’s learn all about the structure and style of a literature review that’ll help you strengthen your research.

Literature review– structure and style

Begin with a question and end it with the solution– the key to structuring a literature review. It resembles an essay’s format, with the first paragraph introducing the readers to the topic and the following explaining the research in-depth.

The conclusion reiterates the question and summarizes the overall insights of your research. There’s no word count restriction. —it depends on the type of research. For example, a dissertation demands lengthy work, whereas a short paper needs a few pages. 

In a literature review, maintaining high quality is vital, with a focus on academic writing style. Informal language should be avoided in favor of a more formal tone. 

The content avoids contractions, clearly differentiating between previous and current research through the use of past and present tense. Wordtune assists in establishing a formal tone, enhancing your work with pertinent suggestions. This AI-powered tool ensures your writing remains genuine, lucid, and engaging. 

The option of refining the tonality offers multiple possibilities for rephrasing a single sentence. Thus, pick the best and keep writing.

Get Wordtune for free > Get Wordtune for free >

Your friendly step-by-step guide to writing a literary review (with help from AI)

Do you find it challenging to begin the literature review? Don’t worry! We’re here to get you started with our step-by-step guide.

1. Narrow down the research scope

Simply begin with the question: What am I answering through my research?

Whether it’s cooking or painting, the real challenge is the prep-up for it rather than performing the task. Once you’re done, it smoothly progresses. Similarly, for your literature review, prepare the groundwork by narrowing down the research scope.

Browse and scoop out relevant data inclining well with your research. While you can’t cover every aspect of your research, pick a topic that isn’t too narrow nor too broad to keep your literature review well-balanced. 

2. Hunt relevant literature

The next question: Does this data align with the issue I’m trying to address?

As you review sources of information, hunt out the best ones. Determine which findings help in offering a focused insight on your topic. The best way to pick primary sources is to opt for the ones featured in reliable publications. You can also choose secondary sources from other researchers from a reasonable time frame and a relevant background.

For example, if your research focuses on the Historical Architecture of 18th-century Europe, the first-hand accounts and surveys from the past would hold more weight than the new-age publications. 

3. Observe the themes and patterns in sources

Next comes: What is the core viewpoint in most of the research? Has it stayed constant over time, or have the authors differed in their points of view?

Ensure to scoop out the essential aspects of what each source represents. Once you have collected all this information, combine it and add your interpretations at the end. This process is known as synthesis.

Synthesize ideas by combining arguments, findings and forming your new version.

4. Generate an outline

The next question: How can I organize my review effectively? When navigating multiple data sources, you must have noticed a structure throughout the research. Develop an outline to make the process easier. An outline is a skeletal format of the review, helping you connect the information more strategically.

Here are the three different ways to organize an outline– Chronologically, Thematically, or by Methodology.You can develop the outline chronologically, starting from the older sources and leading to the latest pieces. Another way of organizing is to thematically divide the sections and discuss each under the designated sub-heading.

You can even organize it per the research methods used by the respective authors. The choice of outline depends on the subject. For example, in the case of a science paper, you can divide the information into sections like introduction, types of equipment, method, procedure, findings, etc. In contrast, it’s best to present it in divisions based on timelines like Ancient, Middle Ages, Industrial revolutions, etc., for a history paper.

If you’re confused about how to structure the data, work with Wordtune. 

With the Generate with AI feature, you can mention your research topic and let Wordtune curate a comprehensive outline for your study.

Having a precise prompt is the key to getting the best results.

5. Start filling!

Your next question must be: Am I ready to compose all the parts of the literature review?

Once you’re ready with the basic outline and relevant sources, start filling in the data. Go for an introductory paragraph first to ensure your readers understand the topic and how you will present it. Ensure you clearly explain the section in the first sentence.

However, if beginning from the first paragraph seems intimidating, don’t worry! Add the main body content to the sub-headings, then jump to the introduction. 

Add headings wherever possible to make it more straightforward and guide your readers logically through different sources. Lastly, conclude your study by presenting a key takeaway and summarizing your findings. To make your task easier, work with Wordtune. It helps align your content with the desired tone and refine the structure.

6. Give attention to detail and edit

The last question: Am I satisfied with the language and content written in the literature review? Is it easy to understand?

Once you’re done writing the first draft of a literature review, it’s time to refine it. Take time between writing and reading the draft to ensure a fresh perspective. It makes it easier to spot errors when you disconnect from the content for some time. Start by looking at the document from a bird's eye to ensure the formatting and structure are in order. 

After reviewing the content format, you must thoroughly check your work for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. One of the best approaches to editing and proofreading is to use Wordtune . It helps simplify complex sentences, enhance the content quality, and gain prowess over the tonality.

The dos and don’ts of writing a literature review

Writing a stellar literature review requires following a few dos and don'ts. Just like Sherlock Holmes would never overlook a hint, you must pay attention to every minute detail while writing a perfect narrative. To help you write, below are some dos and don'ts to remember.

Composing a literature review demands a holistic research summary, each part exhibiting your understanding and approach. As you write the content, make sure to cover the following points:

• Keep a historical background of the field of research. Highlight the relevant relation between the old studies and your new research.
• Discuss the core issue, question, and debate of your topic.
• Theories lay the foundation of research. While you’re writing a literature review, make sure to add relevant concepts and ideas to support your statements.
• Another critical thing to keep in mind is to define complex terminologies. It helps the readers understand the content with better clarity. 

Examples of comprehensive literature reviews

Aren’t good examples the best way to understand a subject? Let’s look into a few examples of literature reviews and analyze what makes them well-written.

1. Critical Thinking and Transferability: A Review of the Literature (Gwendolyn Reece)

An overview of scholarly sources is included in the literature review, which explores critical thinking in American education. The introduction stating the subject’s importance makes it a winning literature review. Following the introduction is a well-defined purpose that highlights the importance of research.

As one keeps reading, there is more clarity on the pros and cons of the research. By dividing information into parts with relevant subheadings, the author breaks a lengthy literature review into manageable chunks, defining the overall structure.

Along with other studies and presented perspectives, the author also expresses her opinion. It is presented with minimal usage of ‘I,’ keeping it person-poised yet general. Toward the conclusion, the author again offers an overview of the study. A summary is further strengthened by presenting suggestions for future research as well. 

2. The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review

This literature review is thematically organized on how technology affects language acquisition. The study begins with an introduction to the topic with well-cited sources. It presents the views of different studies to help readers get a sense of different perspectives. After giving these perspectives, the author offers a personalized opinion.

One of the critical aspects that makes this a good literature review is a dedicated paragraph for definitions. It helps readers proceed further with a clear understanding of the crucial terminologies. There’s a comparison of the modern and previous studies and approaches to give an overall picture of the research.

Once the main body is composed, the author integrates recommendations for action-based tips. Thus, the literature review isn’t just summarizing the sources but offering actions relevant to the topics. Finally, the concluding paragraph has a brief overview with key takeaways.

Wordtune: your writing buddy!

A literature review demands the right balance of language and clarity. You must refine the content to achieve a formal tone and clear structure. Do you know what will help you the most? Wordtune !. 

The real-time grammar checker leaves no scope for errors and lets you retain precision in writing. This writing companion is all you need for stress-free working and comprehensive literature review development.

Let the narrative begin

A literary review isn't just about summarizing sources; it's about seamlessly bringing your perspective to the table. Always remember to set a narrative for added interest and a brilliant composition. With structure and style being the pillars of a stellar literature review, work with Wordtune to ensure zero compromises on the quality.

Share This Article:

The Official Wordtune Guide

An Expert Guide to Writing Effective Compound Sentences (+ Examples)

How I Turned Clutter into Cash: 10 Proven Instagram Copywriting Hacks

Looking for fresh content, thank you your submission has been received.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

• Open access
• Published: 01 April 2024

Strategies to implement evidence-informed decision making at the organizational level: a rapid systematic review

• Emily C. Clark 1 ,
• Trish Burnett 1 ,
• Rebecca Blair 1 ,
• Robyn L. Traynor 1 ,
• Leah Hagerman 1 &
• Maureen Dobbins 1 , 2  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  405 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Achievement of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) requires the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice. This rapid systematic review synthesizes evidence for strategies for the implementation of EIDM across organizations, mapping facilitators and barriers to the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model for behaviour change. The review was conducted to support leadership at organizations delivering public health services (health promotion, communicable disease prevention) to drive change toward evidence-informed public health.

A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases and by reviewing publications of key authors. Articles that describe interventions to drive EIDM within teams, departments, or organizations were eligible for inclusion. For each included article, quality was assessed, and details of the intervention, setting, outcomes, facilitators and barriers were extracted. A convergent integrated approach was undertaken to analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings.

Thirty-seven articles are included. Studies were conducted in primary care, public health, social services, and occupational health settings. Strategies to implement EIDM included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. Facilitators and barriers align with the COM-B model for behaviour change. Facilitators for capability include the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization, though staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss was a barrier to capability. For opportunity, facilitators include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time, and barriers include competing priorities. Facilitators identified for motivation include supportive organizational culture, expectations for new practices to occur, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong leadership support. Barriers include negative attitudes toward new practices, and lack of understanding and support from management.

This review provides a comprehensive analysis of facilitators and barriers for the implementation of EIDM in organizations for public health, mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change. The existing literature for strategies to support EIDM in public health illustrates several facilitators and barriers linked to realizing EIDM. Knowledge of these factors will help senior leadership develop and implement EIDM strategies tailored to their organization, leading to increased likelihood of implementation success.

Review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022318994.

Peer Review reports

There exist expectations that decisions and programs that affect public and population health are informed by the best available evidence from research, local context, and political will [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. To achieve evidence-informed public health, it is important that public health organizations engage in and support evidence-informed decision making (EIDM). For this review, “public health organizations” refers to organizations that implement public health programs, including health promotion, injury and disease prevention, population health monitoring, emergency preparedness and response, and other critical functions [ 4 ]. EIDM, at an organizational level, involves the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice [ 2 , 5 , 6 ]. EIDM considers research evidence along with other factors such as context, resources, experience, and patient/community input to influence decision making and program implementation [ 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 ]. When implemented, EIDM results in efficient use of scarce resources, encourages stakeholder involvement resulting in more effective programs and decisions, improves transparency and accountability of organizations, improves health outcomes, and reduces harm [ 3 , 7 , 8 ]. Therefore, it is important that EIDM is integrated into organizations serving public health.

Driving organizational change for EIDM is challenging due to the need for multifaceted interventions [ 9 ].While there are systematic reviews of the implementation of specific evidence-informed initiatives, reviews of implementation of organization-wide EIDM are lacking. For example, Mathieson et al. and Li et al. examined the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of evidence-informed interventions in community nursing and Paci et al. examined barriers in physiotherapy [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Li et al. found that implementation of evidence-informed practices is associated with an organizational culture for EIDM where staff at all levels value and contribute to EIDM [ 12 ]. Similarly, Mathieson et al. and Paci et al. found that organizational context plays an important role in evidence-informed practice implementation along with organizational support and resources [ 10 , 11 ]. While these reviews identify organizational context, culture and support as crucial for the implementation of a particular evidence-informed practice, they do not identify and describe sufficiently what and how an organization evolves to consistently be evidence-informed for all decisions and programs and services it delivers.

Primary studies have explored how building capacity for staff to find, interpret and synthesize evidence to develop practice and program recommendations may contribute to EIDM [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. In 2019, Saunders et al. completed an overview of systematic reviews on primary health care professionals’ EIDM competencies and found that implementation of EIDM across studies was low [ 9 ]. Participants reported insufficient knowledge and skills to implement EIDM in daily practice despite positive EIDM beliefs and attitudes [ 9 ]. In 2014, Sadeghi-Bazargani et al. and in 2018, Barzkar et al. also explored the implementation of EIDM and found similar results, listing inadequate skills and lack of knowledge amongst the most common barriers to EIDM [ 17 , 18 ].

An underlying current in research for organizational EIDM is a focus on organizational change [ 13 , 14 , 19 , 20 ]. To achieve EIDM across an organization, significant organizational change is usually necessary, resulting in substantial impact on the entire organization, as well as for individuals working there. However, while there are reviews of individual capacity for EIDM, there is minimal synthesized evidence describing EIDM capacity at the organizational level. This review seeks to address this research gap by identifying, appraising, and synthesizing research evidence from studies seeking to understand the process of embedding EIDM across an organization, with a focus on public health organizations.

The COM-B model for behaviour change was used as a guide for contextualizing the findings across studies. By integrating causal components of behaviour change, the COM-B model supports the development of interventions that can sustain behaviour change in the long-term. While there are numerous models available to support implementation and organizational change, the COM-B model was chosen, in part, for its simple visual representation of concepts, as well as its contributions to the sustainability of behaviours [ 21 ]. This model is designed to guide organizational change initiatives and distill complex systems that influence behaviour into simpler, visual representations. Specifically, this model looks at capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) as three key influencers of behaviour (B). The capability section of the COM-B model reflects whether the intended audience possess the knowledge and skills for a new behaviour. Opportunity reflects whether there is opportunity for new behaviour to occur, while motivation reflects whether there is sufficient motivation for a new behaviour to occur. All three components interact to create behaviour and behaviours can, in turn, alter capability, motivation and opportunity [ 21 ]. Selection of the COM-B model was also driven by authors’ extensive experience supporting public health organizations in implementing EIDM, which observed enablers for EIDM that align well with the COM-B model, such as team-wide capacity-building for EIDM, integration of EIDM into processes, and support from senior leadership [ 20 , 22 , 23 ]. The COM-B model has been used to map findings from systematic reviews examining the barriers and facilitators of various health interventions including nicotine replacement, chlamydia testing and lifestyle management of polycystic ovary syndrome [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. This review has a broader focus and maps barriers and facilitators for organization-wide EIDM to the COM-B model.

Overall, EIDM is expected to be a foundation at public health organizations to achieve optimal health of populations. However, the capacity of public health organizations to realize EIDM varies considerably from organization to organization [ 14 , 22 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. This rapid review aims to examine the implementation of EIDM at the organizational level to inform change efforts at Canadian public health organizations. The findings of this review can be applied more broadly and will support public health organizations beyond Canada to implement change efforts to practice in an evidence-informed way.

Study design

The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration CRD42022318994). The review was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ 30 ]. A rapid review approach was used, since the review was requested to be completed by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools’ Rapid Evidence Service within a specific timeline, in order to inform an organizational change initiative at a provincial public health organization in Canada [ 31 ]. Given the nature of the research question, a mixed methods rapid systematic review approach was taken, with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis [ 32 ].

Information sources and search strategy

The search was conducted on March 18, 2022. The following databases were searched from 2012 onward: Medline, Embase, Emcare, Global Health Database, PsycINFO, Web of Science. Each database was searched using combinations and variations of the terms “implement*”, “knowledge broker*”, “transform*”, “organizational culture”, “change management”, “evidence-based”, “knowledge translation”, and “knowledge mobilization”. Additionally, publications by key contributors to the field were reviewed. The full search strategy is included in Appendix 1 .

Studies were screened using DistillerSR software. Titles and abstracts of retrieved studies were screened by a single reviewer. Full texts of included studies were screened by a second reviewer and reviewed by a third. Screening was not completed in duplicate, consistent with a rapid review protocol [ 31 ]. To minimize the risk of bias, a subset of 100 retrieved articles were screened in duplicate at the title and abstract stage to ensure consistency across reviewers. Of this subset, there were four articles with conflicting decisions, which were discussed amongst screeners to clarify inclusion criteria.

Eligibility criteria

English-language, published primary studies with experimental or observational designs were eligible for inclusion. Review papers, such as literature and systematic reviews, were excluded to ensure that details regarding implementation of initiatives were captured without re-interpretation or generalization by review authors. Grey literature was not included. Eligibility criteria are outlined below in terms of a PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) structure [ 33 ].

Studies conducted with public sector health-related service-delivery organizations were eligible for inclusion. This included public health departments and authorities, health care settings and social services. Studies focused on departments or teams within an organization, or on entire organizations, were also eligible for inclusion. Studies conducted in private sectors or academic institutions were excluded to narrow the focus of the review.

Intervention

Interventions designed and implemented to shift teams, departments, or organizations to EIDM in all decisions were eligible for inclusion. These can include initiatives where organizations establish roles or teams to drive organizational change for EIDM, or efforts to build and apply the knowledge and skill of staff for EIDM. These are distinct from implementation strategies for evidence-informed interventions. Eligible interventions were applied to a team, department, or organization to drive change toward evidence use in decision making at all levels of the organizations.

Studies that included any comparator or no comparator were included, recognizing that literature was likely to include case reports.

Outcomes measured either quantitatively or qualitatively were considered. These included behaviour change, confidence and skills, patient-level data such as quality indicators, evidence of EIDM embedded in organizational and decision-making processes, changes in organizational culture, and changes to budget allocation. Studies that reported primarily on implementation fidelity were excluded, since studies of implementation fidelity focus on whether an intervention is delivered as intended, rather than drivers for organizational change.

Studies conducted in the 38 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) were included in this review to best align with the Canadian context and to inform organizational change efforts in public health within Canada [ 34 ].

Quality assessment

The methodological rigour of included studies was evaluated using the JBI suite of critical appraisal tools [ 35 ]. Ratings of low, moderate, or high quality were assigned based on the critical appraisal results. Quality assessment was completed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Conflicts were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Data extraction was completed by a single reviewer and reviewed by a second. Data on the study design, setting, sector (e.g., public health, primary care, etc.), participants, intervention (e.g., description of learning initiatives, implementation strategies, etc.), outcome measures, and findings were extracted. To minimize the risk of bias, a subset of three included articles underwent data extraction in duplicate to ensure consistency across reviewers. There was good agreement between duplicate extraction, with variations in the format of extracted data but consistency in content.

Data analysis

Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized simultaneously, using a convergent integrated approach [ 32 ]. Quantitative data underwent narrative synthesis, where findings that caused benefit were compared with those that caused harm or no effect [ 36 ]. Vote counting based on the direction of effect was used to determine whether most studies found a positive or negative effect [ 36 ]. For qualitative findings, studies were grouped according to common strategies. Within these common strategies, findings were reviewed for trends in reported facilitators and barriers. These trends were deductively mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change [ 37 ].

Due to the heterogeneity in study outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) [ 38 ] approach was not used for this review. Overall certainty of evidence was determined based on the risk of bias of included study designs and study quality.

Database searching retrieved 7067 records. After removing duplicates, 4174 records were screened by title and abstract, resulting in 1370 reports for full text review. Of those 1370 records, 35 articles were included. Scanning the publication lists of key authors retrieved 187 records, of which eight were retrieved for full text review and two were included, for a total of 37 articles included in this review. See Fig. 1 for a PRISMA flow chart illustrating the article search and selection process.

PRISMA 2020 flow chart

Study characteristics

The overall characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table 1 . Of 37 included studies, most were conducted in primary care settings ( n  = 16) and public health settings ( n  = 16), with some in social services ( n  = 3), child and youth mental health ( n  = 1), and occupational health ( n  = 1). Most studies were conducted in the USA ( n  = 17), followed by Canada ( n  = 12), Australia ( n  = 5), and Europe ( n  = 3).

Study designs included case reports ( n  = 18), single group pre-/post-test studies ( n  = 10), qualitative studies ( n  = 7), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ( n  = 2). Both RCTs evaluated the implementation of organizational EIDM.

Studies reported quantitative ( n  = 11), qualitative ( n  = 20), or both quantitative and qualitative results ( n  = 6). For the studies that reported quantitative results, measures included EIDM implementation, EIDM-related beliefs and behaviours, organizational priorities for EIDM, and patient care quality indicators. Quantitative measures were heterogenous and did not allow meta-analysis. Qualitative findings were generated through formal qualitative analysis ( n  = 19) or descriptive case reports ( n  = 7). Most qualitative results included facilitators and barriers to implementation ( n  = 16).

Study quality

The critical appraisal checklist used to assess each study is indicated in Table  1 . Single group, pre-/post-test studies were evaluated according to the JBI Checklist for Quasi-experimental Studies [ 35 ].

A lack of control groups contributed to the risk of bias. Most included studies were rated Moderate or High quality according to their respective quality assessment tools. Full quality assessments for each article are included in Appendix 2 . Therefore, the overall methodological quality for this body of literature was rated as Moderate.

Strategies for implementing organization-wide EIDM

Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions, and outcomes, it was not possible to determine which EIDM implementation strategies are more effective compared to others. Implementation strategies included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. These strategies are listed in Table  2 .

Evaluation of strategies implemented by studies in this review was often qualitative and described facilitators and barriers, rather than quantitatively measuring effectiveness. However, it is possible to explore EIDM implementation strategies and factors that appear to contribute to or inhibit success. The most common strategy implemented in included studies was the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles [ 20 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 71 , 72 ]. Studies described roles differently (e.g., “Evidence-based Practice Facilitator”, “Evidence Facilitator”, “EIDM Mentor”). These roles all served to support EIDM across organizations through knowledge sharing, evidence synthesis, implementation, and other EIDM-related activities. In some studies, new staff were hired to Knowledge Broker roles, or developed among existing staff, while in others, Knowledge Brokers were contracted from external organizations. Knowledge Broker strategies were mostly implemented in parallel with other EIDM implementation strategies, such as capacity building for staff, integrating EIDM into decision-making processes and development of leadership to support EIDM. When these strategies were evaluated quantitatively for organizational capacity, culture and implementation of EIDM, most studies found positive results, such as increased scores for organizational climates supporting EIDM, improved attitudes toward EIDM, or the integration of EIDM into processes [ 44 , 52 , 54 , 62 , 66 , 67 , 71 , 72 ], although some studies found no change [ 55 , 60 ] following implementation of Knowledge Broker roles. Qualitatively, most studies described facilitators and barriers to EIDM, either through formal qualitative analysis or case report [ 14 , 20 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 64 , 65 , 68 ]. Facilitators included organizational culture with supportive leadership and staff buy-in, expectations to use evidence to inform decisions, accessible knowledge, and integration of EIDM into processes and templates. Barriers included limited time and competing priorities, staff turnover, and lack of understanding and support from management.

Ten included studies focused primarily on building EIDM capacity of existing staff at the organization, often at multiple levels (e.g., front-line service providers, managers, and leadership) [ 13 , 14 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 58 , 61 ]. Capacity building was typically done through EIDM-focused workshops, often with ongoing follow up support from workshop facilitators. While studies often measured changes in individual knowledge and skill for EIDM for workshop participants, organizational change for EIDM was reported qualitatively, either through formal qualitative analysis or through a case report. Facilitators for EIDM in these ten studies included organizational culture with supportive leadership and staff buy-in, dedicated staff roles to support EIDM, opportunities to meet and discuss EIDM (e.g., communities of practice, journal clubs), knowledge sharing across the organization, expectations to use evidence to inform decisions, accessible knowledge, and integration of EIDM into processes and templates. Barriers included limited time and competing priorities, staff turnover, and negative attitudes toward EIDM.

Research or academic partnerships and networks were the main strategy described in three case reports [ 45 , 53 , 68 ]. These involved establishing collaborations, either through universities or non-governmental health organizations, that provided direct EIDM support. These strategies were not evaluated quantitatively but described facilitators and barriers to effective cross-sector collaborations. Facilitators for EIDM included supportive leadership and management, dedicated staff roles to support EIDM, EIDM knowledge and skill development for staff, and regular communication between partners. Barriers included limited time and competing priorities, preference for experiential over research evidence, and negative attitudes toward EIDM.

Overall, studies described successes in implementing EIDM across organizations, citing several common key facilitators and barriers. To instigate behaviour change, strategies must address capability for change, which may be achieved by building staff capacity, establishing dedicated support roles, improving access to evidence, and sharing knowledge across the organization. Strategies must also enable opportunities for change, which may be supported through forums for EIDM learning and practice, protecting time for EIDM, integrating EIDM into new or existing roles, and adding EIDM to processes and templates. Behaviour change also requires motivation, which may be built through a supportive organizational culture, expectations to use EIDM, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong support from leadership.

Key considerations for implementing EIDM

Many of the facilitators and barriers to EIDM are common across strategies explored by the studies included in this review. To conceptualize these factors, they were mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change [ 21 ] in Fig. 2 .

COM-B Model for behaviour change with facilitators and barriers for implementation of organization-wide EIDM

Within the capability component of the COM-B model, staff knowledge and skill development were included as a facilitator. Studies included in this review demonstrated that knowledge and skill for EIDM supported the use of evidence in decision making [ 13 , 14 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 58 , 61 ]. The establishment of specialized or dedicated roles for EIDM, such as Knowledge Broker roles, was included in the capability component of the COM-B model, since Knowledge Broker roles support the capacity of organizations and their staff to use evidence-informed approaches [ 20 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 71 , 72 ]. Finally, knowledge sharing across organizations was described as a facilitator for EIDM by several of the studies that built staff capacity for EIDM or established Knowledge Broker roles [ 13 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 65 ]. Barriers to the capability for EIDM behaviours include staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss [ 14 , 20 , 56 ]. Staff turnover is especially challenging for interventions that involve staff in dedicated Knowledge Broker roles and interventions that build the knowledge and skill for staff to engage in evidence use [ 14 , 20 , 56 ]. In some cases, individuals who are trained in the Knowledge Broker role are then promoted to new roles or management and have fewer opportunities to apply their Knowledge Broker skills [ 20 ].

The opportunity portion of the COM-B model reflects whether there is opportunity for new behaviour to occur. The development of processes and mechanisms that support new practices can act as a reminder for staff, and may include re-design of planning or decision-making templates to capture supporting evidence, or adding EIDM-related items to agendas for regular meetings [ 41 , 47 , 53 , 60 ]. Forums for learning and skill development provide staff with opportunities to gain knowledge and practice newly acquired skills in group settings, such as communities of practice or journal clubs [ 48 , 56 , 61 , 65 ]. Finally, protected time to apply EIDM was found to be a facilitator for opportunity in the COM-B model [ 20 , 47 , 57 , 59 , 65 ], while competing priorities were found to be a barrier [ 20 , 39 , 40 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 64 , 65 ].

The final influencer in the COM-B model, motivation, reflects whether there is sufficient motivation for a new behaviour to occur. Facilitators include supportive organizational culture [ 14 , 20 , 43 , 47 , 57 , 59 ], expectations for new practices to occur [ 20 , 40 ], recognition and positive reinforcement [ 52 , 59 , 60 , 65 ], and strong leadership support [ 14 , 20 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 47 , 56 , 59 , 65 , 68 ]. Barriers to motivation included a lack of understanding or support from management [ 20 ], and negative attitudes toward change [ 20 , 52 , 59 , 68 ].

Strategies to implement EIDM across organizations include establishing specialized roles, providing staff education and training, developing processes or mechanisms to support new practices, and demonstrating leadership support. Facilitators and barriers for these strategies align with the COM-B model for behaviour change, which outlines capability, opportunity, and motivation as influencers of behaviour (Fig. 2 ). The COM-B model provides a comprehensive framework for the factors that influence behaviour change and has provided a valuable structure for examining barriers and facilitators to behaviour change in public health and related fields [ 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 ].

The capability section of the COM-B model reflects whether the intended audience possess the knowledge and skill for a new behaviour. Findings from this review establish facilitators for EIDM implementation capability, including the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization. The development of staff knowledge and skill for EIDM are a necessary component to ensure EIDM in practice, however, literature has found that the organization-wide impact of conducting only individual-level knowledge and skill development is limited [ 77 , 78 , 79 ]. While knowledge and skill development are a necessary component to EIDM practice, they must be supported by other components to have an impact beyond the individual. Other strategies that support the use of newly gained knowledge and skills include the establishment of specialized roles for EIDM. Another strategy to support the use of EIDM is the establishment of dedicated staff roles, such as Knowledge Brokers. Knowledge Broker roles have been used across diverse contexts and show promise in supporting organization-wide EIDM implementation [ 20 , 22 , 23 , 67 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]. One facilitator for Knowledge Broker roles was knowledge sharing across the organization. Factors that influence the success of staff in Knowledge Broker roles align with those mapped to opportunity and motivation in the COM-B model, including the integration of EIDM into processes, knowledge sharing, and supportive organizational culture [ 20 , 22 , 47 , 67 , 84 , 85 ]. Knowledge Brokers can also help facilitate knowledge sharing across the organization, which was another facilitator mapped to the capability level of the model [ 20 , 47 , 84 , 85 ]. Knowledge sharing refers to the shared learning, knowledge products and resources for EIDM. At large public health organizations, it can be challenging to facilitate knowledge sharing between teams and departments [ 86 , 87 ]. Integrating technology can help; there have been some advances driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the development of knowledge sharing platforms [ 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 ]. Public health organizations seeking to implement EIDM should invest in their knowledge sharing infrastructure.

At the capability level of the COM-B model, staff turnover was a barrier to EIDM implementation. Organizations that implement these strategies should be cognizant of the potential for knowledge loss due to staff turnover when selecting staff for Knowledge Broker roles or capacity building opportunities.

Facilitators for organizational EIDM opportunity include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time. The use of reminders for organizational behaviour change and implementation of clinical practice guidelines has been shown to be an effective strategy across many contexts [ 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ]. Organizations seeking to implement EIDM should consider revising current templates and processes to support their initiatives. Another facilitator included forums for shared learning and skill development. Other literature shows that these forums can be effective in developing knowledge and skill and should foster an environment of learning without fear of reprisal [ 96 , 97 ]. Finally, protected time for EIDM was a facilitator and competing priorities were a barrier. In public health practice, staff are often challenged with high workloads, so that EIDM may be viewed as an additional burden rather than a means to improve practice [ 98 , 99 ]. For an EIDM approach to be practiced, staff must be provided with sufficient time to apply and practice skills. Organizations should consider involving middle management who oversee staff time allocations, rather than only senior leadership, to help ensure that staff are provided with the time they need and that expectations are adjusted accordingly [ 20 , 23 ].

At the motivation level of the COM-B model, supportive organizational culture was mapped as a facilitator. The influence of organizational culture on evidence-informed practice at health organizations has been explored in a previous systematic review by Li et al. [ 100 ]. This systematic review of organizational contextual factors that influence evidence-based practice included 37 studies conducted in healthcare-related settings. Findings align with facilitators identified above, especially leadership support, which was found to impact evidence-based practice as well as all other factors that influence evidence-based practice [ 100 ]. The review also found that monitoring and feedback contributed to implementation of evidence-based practice, which aligns with recognition and positive reinforcement in the COM-B model above [ 100 ]. Notably, another factor that was mapped to the COM-B model was the expectation for new practices to occur, which was not explicitly identified as an influence on practice [ 100 ]. While Li et al. acknowledge that leadership that neglects to hold staff accountable are detrimental to implementation of EIDM, this accountability and clear expectations for change practice were a stronger finding in this current rapid systematic review.

The need for leadership support aligns with opportunity, since it is often management that determines the allocation of staff time for EIDM [ 20 , 23 ]. Attitudes and the belief that EIDM is associated with positive outcomes is a key factor in overall competence for EIDM [ 101 ]. Efforts to address negative attitudes within staff, especially at the leadership level, may improve implementation of EIDM.

While this review provides a comprehensive overview of interventions to support EIDM in public health and related organizations, it does have some limitations. Given the heterogeneity of included studies, it was not possible to discern which implementation strategies for EIDM are more effective compared to others. Knowledge Broker roles, building capacity for EIDM, and research-academic partnerships were all shown to contribute to EIDM, but study findings do not support one strategy as superior to others. Given the highly contextual nature of these interventions, it is likely that the relative effectiveness of different interventions depends on the organization’s unique set of characteristics. Evaluation is also critical to determine if change efforts are successful or need to be adjusted. It is possible that a combination of strategies would maximize the likelihood that diverse needs of staff are met. Rigorous studies to evaluate this hypothesis are needed.

Most studies included in this review are non-randomized studies of interventions. Given the importance of context in organizational change, randomized controlled trial designs may not be well-suited to evaluate studies of EIDM implementation [ 102 ]. High-quality single-group studies, such as prospective cohort analytic studies evaluated with validated measures or qualitative descriptive analyses of case studies with thorough descriptions of interventions and context, may be more appropriate designs for designing future initiatives in this field. However, arguments have been made for the use of randomized trial designs in implementation research [ 103 ]. Foy et al. advocate for overcoming contextual barriers by using innovative trial designs, such as the multiphase optimization strategy approach, where a series of trials identify the most promising single or combined intervention components, or the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial approach, where early results inform tailoring of adaptive interventions [ 103 ]. These designs may be a promising approach to conducting trials within highly contextual settings. Another viewpoint is that perhaps it may not be essential to determine if one strategy is superior to another, but rather that strategies build a larger, multi-strategy approach to implementation [ 104 ]. There may be greater benefit to determining the conditions under which various strategies are effective [ 104 ].

A limitation in this review’s methodology is that the review was completed following a rapid review protocol to ensure timely completion. Modifications of a systematic review approach included the use of a single reviewer for screening and using an unblinded reviewer to check quality assessment and data extraction. This may have contributed to some bias within the review, due to the reviewers’ interpretations of studies. To minimize this bias, there were efforts to calibrate screening, quality assessment and data extraction using a subset of studies.

This review provides a synthesis of strategies for the organization-wide implementation of EIDM, and an in-depth analysis of their facilitators and barriers in public health organizations. Facilitators and barriers mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change can be used by organizational leadership to drive organizational change toward EIDM.

This rapid systematic review explored the implementation of EIDM at the organizational level of public health and related organizations. Despite the similarity of these implementation challenges, studies used distinct strategies for implementation, including the establishment of dedicated roles to support EIDM, building staff capacities, research or academic partnerships, and integrating evidence into processes or mechanisms. Facilitators and barriers mapped to the COM-B model provide key guidance for driving organizational change to evidence-informed approaches for all decisions.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

Evidence-informed Decision Making

Evidence-based Practice

Evidence-informed Practice

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Joanna Briggs Institute

Knowledge Translation

Randomized Controlled Trial

Public Health Agency of Canada. Core Competencies for Public Health in Canada. 1st ed. 2008.

Google Scholar  

National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Public Health 2022. Available from: https://www.nccmt.ca/tools/eiph .

World Health Organization. WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. Evidence, policy, impact. 2021.

Canadian Public Health Association. Public health: a conceptual framework. Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association; 2017.

Brownson RC, Gurney JG, Land GH. Evidence-based decision making in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1999;5(5):86–97.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kohatsu ND, Robinson JG, Torner JC. Evidence-based public health: an evolving concept. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(5):417–21.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Titler MG. The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Advances in Patient Safety. Rockville (MD); 2008.

Pan American Health Organization. A guide for evidence-informed decision-making, including in health emergencies. 2022.

Saunders H, Gallagher-Ford L, Kvist T, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K. Practicing Healthcare professionals’ evidence-based practice competencies: an overview of systematic reviews. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2019;16(3):176–85.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Paci M, Faedda G, Ugolini A, Pellicciari L. Barriers to evidence-based practice implementation in physiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;33(2):mzab093.

Mathieson A, Grande G, Luker K. Strategies, facilitators and barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice in community nursing: a systematic mixed-studies review and qualitative synthesis. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019;20:e6.

Li S, Cao M, Zhu X. Evidence-based practice: knowledge, attitudes, implementation, facilitators, and barriers among community nurses-systematic review. Med (Baltim). 2019;98(39):e17209.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ward M, Mowat D. Creating an organizational culture for evidence-informed decision making. Healthc Manage Forum. 2012;25(3):146–50.

Peirson L, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Mowat D. Building capacity for evidence informed decision making in public health: a case study of organizational change. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:137.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Allen P, Parks RG, Kang SJ, Dekker D, Jacob RR, Mazzucca-Ragan S, et al. Practices among Local Public Health Agencies to support evidence-based decision making: a qualitative study. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2023;29(2):213–25.

Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM, Lavis JN. Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:179.

Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Tabrizi JS, Azami-Aghdash S. Barriers to evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(6):793–802.

Barzkar F, Baradaran HR, Koohpayehzadeh J. Knowledge, attitudes and practice of physicians toward evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2018;11(4):246–51.

Clark E, Dobbins M, Hagerman L, Neumann S, Akaraci S. What is known about strategies to implement evidence-informed practice at an organizational level? Prospero; 2022.

Clark EC, Dhaliwal B, Ciliska D, Neil-Sztramko SE, Steinberg M, Dobbins M. A pragmatic evaluation of a public health knowledge broker mentoring education program: a convergent mixed methods study. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):18.

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.

Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4:61.

Dobbins M, Traynor RL, Workentine S, Yousefi-Nooraie R, Yost J. Impact of an organization-wide knowledge translation strategy to support evidence-informed public health decision making. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1412.

McDonagh LK, Saunders JM, Cassell J, Curtis T, Bastaki H, Hartney T, et al. Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):130.

Mersha AG, Gould GS, Bovill M, Eftekhari P. Barriers and facilitators of adherence to nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review and analysis using the capability, opportunity, motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) Model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):8895.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pirotta S, Joham AJ, Moran LJ, Skouteris H, Lim SS. Implementation of evidence-based PCOS lifestyle management guidelines: perceived barriers and facilitators by consumers using the theoretical domains Framework and COM-B Model. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(8):2080–8.

Dubois A, Lévesque M. Canada’s National Collaborating centres: facilitating evidence-informed decision-making in public health. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2020;46(2–3):31–5.

Martin W, Wharf Higgins J, Pauly BB, MacDonald M. Layers of translation - evidence literacy in public health practice: a qualitative secondary analysis. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):803.

van der Graaf P, Forrest LF, Adams J, Shucksmith J, White M. How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):892.

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

Neil-Sztramko SE, Belita E, Traynor RL, Clark E, Hagerman L, Dobbins M. Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):231.

Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P, Loveday H. Chapter 8: mixed methods systematic reviews. Aromataris EMZ. 2020.

Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Bhaumik S. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Chapter 2: determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. editor: Cochrane: Higgins JPT TJ; 2023.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. List of OECD Member countries - Ratification of the Convention on the OECD; 2021. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/about/document/ratification-oecd-convention.htm .

Joanna Briggs Institute. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools .

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. 2021.

Brogly C, Bauer MA, Lizotte DJ, Press ML, MacDougall A, Speechley M, et al. An app-based Surveillance System for undergraduate students’ Mental Health during the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a prospective cohort study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2021;10(9):e30504.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.

Allen P, O’Connor JC, Best LA, Lakshman M, Jacob RR, Brownson RC. Management practices to build evidence-based decision-making capacity for Chronic Disease Prevention in Georgia: a Case Study. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:E92.

Allen P, Jacob RR, Lakshman M, Best LA, Bass K, Brownson RC. Lessons learned in promoting evidence-based Public Health: perspectives from Managers in State Public Health Departments. J Community Health. 2018;43(5):856–63.

Augustino LR, Braun L, Heyne RE, Shinn A, Lovett-Floom L, King H, et al. Implementing evidence-based practice facilitators: a Case Series. Mil Med. 2020;185(Suppl 2):7–14.

Awan S, Samokhvalov AV, Aleem N, Hendershot CS, Irving JA, Kalvik A, et al. Development and implementation of an Ambulatory Integrated Care Pathway for Major Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Dependence. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66(12):1265–7.

Bennett S, Whitehead M, Eames S, Fleming J, Low S, Caldwell E. Building capacity for knowledge translation in occupational therapy: learning through participatory action research. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):257.

Breckenridge-Sproat ST, Throop MD, Raju D, Murphy DA, Loan LA, Patrician PA. Building a unit-level Mentored Program to sustain a culture of Inquiry for evidence-based practice. Clin Nurse Spec. 2015;29(6):329–37.

Brodowski ML, Counts JM, Gillam RJ, Baker L, Collins VS, Winkle E, Skala J, Stokes K, Gomez R, Redmon J. Translating evidence-based policy to practice: a Multilevel Partnership using the interactive systems Framework. J Contemp Social Serv. 2018;94(3):141–9.

Brownson RC, Allen P, Jacob RR, deRuyter A, Lakshman M, Reis RS, et al. Controlling Chronic diseases through evidence-based decision making: a Group-Randomized Trial. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:E121.

Dobbins M, Greco L, Yost J, Traynor R, Decorby-Watson K, Yousefi-Nooraie R. A description of a tailored knowledge translation intervention delivered by knowledge brokers within public health departments in Canada. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):63.

Elliott MJ, Allu S, Beaucage M, McKenzie S, Kappel J, Harvey R, et al. Defining the scope of knowledge translation within a National, Patient-Oriented Kidney Research Network. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2021;8:20543581211004803.

Fernandez ME, Melvin CL, Leeman J, Ribisl KM, Allen JD, Kegler MC, et al. The cancer prevention and control research network: an interactive systems approach to advancing cancer control implementation research and practice. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(11):2512–21.

Flaherty HB, Bornheimer LA, Hamovitch E, Garay E, Mini de Zitella ML, Acri MC, et al. Examining organizational factors supporting the adoption and use of evidence-based interventions. Community Ment Health J. 2021;57(6):1187–94.

Gallagher-Ford L. Implementing and sustaining EBP in real world healthcare settings: transformational evidence-based leadership: redesigning traditional roles to promote and sustain a culture of EBP. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2014;11(2):140–2.

Gifford W, Lefebre N, Davies B. An organizational intervention to influence evidence-informed decision making in home health nursing. J Nurs Adm. 2014;44(7/8):395–402.

Haynes A, Rowbotham S, Grunseit A, Bohn-Goldbaum E, Slaytor E, Wilson A, et al. Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):13.

Hitch D, Lhuede K, Vernon L, Pepin G, Stagnitti K. Longitudinal evaluation of a knowledge translation role in occupational therapy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):154.

Hooge N, Allen DH, McKenzie R, Pandian V. Engaging advanced practice nurses in evidence-based practice: an e-mentoring program. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2022;19(3):235–44.

Humphries S, Hampe T, Larsen D, Bowen S. Building organizational capacity for evidence use: the experience of two Canadian healthcare organizations. Healthc Manage Forum. 2013;26(1):26–32.

Irwin MM, Bergman RM, Richards R. The experience of implementing evidence-based practice change: a qualitative analysis. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(5):544–9.

Kaplan L, Zeller E, Damitio D, Culbert S, Bayley KB. Improving the culture of evidence-based practice at a Magnet(R) hospital. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2014;30(6):274–80. quiz E1-2.

Kimber M, Barwick M, Fearing G. Becoming an evidence-based service provider: staff perceptions and experiences of organizational change. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2012;39(3):314–32.

Mackay HJ, Campbell KL, van der Meij BS, Wilkinson SA. Establishing an evidenced-based dietetic model of care in haemodialysis using implementation science. Nutr Diet. 2019;76(2):150–7.

Martin-Fernandez J, Aromatario O, Prigent O, Porcherie M, Ridde V, Cambon L. Evaluation of a knowledge translation strategy to improve policymaking and practices in health promotion and disease prevention setting in French regions: TC-REG, a realist study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e045936.

Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E, Giggleman M, Choy K. A test of the ARCC(c) model improves implementation of evidence-based practice, Healthcare Culture, and patient outcomes. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2017;14(1):5–9.

Miro A, Perrotta K, Evans H, Kishchuk NA, Gram C, Stanwick RS, et al. Building the capacity of health authorities to influence land use and transportation planning: lessons learned from the healthy Canada by Design CLASP Project in British Columbia. Can J Public Health. 2014;106(1 Suppl 1):eS40–52.

Parke B, Stevenson L, Rowe M. Scholar-in-Residence: an Organizational Capacity-Building Model to move evidence to action. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2015;28(2):10–22.

Plath D. Organizational processes supporting evidence-based practice. Adm Social work. 2013;37(2):171–88.

Roberts M, Reagan DR, Behringer B. A Public Health Performance Excellence Improvement Strategy: Diffusion and Adoption of the Baldrige Framework within Tennessee Department of Health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2020;26(1):39–45.

Traynor R, DeCorby K, Dobbins M. Knowledge brokering in public health: a tale of two studies. Public Health. 2014;128(6):533–44.

van der Zwet RJM, Beneken genaamd Kolmer DM, Schalk R, Van Regenmortel T. Implementing evidence-based practice in a Dutch Social Work Organisation: A Shared responsibility. Br J Social Work. 2020;50(7):2212–32.

Waterman H, Boaden R, Burey L, Howells B, Harvey G, Humphreys J, et al. Facilitating large-scale implementation of evidence based health care: insider accounts from a co-operative inquiry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:60.

Williams NJ, Wolk CB, Becker-Haimes EM, Beidas RS. Testing a theory of strategic implementation leadership, implementation climate, and clinicians’ use of evidence-based practice: a 5-year panel analysis. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):10.

Williams C, van der Meij BS, Nisbet J, McGill J, Wilkinson SA. Nutrition process improvements for adult inpatients with inborn errors of metabolism using the i-PARIHS framework. Nutr Diet. 2019;76(2):141–9.

Williams NJ, Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P. Mechanisms of change in the ARC Organizational Strategy: increasing Mental Health clinicians’ EBP adoption through improved Organizational Culture and Capacity. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017;44(2):269–83.

Alexander KE, Brijnath B, Mazza D. Barriers and enablers to delivery of the healthy kids check: an analysis informed by the theoretical domains Framework and COM-B model. Implement Sci. 2014;9:60.

McArthur C, Bai Y, Hewston P, Giangregorio L, Straus S, Papaioannou A. Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):70.

Moffat A, Cook EJ, Chater AM. Examining the influences on the use of behavioural science within UK local authority public health: qualitative thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the COM-B model and theoretical domains Framework. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1016076.

De Leo A, Bayes S, Bloxsome D, Butt J. Exploring the usability of the COM-B model and theoretical domains Framework (TDF) to define the helpers of and hindrances to evidence-based practice in midwifery. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2(1):7.

Morshed AB, Ballew P, Elliott MB, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Brownson RC. Evaluation of an online training for improving self-reported evidence-based decision-making skills in cancer control among public health professionals. Public Health. 2017;152:28–35.

Jones K, Armstrong R, Pettman T, Waters E. Knowledge translation for researchers: developing training to support public health researchers KTE efforts. J Public Health (Oxf). 2015;37(2):364–6.

Dreisinger M, Leet TL, Baker EA, Gillespie KN, Haas B, Brownson RC. Improving the public health workforce: evaluation of a training course to enhance evidence-based decision making. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(2):138–43.

Mendell J, Richardson L. Integrated knowledge translation to strengthen public policy research: a case study from experimental research on income assistance receipt among people who use drugs. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):153.

Russell DJ, Rivard LM, Walter SD, Rosenbaum PL, Roxborough L, Cameron D, et al. Using knowledge brokers to facilitate the uptake of pediatric measurement tools into clinical practice: a before-after intervention study. Implement Sci. 2010;5:92.

Brown KM, Elliott SJ, Robertson-Wilson J, Vine MM, Leatherdale ST. Can knowledge exchange support the implementation of a health-promoting schools approach? Perceived outcomes of knowledge exchange in the COMPASS study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):351.

Langeveld K, Stronks K, Harting J. Use of a knowledge broker to establish healthy public policies in a city district: a developmental evaluation. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:271.

Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:162.

Sarkies MN, Robins LM, Jepson M, Williams CM, Taylor NF, O’Brien L, et al. Effectiveness of knowledge brokering and recommendation dissemination for influencing healthcare resource allocation decisions: a cluster randomised controlled implementation trial. PLoS Med. 2021;18(10):e1003833.

Jansen MW, De Leeuw E, Hoeijmakers M, De Vries NK. Working at the nexus between public health policy, practice and research. Dynamics of knowledge sharing in the Netherlands. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:33.

Sibbald SL, Kothari A. Creating, synthesizing, and sharing: the management of knowledge in Public Health. Public Health Nurs. 2015;32(4):339–48.

Barnes SJ. Information management research and practice in the post-COVID-19 world. Int J Inf Manage. 2020;55:102175.

Dwivedi YH, Coombs DL, Constantiniou C, Duan I, Edwards Y, Gupta JS, Lal B, Misra B, Prashant S, Raman P, Rana R, Sharma NP, Upadhyay SK. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: transforming education, work and life. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;55:102211.

Krausz M, Westenberg JN, Vigo D, Spence RT, Ramsey D. Emergency response to COVID-19 in Canada: platform development and implementation for eHealth in Crisis Management. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e18995.

Smith RW, Jarvis T, Sandhu HS, Pinto AD, O’Neill M, Di Ruggiero E, et al. Centralization and integration of public health systems: perspectives of public health leaders on factors facilitating and impeding COVID-19 responses in three Canadian provinces. Health Policy. 2023;127:19–28.

Pereira VC, Silva SN, Carvalho VKS, Zanghelini F, Barreto JOM. Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):13.

Tomsic I, Heinze NR, Chaberny IF, Krauth C, Schock B, von Lengerke T. Implementation interventions in preventing surgical site infections in abdominal surgery: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):236.

Harrison R, Fischer S, Walpola RL, Chauhan A, Babalola T, Mears S, et al. Where do models for Change Management, improvement and implementation meet? A systematic review of the applications of Change Management models in Healthcare. J Healthc Leadersh. 2021;13:85–108.

Correa VC, Lugo-Agudelo LH, Aguirre-Acevedo DC, Contreras JAP, Borrero AMP, Patino-Lugo DF, et al. Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):74.

Valizadeh L, Zamanzadeh V, Alizadeh S, Namadi Vosoughi M. Promoting evidence-based nursing through journal clubs: an integrative review. J Res Nurs. 2022;27(7):606–20.

Portela Dos Santos O, Melly P, Hilfiker R, Giacomino K, Perruchoud E, Verloo H, et al. Effectiveness of educational interventions to increase skills in evidence-based practice among nurses: the EDITcare. Syst Rev Healthc (Basel). 2022;10(11):2204.

Shelton RC, Lee M. Sustaining evidence-based interventions and policies: recent innovations and future directions in implementation science. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(S2):S132–4.

Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Green LW. Building Capacity for evidence-based Public Health: reconciling the pulls of Practice and the push of Research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:27–53.

Li SA, Jeffs L, Barwick M, Stevens B. Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):72.

Belita E, Yost J, Squires JE, Ganann R, Dobbins M. Development and content validation of a measure to assess evidence-informed decision-making competence in public health nursing. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248330.

Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, et al. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4:23.

Foy R, Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Wilson PM. What is the role of randomised trials in implementation science? Trials. 2023;24(1):537.

Pawson R. Pragmatic trials and implementation science: grounds for divorce? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):176.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the NCCMT’s Rapid Evidence Service, particularly Alyssa Kostopoulos, Sophie Neumann and Selin Akaraci, for their contributions to this review.

The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools is hosted by McMaster University and funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The funder had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University, McMaster Innovation Park, 175 Longwood Rd S, Suite 210a, Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A1, Canada

Emily C. Clark, Trish Burnett, Rebecca Blair, Robyn L. Traynor, Leah Hagerman & Maureen Dobbins

School of Nursing, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, 2J20, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

Maureen Dobbins

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

E.C.C. and M.D. designed the study. E.C.C., L.H., R.B., R.L.T., and T.B. completed screening, quality assessment and data extraction. E.C. and M.D. analyzed study results. E.C.C. and T.B. wrote the manuscript in consultation with M.D. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maureen Dobbins .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clark, E.C., Burnett, T., Blair, R. et al. Strategies to implement evidence-informed decision making at the organizational level: a rapid systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 405 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10841-3

Download citation

Received : 23 October 2023

Accepted : 07 March 2024

Published : 01 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10841-3

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

• Evidence-informed decision making
• Evidence-based practice
• Knowledge translation
• Knowledge mobilization
• Implementation
• Organizational change

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

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
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 02 April 2024

How do we study misogyny in the digital age? A systematic literature review using a computational linguistic approach

• Lara Fontanella   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5441-0035 1 ,
• Berta Chulvi 2 , 3 ,
• Elisa Ignazzi 4 ,
• Annalina Sarra 5 &
• Alice Tontodimamma 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  478 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Cultural and media studies

Nowadays, despite centuries of striving for equality, women still face higher levels of discrimination compared to men in nearly every aspect of life. Recently, this systemic inequality has manifested in cyberspace through the proliferation of abusive content that is even more aggressive than what one would expect in the 21st century. Various research disciplines are now attempting to characterise this new manifestation of misogyny. The endeavour to comprehend this phenomenon has resulted in a significant increase in publications from several fields, including Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Computer Science. This paper presents a systematic review of multidisciplinary research on misogyny from the years 1990 to 2022, encompassing a total of 2830 articles retrieved from the Scopus database as of December 31, 2022. The literature is thoroughly analysed using three approaches: bibliometric analysis, topic detection, and qualitative analysis of the documents. The findings suggest that the analysis of online misogyny has been the primary driver behind the exponential growth in publications in this field. Additionally, the results of the topic analysis and topic interaction reveal a limited connection between the areas of knowledge that are necessary to fully grasp this complex phenomenon.

Introduction

Nowadays, regardless of centuries of fighting for equality, women continue to face a disproportionate amount of discrimination compared to men across various contexts. Women and girls encounter prejudice, sexist attitudes, open discrimination, and violence throughout their lives, while the extent of these experiences varies by location, identity, and culture. Disgust, intolerance, or entrenched prejudice, serving to legitimise women’s oppression, persist even in countries often alleged to be post-patriarchal, like the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Manne, 2017 ). The all-pervasive form of hostility and aversion against women and girls is referred to as misogyny, a term derived from the Ancient Greek word “mĩsoguniã”, which means hatred of women. According to Allen ( 2021 ), misogyny has a disputed definition. Some authors offer a definition of misogyny that, in some respects, overlaps with the concept of sexism. For example, Code ( 2000 ) defines misogyny as any of the following acts or feelings: sexual and physical violence against women, exclusion of women, promotion of patriarchy, belittlement, and marginalisation of women. In this approach, the promotion of patriarchy, broadly conceptualised as a system or systems producing and reproducing gendered and intersectional inequalities, is clearly the spread of a sexist mentality. Here, sexism is linked to the acceptance of sex-role stereotypes and can manifest at various levels: individual, organisational, institutional, and cultural (VandenBos, 2015 ). In the same line of reasoning, Jukes ( 1993 ) states that misogyny can be obvious and explicit at times, but it can also be subtle and insidious. However, the subtle expression of misogyny is more linked to sexist attitudes than to the expression of hate. Other authors, such as Manne ( 2017 ), set out a clear distinction between sexism and misogyny. In her book, “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny”, Kate Manne ( 2017 ) describes misogyny as the patriarchal order’s “law enforcement” branch, which rewards “good” women who adhere to social norms while punishing those who disobey. Sexism, on the other hand, is viewed as the “justificatory” branch, which rationalises and justifies male dominance through beliefs, theories, stereotypes, and cultural narratives that portray women as naturally inferior. This conceptual debate is due to two reasons. First, the fact that misogyny is strictly linked to the concepts of patriarchy and sexism, and second, the evidence that our societies are facing new ways of conveying misogynistic content in the form of open denigration of women.

Focusing on the link between concepts that describe women’s discrimination, it is evident that the powerful dynamics of a patriarchal society contribute to the development of a sexist culture, and this leads to the oppression of women both in their personal lives and within societal institutions (Millet, 1970 ). Additionally, hostile and benevolent sexism (Glick and Fiske, 1997 ) functions to preserve patriarchy and conventional gender norms. Benevolent sexism manifests through subjectively positive attitudes towards women in traditional roles, encompassing protective paternalism, idealisation, and a desire for intimacy. On the other hand, hostile sexism is expressed in a blatant and resentful way toward women who violate traditional roles and includes the negative equivalents of each dimension of benevolent sexism: dominant paternalism, derogatory beliefs, and heterosexual hostility. The aforementioned patriarchal culture legitimises openly misogynistic expressions, which represent the most extreme manifestation of aggression against women.

In this complex dynamic, studies from different disciplines tend to use different terminology when examining hostility towards women. Specifically, research in psychology is more inclined to use terms related to sexism, especially in distinguishing between hostile and benevolent sexism, and the notion of patriarchy is extensively examined in social science, particularly in sociological studies. The concept of misogyny is more commonly used in communication studies and computational science. The findings reported in the Supplementary Material provide evidence of the emphasis of different disciplines on different concepts.

Regarding the emergence of new ways of transmitting misogynistic content, the rise of interactive social media has been widely considered (Moloney and Love, 2018 ; Rubio Martìn and Gordo Lòpez, 2021 ; Tranchese and Sugiura, 2021 ).

Misogyny on the internet is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, legislation pertaining to women’s online safety dates back to the Beijing Declaration in 1995. However, it was not until the events of Gamergate Footnote 1 (Massanari, 2020 ) in August 2014 that the mainstream media and academic research took notice. In fact, in the gaming community, 2014 saw the emergence of the controversy and online movement known as “Gamergate”. It started out as a reaction to questions about ethics in video game journalism, but it soon turned into a harassment campaign directed at female journalists. The movement brought attention to misogyny, sexism, and the need for diversity in the gaming industry.

With the development of social networks, the historical aversion to women has become articulated through new modes of communication and social interaction. While digital spaces have amplified female voices, online platforms have notoriously facilitated the spread of misogynistic content: women’s systematic inequality and discrimination have been replicated in cyberspace in the form of abusive content much more aggressive than we would have expected in the 21st century (Bates, 2021 ). The online realm provides ample opportunities for misogyny to be linguistically expressed in various ways, ranging from subtle forms such as social exclusion and discrimination to more severe forms like sexual objectification and violent threats (Anzovino et al., 2018 ). Studies examining online misogynistic discourse have employed different terminology, such as “gender cyber hatred” (Jane, 2017 ), “cyber harassment” (Citron, 2014 ), “technological violence” (Ostini and Hopkins, 2015 ), “gender trolling” (Mantilla, 2013 ), “e-bile”, and “gender hate speech” (Jane, 2015 ). Other scholars (see, for instance, Ging and Siapera, 2018 ) chose to use a broader definition of misogyny which almost always results in some form of harm, either directly, in the form of psychological, professional, or physical harm, or indirectly, making the internet a less equal, less safe, or less inclusive space for women and girls.

Our study aims to investigate the current state of research on misogyny. For this purpose, we focus on the scientific literature on this subject during the period between 1990 and 2022. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first systematic review on misogyny which combines three approaches: bibliometrics, topic detection, and qualitative analysis of the documents.

For the bibliometric research, we first analyse the existing literature extracted from the Scopus database within the misogyny research field by exploiting bibliometric tools. Bibliometric analysis provides a systematic, transparent, and replicable manner to investigate extant literature in a given field and discover the progress of disciplinary research from a macro perspective, supporting future research directions. Using bibliometric methods, we explore the main lines of research in the scientific literature on misogyny and offer a summary of the research activity in terms of the volume of work and evolution over time, as well as in terms of the social, intellectual and conceptual structures of this research area.

Although bibliometric tools provide a broad overview of current research, they cannot deliver detailed insights into studies in the literature based on semantic content analysis. In order to conduct an in-depth semantic analysis, it is necessary to supplement bibliometric methods with text-mining techniques (Hu et al., 2014 ). In accordance, our work employs topic analysis based on the Latent Dirichlet Allocation method (LDA; Blei et al., 2003 ) in order to identify the most prevalent latent themes in misogyny literature. LDA is gaining popularity among scholars in diverse fields (Alghamdi and Alfalqi, 2015 ). Two important findings emerge from a topic model: a list of topics (i.e., clusters of words that appear frequently together) and a list of documents that are strongly associated with each topic. As a result, this method offers a probabilistic quantification of relevance for both the identification of topics and the classification of documents, making it useful for locating interpretable topics with semantic meaning and assigning these topics to literature documents (Tontodimamma et al., 2021 ). According to Suominen and Toivanen ( 2016 ), the main innovation of topic modelling in categorising scientific knowledge is that it essentially eliminates the need to fit knowledge that is brand-new to the world into definitions that are already well-established.

Finally, we complement the study with a qualitative analysis aimed to discover the sociological perspective of the literature on online misogyny, on the one hand, and the computational aspects, on the other hand.

Bibliometric analyses

Bibliographic dataset.

For the analysis, we use a bibliometric dataset covering the period 1990–2022, retrieved from the Scopus database on 31 December 2022. Since we focus on the broad spectrum of scientific research on misogyny, the bibliographic dataset was extracted by looking for publications containing terms related to the generic query “misogyn*” in the content of the title, abstract, and keywords. All types of publications were included in the search, and 2830 documents were retrieved. The top publication fields include Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Computer Science.

Information about document distribution by research field is given in the Supplementary Material , along with the document distribution by source and the ranking of the most productive countries and authors.

Research activity

The evolution over time of the number of published documents shows remarkable growth (see Fig. 1 ). We found out that the number of published documents has increased dramatically over time. Since 1992, it has been possible to distinguish two distinct phases. A gradual increase in publications occurred during the first phase, which lasted from 1990 to 2010. The second phase, from 2010 to 2022, has a higher growth rate, indicating increased interest. This finding aligns with the three-stage development theory (Price, 1963 ) of productivity on a particular subject. Small increments in the scientific literature are documented during the precursor period when some scholars begin publishing research on a new topic. The number of papers increases exponentially in the second phase as the topic expands and draws a growing number of scientists, as many facets of the subject remain unexplored. Finally, in the third phase, the curve aspect shifts from exponential to logistic, testifying to a stabilisation in production and a consolidation of the body of knowledge.

Number of publications on misogyny per year: observed and expected temporal evolution according to exponential growth.

To verify the rapid increase, we fit an exponential growth curve to the data. The yearly rate of change in this model is 13.1%, demonstrating how research on misogyny might be cast in the second phase of development: although more research is being released, there is still space for improvement in many areas.

It is noteworthy to highlight that, as shown in the Supplementary Material , the research on misogyny from 1990 to 2002 follows a similar trend as sexism and has a slightly higher yearly growth rate compared to patriarchy. However, when considering only the five years prior to 2022, a more noticeable rise in the volume of published research on misogyny becomes evident, with a twofold increase in the number of published documents.

Social Structure of research on misogyny: collaboration network

To capture the essential characteristics of the misogyny research field, with a specific emphasis on collaborative efforts among different authors, we construct the authors’ collaboration network. We used the Bibliometrix R package, for performing network analysis and visualisation (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ). Within the collaboration network, researchers act as nodes, and the connections between them (edges) represent co-authorships on articles. The node size is indicative of the authors’ productivity, measured in terms of the number of manuscripts authored or co-authored. The edges are weighted according to the frequency of co-authorship. Figure 2 visually illustrates the collaboration network among authors, highlighting the most significant cliques, each distinguished by different colours. The term “clique” is commonly employed to identify highly interconnected groups of elements, such as nodes or vertices, within a network. In our context, a “clique” signifies a group of authors who closely and frequently collaborate with one another compared to their counterparts, thereby creating a densely interconnected structure within the network. The most central scholars, with the highest number of connections, are Elisabetta Fersini, Paolo Rosso, Bilal Ghanem and Viviana Patti, who are also among the most proficient authors in the field of research on misogyny, as shown in the Supplementary Material . The noteworthy aspect is that the densest subgraphs link authors whose research falls under the computer science category.

Authors’ collaboration network.

Intellectual Structure of research on misogyny: citation analysis

The top five documents with the highest number of citations are: “Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures” (Massanari, 2017 ), “Down girl: The logic of misogyny” (Manne, 2017 ), “Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical re-examination” (Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1995 ), “Post-postfeminism?: new feminist visibilities in postfeminist times” (Gill, 2016 ) and “Beauty and Misogyny Harmful Cultural Practices in the West” (Jeffreys, 2005 ). These works investigate misogyny from various angles.

Manne’s book explores the logic of misogyny, which “primarily targets women because they are women in a man’s world ” (Manne, 2017 , p. 64). Manne argues that misogyny still exists in alleged post-patriarchal cultures and has taken different forms since legal equality, requiring women to be moral “givers” and validating a sense of entitlement among privileged men. Misogyny often takes the form of taking from women what they supposedly owe men and preventing women from competing for positions of power and authority traditionally held by men. In addition, Manne examines various examples of rape culture, including online harassment.

Considering attitudes toward sexual violence, Lonsway and Fitzgerald investigate the relationship between misogyny and rape myth acceptance. Here, rape myths can be defined as “attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” (Lonsway and Fitzgerald, 1994 , pag. 134).

From a feminist perspective, Jeffreys argues that some Western beauty practices (e.g., makeup, high-heeled shoes, breast implants) should be included in the United Nations’ definition of harmful traditional/cultural practices due to the damaging effects they have on women’s health, the creation of sexual difference, and the enforcement of female deference. Gill’s article contends that it is crucial to examine how the media portrays feminism and to delve into the complexities of a cultural moment that seems to be characterised by a range of feminist ideologies (both contemporary and traditional), as well as a resurgence of anti-feminist attitudes and prevalent misogyny.

Massanari’s research centres on online misogyny and is based on a long-term participant-observation and ethnographic study of Reddit’s culture and community. The research specifically focuses on the #Gamergate and The Fappening cases. The Fappening involved the illegal distribution of nude photos of celebrities via anonymous image-board 4chan and Reddit, while #Gamergate was ostensibly about ethics in gaming journalism but became a campaign of harassment against female and minority game developers, journalists, and critics. The study highlights how Reddit’s design, algorithm, and platform politics implicitly support toxic technocultures, providing a fertile ground for anti-feminist and misogynistic movements to flourish. Online misogyny is also discussed in the papers with the highest number of local citations (i.e., citations from other documents within our bibliographic dataset): “#MasculinitySoFragile: Culture, structure, and networked misogyny” (Banet-Weiser and Miltner, 2016 ), “Back to the kitchen, cunt: Speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny” (Jane, 2014 ), and “Drinking male tears: language, the Manosphere, and networked harassment” (Marwick and Caplan, 2018 ).

Conceptual Structure of research on misogyny

To understand the conceptual structure of the research on misogyny, we initially performed an exploratory analysis of the textual content of the keywords chosen by the authors.

Figure 3 shows the most used keywords, after removing the term “misogyny”. Besides the extensive terms gender, feminism and sexism, we find keywords related to the phenomenon of violence against women, to the emerging theme of the Manosphere and to the classical theme of patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity. It is also worth noting the presence of several keywords strictly linked to the online diffusion of misogynistic content.

Most used keywords.

To deepen the analysis, a conceptual structure map (see Fig. 4 ) of the literature on misogyny was created using the Bibliometrix R package (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ), which enables performing multiple correspondence analysis (MCA, Greenacre and Blasius, 2006 ) and hierarchical clustering. MCA, in particular, allows the generation of a low-dimensional Euclidean representation of the original data matrix by performing a homogeneity analysis of the “documents by keywords” indicator matrix, which is constructed by taking into account a dummy variable for each keyword. The words are plotted on a two-dimensional plane, where closer words have a more consistent distribution across the documents.

Conceptual map of research on misogyny.

The two dimensions of the maps that emerged from the MCA can be interpreted as follows. The first dimension separates keywords emphasising the problem of misogyny in general and on social media platforms (on the right) from those related to the methodological aspects of the automatic detection of misogynistic language (on the left). The second dimension separates keywords emphasising the problem of misogyny from a general point of view (on the upper) from those related to the Manosphere and Incels ( involuntary celibates ) and their presence on the Reddit platform (on the bottom). Figure 4 also displays the results obtained through a hierarchical cluster analysis carried out adopting the method of average linkage on the factorial coordinates obtained through MCA. Five clusters emerge from the conceptual structure map. The orange cluster refers to publications related to the automatic detection of misogynistic content through machine learning and deep learning techniques. The green cluster displays the connection between misogyny and hate speech and the exploitation of Natural Language Processing (NLP) methodologies to investigate these phenomena. The blue cluster refers to the intersectionality of research on misogyny. The red cluster is strictly linked to studies of the presence of misogynistic content on social media. Finally, the purple cluster is related to publications dealing with the topics of the Manosphere and the Incel phenomenon.

Research themes in misogyny literature

A topic modelling approach is exploited to investigate the textual content of title, abstract and authors’ keywords to give extra insight into multiple latent themes emerging from the literature on misogyny. To reveal the themes, research interests and trends of studies in the existing misogyny literature, we rely on the LDA model.

Topic analysis: LDA model

LDA is an unsupervised machine-learning-based algorithm allowing to discovery of latent (unobserved) “topics” in large unstructured text datasets (Blei et al., 2003 ). Previous research applied LDA to bibliometrics as an efficient tool for understanding a field’s rich underlying topical structure (see, among others, Suominen and Toivanen, 2016 , Tontodimamma et al., 2021 ). The idea behind LDA is that documents contain multiple topics, and each topic is represented as a probability distribution over terms in a fixed vocabulary, with different topics represented by different probabilities of words in the vocabulary. LDA generative process specifies a joint distribution of hidden and observed variables. The algorithm aims to estimate the posterior distribution of the hidden variables given the observed data, but exact inference is intractable, requiring approximate inference algorithms like sampling-based and variational algorithms (Blei et al., 2003 ; Steyvers and Griffiths, 2006 ). To employ LDA, the user needs to specify the number of latent topics in the corpus and two hyperparameters that control how documents and words contribute to topics. A detailed explanation of the LDA algorithm can be found in the studies by Blei ( 2012 ) and Steyvers and Griffiths ( 2006 ).

In our analysis, we use LDA to model a corpus with each document consisting of the publication title, abstract, and keywords. LDA analysis was performed through the Fitlda Matlab routine, available in the Text Analytics Toolbox (MATLAB, 2022 ).

Topic interpretation

The themes generated by LDA are hidden variables that require proper interpretation, typically done by examining the top keywords associated with each topic (Steyvers and Griffiths, 2006 ). To this end, Figs. 5 and 6 show the most important words for each topic, with importance determined by normalising the posterior word probabilities for each topic by the geometric mean of the posterior probabilities for the word across all topics. The topics are ranked based on their estimated likelihood of being observed in the entire dataset. Section 2 of the Supplementary Material contains the list of the most significant terms and their relevance measurements. The twelve selected topics address crucial areas of research on misogyny and can be summarised as follows.

Word clouds for topics 1–6.

Word clouds for topics 7–12.

Topic 1 revolves around a comprehensive discussion on the feminist perspective of the misogyny phenomenon and addresses the root causes of misogyny and gender-based discrimination. The primary focus is on patriarchal male gender privilege and its role in perpetuating misogyny. This topic covers a range of issues related to gender inequality, such as the leadership gap between men and women, women’s rights, and the intersection of misogyny with other forms of oppression.

Topic 2 focuses on how misogyny is expressed in literary works from the early and medieval periods to the modern era. Overall, this topic highlights the role of novels, prose, tales, and fiction in shaping societal attitudes and beliefs about gender and how this has influenced the treatment of women throughout history.

Along similar lines, Topic 3 centres on the study of misogyny in relation to the representation of women in films and on how it influences the portrayal of women on visual media.

Topic 4 is focused on the study of misogyny within the realm of politics and examines how misogyny can be perpetuated within political systems and movements. In particular, the inclusion of terms like “American”, “white”, and “altright” suggests that research included in this topic might focus on the ways in which misogyny is manifested in American politics, particularly within white nationalist and alternative-right movements.

Topic 5 is centred on the study of masculinity and how it relates to misogyny. In particular, the word “hegemonic” suggests that this topic may focus on how dominant forms of masculinity reinforce misogyny and gender-based discrimination.

Topic 6 pertains to the research on women’s rights, including reproductive rights, family law, and access to healthcare, particularly within legal and political systems and on how these systems can either promote or hinder gender equality.

The latent theme of Topic 7 seems to refer to a broad subject area that encompasses issues related to education, sexuality, and sexual identity. Additionally, the related terms suggest a focus on the ways in which sexuality is addressed within educational institutions, including schools and universities.

Topic 8 is a subject area that focuses on the study of digital misogyny, which refers to the ways in which sexism and gender-based discrimination are perpetuated through online and digital media platforms.

The set of words linked to Topic 9 clearly indicates studies focusing on the subject of sexual violence and harassment.

Research included in Topic 10 is related to the investigation of misogyny in the context of music and religion.

Topic 11 appears to be focused on the intersection of misogyny and racism, particularly as it relates to the misogynoir phenomenon.

Finally, Topic 12 deals with the identification and classification of online misogyny.

Topic interactions

By modelling each document as a mixture of several topics and each topic as a combination of words, the LDA technique assigns topics to documents. In our analysis, we awarded the top three document-topic probabilities to each document in this study as long as the probabilities are greater than 0.2. We developed a topic relationship network by considering the topic co-occurrence matrix. The topic network is depicted in Fig. 7 , along with node centrality measures. The nodes are coloured according to their degree, and the edges are weighted depending on co-occurrences. The stronger the link, the thicker the line. Edges with weights less than the average number of co-occurrences have been omitted. The investigation of the linkages reveals relationships between research fronts, emphasising the multidisciplinary character of research on misogyny. The highest degrees are associated with the first three topics, which encompass broader themes dealing with the feminist perspectives of patriarchal society (Topic 1) and the representation of women in literary works (Topic 2) and cinema (Topic 3). Moreover, the latter two topics show the strongest interconnection. Lower degrees are associated with more specialistic research fronts related to the presence of misogyny in music and religion, the misogynoir phenomenon, and the recent field of misogyny detection in computational sciences. In particular, the theme of automatic identification of misogynistic content (Topic 12) is only linked to the research dealing with digital misogyny (Topic 8). A high betweenness, measuring the extent to which the node is part of paths that connect an arbitrary pair of nodes in the network, is associated with Topics 5 and 6, dealing with the study of masculinity and how it relates to misogyny and to research on women rights, respectively. These findings suggest that those research areas are more effective and accessible in the network and form the densest bridges with other nodes.

Topic co-occurence network for the publications on misogyny and nodes’ centrality measures.

Topic temporal evolution

The temporal evolution of the scientific productivity for each topic can be captured through Fig. 8 . The temporal trend of most topics agrees with exponential growth. However, looking at Topic 2, related to studies of misogyny in literary works, we notice how the number of publications in the last period falls below the number expected according to the exponential law. Conversely, the number of published documents for Topics 8 and 12 shows a sudden rise starting from 2018. This trend testifies to the increasing interest in the study of online misogyny and the related techniques for automatic detection and identification. A relatively more contained rise in the size of publications is recorded for Topics 10 related to the investigation of misogyny in the context of music and religions.

Number of publications on misogyny for each topic: observed and expected distributions according to exponential growth.

The appearance and development of new fields of interest and innovative ideas in the research activity on misogyny are confirmed by the heatmaps provided in the Supplementary Material , which show the number of documents, by years, assigned to the identified topics.

Sociological research on online misogyny

To improve our comprehension of the ongoing research on the online dissemination of misogynistic content, we utilised a more specific selection query in our search of the original set of documents, which targeted terms associated with the online environment. We limited our search to articles published in journals categorised under the Social Science subject area. After analysing 277 articles, we identified 187 that were suitable for our study.

Among these documents, four articles provide a review of the literature on online misogyny from different perspectives. Moloney and Love ( 2018 ) review the way online misogyny is conceptualised in the social scientific literature within feminist media studies. The authors identify four different terms that are used to describe different types of online misogyny: online sexual harassment, gendertrolling, e-bile, and disciplinary rhetoric. They also examine the sociological perspective and introduce the concept of “virtual manhood acts” (VMAs), which is situated within the broader context of critical gender theory. VMAs are examples of technologically facilitated misogyny that occur in online social spaces: textual and visual cues are exploited to signal a masculine self, enforce traditional gender norms, oppress women, and restrict men to predefined gender roles. Bosch and Gil-Juarez ( 2021 ) conducted both a systematic review of 33 articles found in Web of Science and a traditional review of academic, institutional, and feminist-activist publications. Their findings show that the majority of aggressors in online gender-based violence are cis-hetero-patriarchal men, who are mostly known to the victims and are often partners or ex-partners. The types of violence range from sexual insults and threats to sexual and high-tech violence. Rubio Martìn and Gordo Lòpez ( 2021 ) provide an overview of the most recent academic literature within the feminist technosocial literature, specifically related to sexual and gender-based violence in digital environments. In addition to discussing the contemporary antecedents of this perspective and presenting current positions and the most representative studies on topics related to online misogyny, the authors demonstrate the potential of the feminist technosocial approach for analysing digital environments and their designs. The main conclusion drawn is that both the values of a misogynistic culture and the possibilities for its reproduction and dissemination are embedded in the design and architecture of digital platforms. The article also highlights the increasing relevance of hybrid realities that result from the synergies between the physical and digital realms, as they enable amplified discourses and actions of online misogyny. Faith ( 2022 ) investigates how gender, technology, and development are interconnected by analysing various works from different fields, including feminist technology studies, gender and development, feminist criminology, and ICT for development. The study also draws data from sources such as civil society, news reports, and international organisations, like the UN, to examine online violence. The author argues for a critical research approach to better understand the complex and opaque power dynamics that shape the digital economy and how it affects gender and development goals.

The articles on online misogyny, which were found in the Social Science category, underwent a manual annotation process to extract various pieces of information. Regarding the different methodologies and techniques used to investigate online misogyny, our findings indicate that discourse analysis and content analysis are the primary methodologies employed in social science literature. Several studies utilise in-depth interviews and surveys to examine the individuals targeted by and responsible for online misogyny. Additionally, digital ethnography, corpus linguistics, and network analysis are also employed. The most analysed social media platforms include Twitter, Reddit and Facebook. Further details on the methodological approaches and the social networks are provided in the Supplementary Material . The subsequent sections delve into details regarding target victims, misogynistic groups, and potential measures to counteract online misogyny.

Targets of online misogyny

Scholars studying online misogyny have identified various target groups that are particularly vulnerable to misogynistic content. These groups include female politicians, journalists, celebrities, influencers, musicians, gamers and developers, YouTubers, university students, and women who have been sexually assaulted. By focusing on specific target groups, research helps in achieving a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which online misogyny manifests and the specific harms that it causes.

Studies on online misogyny directed towards female politicians have concentrated on analysing the experiences of women from various countries, examining the types of misogynistic content directed towards them and the platforms on which it is disseminated. Silva-Paredes and Ibarra Herrera ( 2022 ), using a corpus-based critical discourse analysis, explore abuse received by a Chilean right-wing female politician. Phipps and Montgomery ( 2022 ) conducted an investigation into the portrayal of Nancy Pelosi as the monstrous feminine in the deeply misogynistic attack advertisements of Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential re-election campaign. In light of the prevalent misogynistic and anti-feminist depictions of Senator Hillary Clinton across all types of media, Ritchie ( 2013 ) examines how online media continues to have the power to create harmful representations of female politicians and the consequences for the political campaigns of women and for the democratic process as a whole. Focusing on Canadian politicians, Wagner ( 2022 ) discusses how online harassment is a gendered phenomenon. The study, drawing upon interviews with 101 people from diverse genders, racial/ethnic identities, sexual orientations, and partisan affiliations, shows that women are more aware of online harassment than men and how it succeeds in making women feel they are in a hostile political environment. Saluja and Thilaka ( 2021 ), analysing the Twitter discourse referring to three well-known female politicians in India, reveal similar findings, emphasising how female politicians are subjected to a different and distinct pattern of reception compared to their male counterparts. Instances of misogynistic or sexist hate speech and abusive language against female politicians in Japan are investigated in Fuchs and Schäfer ( 2021 ).

The research conducted by Chen et al. ( 2020 ) through in-depth interviews with 75 female journalists from Germany, India, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the USA revealed that those journalists frequently encounter online gendered harassment. The harassment, which includes sexist comments that criticise, attack, marginalise, stereotype, or threaten them based on their gender or sexuality, has led to some female journalists being subjected to misogynistic attacks and even threats of sexual violence. The study suggests that this kind of harassment limits their level of interaction with their audience without being attacked or sexually undermined.

By examining the findings of the qualitative in-depth interview of 48 female journalists, Similar findings are reported by Koirala ( 2020 ), whose study, based on the qualitative in-depth interview of 48 female journalists in Nepal, highlights how some of them tolerate harassment by being ‘strong like a man’, while many avoid social media platforms to keep free of such abusive behaviour. Along the same lines, Rego ( 2018 ) analyses Twitter conversations with Indian journalists and argues that social media platforms constitute convenient havens of harassment against assertive women.

Ghaffari ( 2022 ), analysing user-generated comments on the Instagram profile of a female American celebrity, shows how women are required to suppress their feelings and limit their authentic online presentation to maintain the outward countenance that matches the stereotypical gender roles in audiences’ state of mind. The research conducted by Döring and Mohseni ( 2019 ) supports these findings, focusing on video producers on YouTube. Their study found that female video producers are more likely to receive negative comments compared to male producers, but only if they display their sexuality or address feminist topics. However, if they conform to traditional gender role expectations, they do not experience this kind of negative feedback.

The emergence of female gamers in video game communities has led to a rise in misogynistic attacks against those who challenge the traditional hypermasculine culture of gaming. The 2014 #gamergate incident is a prime example of this, where a group of gamers opposed “Social Justice Warriors” who highlighted discrimination and exclusion in the gaming industry. Female gamers were subject to death threats, rape threats, and doxxing, where their private information was shared online (Tomkinson and Harper, 2015 ). The video gaming community has a long history of gender-based attacks on women, which serve to create a toxic environment for them when making and playing video games. According to Jenson and De Castell ( 2021 ), who approach the subject from a feminist perspective, video games have been predominantly masculine and gendered spaces. Repeated displays of aggression, referred to as “shock and awe”, perpetuate and legitimise gendered hostility. These displays also help to preserve exclusionary media practices designed to maintain the status quo.

The Manosphere

Numerous articles on online misogyny examine the Manosphere, a collection of websites and social media groups that endorse misogynistic beliefs. These networks are not uniform but consist of multiple misogynistic groups with differing perspectives and degrees of violence, which are associated with far-right, homophobic, and racist ideologies (Dickel and Evolvi, 2022 ). Despite their variations, all these groups portray feminism as innately discriminatory and threatening to men (Farci and Righetti, 2019 ). The Manosphere adheres to the beliefs of a ‘gynocentric order’ and the Red Pill ideology, a metaphor derived from the movie The Matrix, in which the protagonist’s eyes are opened to reality upon taking the “red pill”. Although these groups may have distinct beliefs, many members use the term misandry, referring to the hate against men, which has ideological and community-building functions. It reinforces a misogynistic belief system that portrays feminism as a movement that hates men and boys (Marwick and Caplan, 2018 ). The use of misandry caters to both extremist misogynistic subcultures and moderate men’s rights groups. It enables these groups to adopt the language of identity politics, positioning men as the silenced victims of reverse discrimination in all aspects of political, economic, and social life and solidifying their sense of entitlement (Farci and Righetti, 2019 ).

Men’s rights activists employ a personal action frame to construct a plausible but fictional narrative of men’s oppression (Carian, 2022 ). The movement against feminism revolves around advocating for men’s rights while denying that gendered violence exists (Garcìa-Mingo et al., 2022 ). The Manosphere engages in a crucial ideological effort that normalises, trivialises, and legitimises sexual violence against women in various forms (Garcìa-Mingo et al. 2022 ). Some of the primary themes of this ideology are: criticising and verbally abusing women, downplaying or not taking seriously accusations or reports of rape, depicting #MeToo as a feminist plot, portraying men as victims, and advocating for the restoration of patriarchal values (Dickel and Evolvi, 2022 ). Hopton and Langer ( 2022 ), analysing Twitter content to understand how the Manosphere constructs masculinity and femininity, identify three discursive strategies: co-opting discourses of oppression, naming power, and disavowal by disaggregation. These strategies are used to position men as victims, portray women as monstrous others, and re-establish gendered power hierarchies through continuous references to rape in their discourse.

One of the main groups in the Manosphere, the Incels, believes in a hetero-patriarchal racial hierarchy and justifies their lack of sexual activity through ideas rooted in biological determinism and victimisation by women and feminism (Lindsay, 2022 ). Scotto di Carlo’s analysis of Incels (Scotto di Carlo, 2023 ) reveals a conflation of apparently sarcastic metaphors, dark humour, and misogyny to describe women, as well as unique self-representations of forum participants that do not conform to typical ‘us vs them’ identity pattern (van Dijk, 1998 ): instead of highlighting the positive qualities of their in-group, the Incels describe themselves in a derogatory manner, leading to a spiral of self-pity and self-contempt that can foster a sense of brotherhood within the community. These findings stem from a content-discourse analysis of posts from threads specifically discussing women on an incel forum and from the study of nominations and predications of self-representations used in the ‘Introductions’ thread of the same forum. Halpin ( 2022 ), drawing on a qualitative analysis of comments made on a popular Incel discussion board, demonstrates how the group uses its perceived subordinate status to justify their misogyny and legitimise its degradation of women. Conducting an ethnographic content analysis of incel-identified subreddits and using femmephobia as a lens, Menzie ( 2022 ) examines how Incels employ heteropatriarchal conceptions of femininity to devalue women and to describe the social conditions that force them to remain celibate. The study focuses on the symbolic actors constructed by Incels, namely Stacy, who represents the most attractive women, Becky, who represents women of ordinary or moderate attractiveness, and Chad, who represents dominant alpha males. Five themes emerge from the analysis. First, Incels use these symbolic gendered actors to describe a sex deficit most men suffer, implying their own undesirability. Second, Incels’ femmephobia towards hyper-feminine women for not fitting heteropatriarchal requirements is evident in “Stacy”.Third, “Becky” shows a more flexible femmephobia towards women of different appearances who uphold “unrealistic standards” and date men more attractive than themselves or rely on feminism to cope with not attracting the same men as Stacy. Through “Chad”, the fourth topic examines the idea of masculinity, incorporating feelings of jealousy and recognition of victimisation under societal conditions that allow women to exploit men financially or emotionally. Finally, the analysis reveals how Incels prioritise partner display as a symbol of wealth. Along the same lines, Koller and Heritage ( 2020 ) analysed a textual corpus created from threads posted and commented on by Incels. The study examined keywords, word frequencies, and concordance lines to explore the representation of gendered social actors. The findings suggest that Incels position different groups of men in a hierarchy in which conventionally attractive men occupy the top position. Female social actors are not placed in a similar hierarchy. Furthermore, an additional appraisal analysis of the most frequently occurring male and female social actors reveals that men are judged as unable to function, while women are viewed as immoral, dishonest, and capable of causing harm to men.

Chang ( 2022 ), analysing the discourses circulating on a Reddit forum for self-proclaimed Incels, explores the perceptions created by the term “femoid”, a derogatory term generated by Incels to refer to women, constructing them as an abject “monstrous-feminine”, serving a dehumanising function and thus justifying the violence enacted upon them. Tranchese and Sugiura ( 2021 ) focus on the similarities between the language used in pornography and that of Incels, arguing that both are different manifestations of the same misogyny. Their study involves a linguistic analysis that compares a collection of posts from an Incel subreddit community with a reference collection of posts from 688 subreddits covering other subjects. From a different perspective, Byerly ( 2020 ) investigated news media language in the coverage of Incel behaviour associated with sexual aggression. The study employs qualitative textual analysis on a sample of 70 articles obtained using keyword combinations ‘incels and violence’, ‘incels and social media’, and ‘incels and sexism’ from 29 distinct news sources across 6 countries throughout the years 2018 and 2019. Research findings indicate that news stories emphasise the role of social media in helping Incels find each other and form online communities. Additionally, specific social media sites served as locations to amplify misogynistic attitudes and to boast about their murders. Speckhard et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a study that involved gathering information on Incels’ social and personal lives, adherence to incel ideology, opinions on incel-related violence, support for violent actions, and beliefs regarding the classification of Incels as violent extremists. The data was collected through a Google Forms survey that was distributed to active adult members of a prominent Incel forum. The final sample under analysis comprises 272 respondents who self-identify as Incels. The findings demonstrate that while most of them do not advocate violence and are non-violent, those who strongly hold misogynistic beliefs are more likely to endorse violent actions. Participation in Incel online forums, which validate their viewpoints, could also lead to an increase in their misogyny. O’Donnell and Shor ( 2022 ) investigated how misogynistic Incels discuss mass violence committed by their peers. Through qualitative content analysis of comments related to the 2018 Toronto van attack, in which self-declared Incel Alek Minassian drove a van into pedestrians, killing 10 and injuring 16, they found that a large majority of self-proclaimed Incels expressed support for such violence, as well as violence in general. Incels believed that mass violence was a means to achieve four main goals: gaining more attention, seeking revenge, reinforcing traditional masculinity, and bringing about political change.

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), a separatist group within the Manosphere, also promotes a misogynistic agenda. Unlike Men’s Rights Activists and Incels, MGTOWs focus on individualistic and self-empowering actions, encouraging men to lead a self-sufficient life away from women. Jones et al. ( 2020 ), using content and thematic analyses of a corpus of tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users on Twitter, have linked the MGTOW ideology with toxic masculinity, showing that the online harassment it generates is deeply misogynistic and upholds heterosexual and hegemonic masculinity. The authors note that, although misogyny and violence produced by MGTOW are not extreme, the group’s appeals to rational thinking make them appear to be common sense. Wright et al. ( 2020 ) delve deeper into the structural underpinnings and nature of MGTOW debate within their discussion forums, including leadership, moderation, in-group dynamics, and the discursive form of debates, and how this contributes to the propagation of misogyny and different calls to action. The authors conducted a content analysis of comments in the official MGTOW website’s forum and a digital ethnographic approach. Their findings showed that discussions primarily revolve around women and the MGTOW community. When discussing women, users did so in an openly misogynistic way. When discussing MGTOW, conversations sought to define and rationalise it as an ideology, both for individuals and the collective. The authors also note that the communicative form was mainly communitarian, with strong group bonding, ties, and engagement.

Countering online misogyny

Strategies and tactics used by women to cope with and address gender violence online are diverse and sometimes activated simultaneously. Some of these strategies prioritise self-care and protection, while others focus on resistance and challenging such violence. From a self-care perspective, it is crucial to adopt mitigation measures that reduce harm and minimise risks, such as assessing online identities, adopting pseudonyms or collective identities, using masks, strengthening accounts, creating distance, silencing or erasing sensitive content (Bosch and Gil-Juarez, 2021 ). In the research by Chen et al. ( 2020 ), it is shown how female journalists have developed multiple strategies for coping with abuse, including modifying their social media postings, altering their reporting subjects, and utilising technological tools to prevent offensive comments on their public pages.

Merely prioritising self-care is insufficient; an active approach should be taken to resist and transform the current state of online misogyny. This involves engaging in actions that challenge the status quo and strive for meaningful change, with the ultimate goal of repoliticising the internet and social media with, for, and from a feminist perspective (Bosch and Gil-Juarez, 2021 ). From this standpoint, social media platforms can give space to the promotion of gender-based harassment but can also serve as crucial spaces for feminist education and activism and for the formation of a feminist counter-public that directly contests a misogynistic culture (Sills et al. 2016 ). In this perspective, Kurasawa et al. ( 2021 ) discuss a new form of feminist activism called evidentiary activism, which uses evidence of gender-based online violence (GBOV). Evidentiary activism engages with existing formal evidentiary cultures by advocating for legislative and regulatory reforms to address GBOV, promoting platform-based technological solutions, and challenging conventional notions of user privacy and anonymity. In addition, it involves contributing to and embracing informal evidentiary cultures, which use evidence as a tool for cultural and political mobilisation against GBOV. Strategies used include publicising instances of GBOV, highlighting the moral implications of such violence, and fostering feminist digital citizenship. As an example of online feminist activism, Kim ( 2017 ) explored the role of the 2015 hashtag #iamafeminist in promoting feminist identification and activism against misogyny in South Korea. The hashtag persisted for three months by addressing current gender issues and promoting activism both online and offline. The article by Shesterina and Fedosova ( 2021 ) examines the methods used by female bloggers to promote feminist ideas on Instagram. The authors found that while many posts are logically argued, female bloggers often use emotional manipulation and persuasion techniques to promote their ideas. The study identifies both the main topics in support of feminism, such as domestic violence and gender stereotypes, victim blaming, and the most common attitudes that female bloggers challenge in their posts (e.g., “gender roles are determined by nature”, “a woman must obey a man”, “female intelligence is worse than male”, “all women are hysterical”). The authors also describe the lexical means and rhetorical techniques commonly used in female blogs, such as metaphors, allusions, appeals, and rhetorical questions. The language used is generally colloquial, making texts easier to read, but it also includes harsh criticism and increased emotionality compared to traditional journalistic texts.

However, according to Jane ( 2016 ), taking matters into one’s own hands when faced with online harassment may have limited effectiveness and is not a sufficient solution to the problem of gendered cyber-hate. This approach shifts the responsibility from the perpetrators to the targets and the private sphere rather than addressing the broader social issue. The author suggests that a combination of feminist activism efforts, including a revised approach to collectivism, is needed to enact the necessary legislative and corporate changes to combat gendered online hate. The study by Davis and Santillana ( 2019 ) examines the potential and limitations of digital media activism in raising awareness about gender-based harassment using the case study of Las Morras, a Mexico City-based feminist media group. The study demonstrates the paradoxical role of networked digital media as an activist tool. While it rapidly circulated a critique of misogyny, it also attracted negative attention, leading to the group’s eventual demise due to doxing, trolling, and personal threats directed at its members.

Megalians, a cyberfeminist community in South Korea, utilised the technique of “mirroring” to combat online misogyny (Jeong and Lee, 2018 , Moon et al., 2022 , Yang and Lee, 2022 ). This practice involved mimicking the language of misogynistic online communities and reversing the roles of perpetrators and victims. Megalians also used parodies to subvert the humour and power dynamic that men often used to make fun of women. By appropriating and using the language of misogynists, they aimed to strip men of their ability to use misogynistic speech for their own entertainment. This approach also exposed the absurdity and ridiculousness of the misogynistic rhetoric. However, the success of mirroring is not clear-cut. In fact, while Megalians’ voices were heard in society, the strong message and crude language proved divisive and polarising (Kim, 2021 ).

An alternative strategy for addressing misogyny is to use social re-norming and appeal to the empathy of those engaging in harassing behaviour. The goal of re-norming is to challenge cultural attitudes and beliefs that tolerate or encourage violence against women and to promote new standards of behaviour that prioritise respect, equality, and safety for all individuals. One example of this approach is the experiment conducted by Whiley et al. ( 2023 ) on Twitter. Their experiment aimed to inform misogynistic offenders that their sexist language was disapproved of by the majority of people. However, this intervention did not result in a reduction in the number or frequency of sexist Tweets or users, nor did it affect the tone or emotional intensity of subsequent tweets. In contrast, research has demonstrated the efficacy of creative humour, such as that used by the IncelTears subreddit to ridicule Incels, in promoting (dis)affiliative and informative functions (Dynel, 2020 ).

Computational science research on online misogyny

In this section, we focus on documents on misogyny classified by Scopus in the “Computer Science” subject area. A total of 196 documents were found; 30 documents were excluded as they were off-topic. Two surveys were identified in the retrieved documents, which centre on the automated detection of online misogyny. In one survey, Shushkevich and Cardiff ( 2019 ) present an examination of techniques for identifying misogyny in social media through automation. Meanwhile, Sultana et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a systematic literature review of prior research to reveal different aspects of misogyny and sexist humour and to create a codebook for annotation purposes.

Automatic detection of misogyny

Manual classification of the retrieved articles reveals a wealth of valuable information regarding the automatic detection of misogyny. This includes details about the social networks that are being analysed, the primary techniques employed, and the availability of datasets.

In line with research in the social science area (see Section 4), Twitter (with 95 publications) and Reddit (with 46 publications) continue to be the most commonly used sources, even in the area of computational science. The number of studies dealing with Facebook and Instagram is very limited. Researchers frequently prioritise the study of Twitter (now rebranded X) and Reddit above other social media platforms due to their historically liberal provision of Application Programming Interface (API) access. Furthermore, Reddit, which has been described as ’a community of communities’ (Massanari, 2017 , p. 331), has a diverse array of subreddits that cater to different interests, some of which foster misogynistic beliefs. However, the new pricing plans for using the Twitter API, introduced in March 2023, are expected to significantly affect research. A survey conducted by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research Footnote 2 outlines the potential consequences of discontinuing free and affordable API access. These drawbacks include the disruption of research on the dissemination of harmful content. A similar survey on the impact of Reddit’s recent API changes Footnote 3 emphasises how researchers are concerned about interruptions in their research resulting from API modifications. It is worth noting that only one study (Semenzin and Bainotti, 2020 ) reports the results of research on Telegram, which, in fact, has become a widely used platform for the dissemination of abusive and misogynistic content due to its high degree of anonymity and limited content-moderation policies (Guhl and Davey, 2020 ).

The automatic detection of misogyny typically utilises various techniques, with pre-trained deep-learning models and multimodal models being the most commonly employed. Other techniques include machine learning algorithms such as SVM, Naïve Bayes, or Random Forest. Additionally, some documents rely on convolutional neural network models. More details on the published documents employing the different techniques are provided in the Supplementary Material .

Four articles employ the use of lexicons for automatic detection of misogyny. Attanasio and Pastor ( 2020 ) propose misogyny lexicons for automatic misogyny identification in order to improve sentence embedding similarity. Hurtlex (Bassignana et al. 2018 ), which is a lexicon of offensive, aggressive, and hateful words in more than 50 languages, is exploited for misogyny identification in the studies by Chiril et al. ( 2022 ) and Pamungkas et al. ( 2018 ). Kwarteng et al. ( 2022 ) created a specific lexicon around misogynoir.

Taxonomies and guidelines

When releasing annotated datasets, a crucial aspect is to clearly outline the guidelines for categorising misogynistic language. Four articles in the retrieved documents address this issue (Anzovino et al., 2018 , Guest et al., 2021 , Sultana et al., 2021 , Zeinert et al., 2021 ).

Sultana et al. ( 2021 ) proposed eleven categories to classify misogynistic remarks: Discredit (slurring over women with no other larger intention), Stereotyping (description of women’s physical appeal and/or comparisons to narrow standards), Sexual harassment (to physically assert power over women), Threats of violence (intent to physically assert power over women or to intimidate and silence women through threats of violence), Dominance (to preserve male control, protect male interest and exclude women from the conversation), Derailing (to justify abuse, reject male responsibility, and attempt to disrupt the conversation in order to refocus it), Victim blaming (blaming the victims for the problems they are facing), Mixed bias (gender bias might be mixed with other kinds of biases like religious or racial), Sexual objectification (evoke sexual imagery), and Damning (contains prayers to hurt women). Regarding the expression of misogyny using humour, this research proposes eight categories of jokes: Devaluation of personal characteristics, Women’s place in the private sphere, Violence against women, Feminist backlash, Sexual objectification, Excluding and/or objectifying humour, Transphobic Jokes and Cruel or Humiliation. All the categories proposed in Anzovino et al. ( 2018 ) are included in Sultana et al. ( 2021 ). The same occurs with categories proposed by Zeinert et al. ( 2021 ), except for the interesting concept of neosexism. Neosexism is a concept defined in Francine Tougas et al. ( 1999 ), and presents as the belief that women have already achieved equality and that discrimination of women does not exist. Neosexism was the most common form of misogyny present in the dataset of Zeinert et al. ( 2021 ). Guest et al. ( 2021 ) define four categories of misogynistic content: misogynistic pejoratives, descriptions of misogynistic treatment, acts of misogynistic derogation and gendered personal attacks against women.

Evaluation campaigns

A number of the documents on misogyny that fall within the Computer Science subject area were produced in connection with various evaluation campaigns. These campaigns include EVALITA (Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian), IberLEF (Iberian Languages Evaluation Forum), SemEval (International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation), and FIRE (Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation). The EVALITA campaign includes the Automatic Misogyny Identification (AMI) task (Fersini et al. 2018 ). The IberLEF annual campaign features the EXIST task, which is sEXism Identification in Social neTworks (Rodrìguez-Sanchez et al. 2021 ). SemEval has a task called MAMI, which is Multimedia Automatic Misogyny Identification (Fersini et al., 2022 ). Lastly, FIRE includes the Arabic Misogyny Identification (ArMI) task (Mulki and Ghanem, 2022 ).

Thanks to these evaluation campaigns, datasets for automatic misogyny detection in multiple languages are now available. Specifically, the AMI task made available two datasets, in English and Italian, downloaded from Twitter. The EXIST task provided datasets of tweets in both English and Spanish. The dataset released for the MAMI challenge comprises memes that were downloaded from popular social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit, as well as from websites dedicated to meme creation and sharing. Lastly, the ArMI task provided a dataset of tweets written in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and various Arabic dialects.

The bibliometric analysis reveals that research on misogyny has witnessed exponential growth from 2010 to 2022. This growth can be attributed to various areas of research, but one prominent factor contributing to this trend is the increased attention given to the online dissemination of hate towards women. Several findings support this initial conclusion.

Firstly, the analysis indicates that the most productive authors in the field of misogyny research come from the area of computer science. This suggests that experts in this field have been actively investigating and publishing on the topic, further driving the growth of research in this area.

Moreover, examining the topics covered in the analysed documents provides additional evidence for the influence of online misogyny. Topic 8, which is related to digital misogyny, and Topic 12, which focuses on the automatic identification of misogyny in social media, have experienced significantly higher growth compared to the broader field of misogyny research (as depicted in Fig. 8 ). This finding indicates that the study of misogyny in online platforms and the development of methods to detect misogyny in social media have gained considerable attention within the research community.

The major role that online misogyny plays in the development of the area supports the idea that the research seeks to delineate the contours of a new face of misogyny, the latest manifestation of hate towards women which is expressed more crudely and more openly on social networks because they facilitate anonymity and a greater distance from the victims.

Another conclusion drawn from the analysis of the conceptual structure of misogyny research (Fig. 4) and the interactions between topics (Fig. 7 ) is that the research focused on the automatic detection of misogyny in online platforms (Topic 12) exhibits weak connections with other conceptual areas that address different aspects of the phenomenon. This area of research only demonstrates some conceptual relation to the broader study of online misogyny (Topic 8). This presents a significant challenge, considering that qualitative analysis of sociological research emphasises the growing relevance of hybrid realities resulting from the synergies between the physical and digital realms, not just in violence against women but also in specific domains such as politics. Moreover, the lack of relationship between Topic 12, which focuses on the automatic detection of misogyny, and Topic 9, which explores violence against women and the concept of Manosphere (primarily a digital phenomenon), is particularly noteworthy. This suggests that research in the computational science domain may not be adequately addressing the most extreme manifestations of online misogyny. Furthermore, it also indicates that the tools offered by computational linguistics are underutilised in social science-led research.

In general, the absence of stronger connections between certain topics that attract the attention of various disciplines could be seen as a sign of the practical challenges encountered in interdisciplinary research. For instance, Topic 6, which focuses on the study of women’s rights within legal and political systems, exhibits very weak relationships with Topics 8 and 12, despite qualitative sociological research emphasising the need to consider the new dynamics emerging in virtual spaces. Another illustration can be found in the qualitative review of computational science literature. It becomes apparent that this research area relies on the definition of taxonomies that would benefit from clarification through collaboration with social science research. For instance, the inclusion of stereotypes against women as part of the types of misogyny raises the question of whether the concept of misogyny should be reserved for the most extreme forms of hatred or should encompass the wide range of sexist attitudes and gender symbolic constructions derived from a patriarchal culture.

The main conclusion drawn from this work is that research across different disciplines is addressing a new facet of misogyny, a revitalised version of outdated beliefs about women’s inferiority that circulate in novel forms within the online realm. Understanding the characteristics and functions of this new expression of misogyny poses a challenge that necessitates an interdisciplinary approach, leveraging the strengths of different areas of knowledge to effectively address it.

The above-mentioned lack of collaboration between different areas prevents the establishment of connections that would enrich the analysis of the way misogyny is disseminated today in both the virtual and real world. For example, social science knowledge in combination with computational discourse analysis or NLP technologies could be used to study the connections and similarities between agents disseminating misogyny online and mainstream social actors such as political parties or religious organisations. In the same way, the similarity between misogynist discourses and those of left-leaning feminists in open battle against other fractions of the feminist movement could also be monitored and would allow for a more complex view of the phenomenon. For both approaches, it is necessary that social science knowledge strongly rooted in the study of social relations be combined with the new methodologies that computer science offers for the analysis of discourse produced naturally in digital or real communicative exchanges, such as in parliaments, rallies or interviews.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this research, as no data were generated. The analysed data were retrieved from the commercial Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases, following the search procedure detailed in the Supplementary Material .

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/11/gamergate-a-brief-history-of-a-computer-age-war , https://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/

https://independenttechresearch.org/letter-twitters-new-api-plans-will-devastate-public-interest-research/

https://independenttechresearch.org/reddit-survey-results/

Alghamdi R, Alfalqi K (2015) A survey of topic modeling in text mining. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 6(1):147–153

Google Scholar  

Allen A (2021) Feminist perspectives on power. In: Zalta E (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

Anzovino M, Fersini E, Rosso P (2018) Automatic identification and classification of misogynistic language on Twitter. In: Silberztein M, Atigui F, Kornyshova E et al (eds) Natural language processing and information systems (NLDB) 2018. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 10859. Springer, Cham, pp. 57–64

Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr 11(4):959–975

Article   Google Scholar  

Attanasio G, Pastor E (2020) PoliTeam @ AMI: improving sentence embedding similarity with misogyny lexicons for automatic misogyny identification in Italian tweets. In: Proceedings of the 7th evaluation campaign of natural language processing and speech tools for Italian (EVALITA 2020) (eds Basile V, Croce D, Maro M, Passaro LC) CEUR workshop proceedings, vol 2765, Accademia University Press, Torino

Banet-Weiser S, Miltner KM (2016) #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Fem Media Stud 16(1):171–174

Bassignana E, Basile V, Patti V (2018) Hurtlex: a multilingual lexicon of words to hurt. In: Proceedings of the fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2018), Torino, December 10–12, 2018, (eds Cabrio E, Mazzei A, Tamburini F) CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 2253, Accademia University Press, Torino, Italy

Bates L (2021) Men who hate women: from incels to pickup artists: the truth about extreme misogyny and how it affects us all. Sourcebooks, Naperville, IL

Blei DM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Commun ACM 55(4):77–84

Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3(1):993–1022

Bosch NV, Gil-Juarez A (2021) Un acercamiento situado a las violencias machistas online y a las formas de contrarrestarlas. Rev Estud Fem 29(3). https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584-2021V29N374588

Byerly CM(2020) Incels online reframing sexual violence Commun Rev 23(4):290–308

Carian EK(2022) "We’re all in this together”: leveraging a personal action frame in two men’s rights forums Mobilization 27(1):47–68

Chang W(2022) The monstrous-feminine in the incel imagination: Investigating the representation of women as “femoids” on /r/Braincels Fem Media Stud 22(2):254–270

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Chen GM, Pain P, Chen VY(2020) ‘You really have to have a thick skin’: a cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists Journalism 21(7):877–895

Chiril P, Pamungkas E, Benamara F (2022) Emotionally informed hate speech detection: a multi-target perspective. Cogn Comput 14(1):322–352

Citron DK (2014) Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Book   Google Scholar  

Code L (2000) Encyclopedia of feminist theories. Routledge, London

Davis S, Santillana M(2019) From the streets to the screen to nowhere: Las morras and the fragility of networked digital activism Westminst Pap Commun Cult 14(1):18–32

Dickel V, Evolvi G (2022) “Victims of feminism”: exploring networked misogyny and #MeToo in the manosphere. Fem Media Stud https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2029925

Döring N, Mohseni MR(2019) Male dominance and sexism on YouTube: results of three content analyses Fem Media Stud 19(4):512–524

Dynel M(2020) Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: humour as critique of incel ideology Language Commun 74:1–14

Faith B(2022) Tackling online gender-based violence; understanding gender, development, and the power relations of digital spaces Gend Technol Dev 26(3):325–340

Farci M, Righetti N(2019) Italian men’s rights activism and online backlash against feminism Rass Ital Sociol 60(4):765–781

Fersini E, Nozza D, Rosso P (2018) Overview of the EVALITa 2018 task on automatic misogyny identification (AMI). In: CEUR workshop proceedings (eds Caselli T, Novielli N, Patti V, Rosso P) vol 2263 (CEUR-WS), Accademia University Press, Torino

Fersini E, Gasparini F, Rizzi G et al (2022) SemEval-2022 Task 5: multimedia automatic misogyny identification. In: Proceedings of the 16th international workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2022) (eds Emerson G, Schluter N, Stanovsky G. et al) Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 533–549

Francine Tougas F, Brown R, Beaton AM (1999) Neosexism among women: the role of personally experienced social mobility attempts. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25(12):1487–1497

Fuchs T, Schäfer F(2021) Normalizing misogyny: hate speech and verbal abuse of female politicians on Japanese Twitter Jpn Forum 33(4):553–579

Garcìa-Mingo E, Fernàndez SD, Tomàs-Forte S (2022) (Re)configurando el imaginario sobre la violencia sexual desde el antifeminismo: el trabajo ideològico de la manosfera española. Polit Sociedad 59(1). https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.80369

Ghaffari S(2022) Discourses of celebrities on Instagram: digital femininity, self-representation and hate speech Crit Discourse Stud 19(2):161–178

Gill R (2016) Post-postfeminism?: new feminist visibilities in postfeminist times. Fem Media Stud 16(4):610–630

Ging D, Siapera E (2018) Special issue on online misogyny. Fem Media Stud 18(4):515–524

Glick P, Fiske ST (1997) Hostile and benevolent sexism: measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychol Women Q 21(1):119–135

Greenacre M, Blasius J (2006) Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York

Guest E, Vidgen B, Mittos A et al An expert annotated dataset for the detection of online misogyny. In: Proceedings of the 16th conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: main volume. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1336–1350 (2021)

Guhl J, Davey J (2020) A safe space to hate: white supremacist mobilisation on telegram. Technical report. ISD Global

Halpin M(2022) Weaponized subordination: how incels discredit themselves to degrade women Gend Soc 36(6):813–837

Hopton K, Langer S(2022) “Kick the XX out of your life”: an analysis of the manosphere’s discursive constructions of gender on Twitter Fem Psychol 32(1):3–22

Hu Y, Boyd-Graber J, Satinoff B (2014) Interactive topic modeling. Mach Learn 95(3):423–469

Jane EA(2014) Back to the kitchen, cunt: speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny Continuum 28(4):558–570

Jane EA (2015) Flaming? What flaming? The pitfalls and potentials of researching online hostility. Ethics Inf Technol 17(1):65–87

Jane EA(2016) Online misogyny and feminist digilantism Continuum 30(3):284–297

Jane EA (2017) Misogyny online: a short (and Brutish) history. Sage, London

Jeffreys S (2005) Beauty and misogyny: harmful cultural practices in the West. Routledge, New York, NY, USA

Jenson J, De Castell S(2021) Patriarchy in play: video games as gendered media ecologies Explor Media Ecol 20(2):195–212

Jeong E, Lee J(2018) We take the red pill, we confront the DickTrix: online feminist activism and the augmentation of gendered realities in South Korea Fem Media Stud 18(4):705–717

Jones C, Trott V, Wright S(2020) Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment New Media Soc 22(10):1903–1921

Jukes A (1993) Why men hate women. Free Association Books Ltd, London

Kim J(2017) #iamafeminist as the “mother tag”: feminist identification and activism against misogyny on Twitter in South Korea Fem Media Stud 17(5):804–820

Kim Y(2021) Mirroring misogyny in Hell Choson: Megalia, womad, and Korea’s feminism in the age of digital populism Eur J Korean Stud 20(2):101–133

Koirala S(2020) Female journalists’ experience of online harassment: a case study of Nepal Media Commun 8(1):47–56

Koller V, Heritage F(2020) Incels, in-groups, and ideologies. The representation of gendered social actors in a sexuality-based online community J Language Sex 9(2):152–178

Kurasawa F, Rondinelli E, Kilicaslan G(2021) Evidentiary activism in the digital age: on the rise of feminist struggles against gender-based online violence Inf Commun Soc 24(14):2174–2194

Kwarteng J, Perfumi S, Farrell T et al (2022) Misogynoir: challenges in detecting intersectional hate. Soc Netw Anal Min 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-022-00993-7

Lindsay A(2022) Swallowing the Black Pill: Involuntary Celibates’ (Incels) anti-feminism within Digital Society Int J Crime Justice Soc Democr 11(1):210–224

Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF (1994) Rape myths: in review. Psychol Women Q 18:133–164

Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF (1995) Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: a theoretical and empirical reexamination. J Personal Soc Psychol 68(4):704–711

Manne K (2017) Down girl: the logic of misogyny. Oxford Academic, New York

Mantilla K (2013) Gendertrolling: misogyny adapts to new media. Fem Stud 39(2):563–571

Marwick AE, Caplan R(2018) Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment Fem Media Stud 18(4):543–559

Massanari A (2017) #Gamergate and The Fappening: how Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media Soc 19(3):329–346

Massanari AL (2020) Gamergate. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1–5

MATLAB (2022) MATLAB version R2022b. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA

Menzie L(2022) Stacys, Beckys, and Chads: the construction of femininity and hegemonic masculinity within incel rhetoric Psychol Sex 13(1):69–85

Millet K (1970) Sexual Politics. Doubleday, New York, NY

Moloney ME, Love TP (2018) Assessing online misogyny: perspectives from sociology and feminist media studies. Sociol Compass 12(5):e12,577

Moon YE, Kim HH, Park D (2022) “Can I become a true feminist?”: an interpretive analysis on the mirroring experience of young Korean women. Fem Media Stud https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2042830

Mulki H, Ghanem B (2022) Working notes of the workshop Arabic Misogyny Identification (ArMI-2021). In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 7–8

O’Donnell C, Shor E(2022) "This is a political movement, friend”: why “incels” support violence Br J Sociol 73(2):336–351

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ostini J, Hopkins S (2015) Online harassment is a form of violence. The Conversation 8: 1–4

Pamungkas EW, Cignarella AT, Basile V et al (2018) Automatic identification of misogyny in English and Italian Tweets at EVALITA 2018 with a multilingual hate lexicon. In: Proceedings of the sixth evaluation campaign of natural language processing and speech tools for Italian. Final workshop (EVALITA 2018), Turin co-located with the fifth Italian conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2018), Turin (eds Caselli T, Novielli N, Patti V, Rosso P) December 12–13, 2018, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 2263, Accademia University Press, Torino, Italy

Phipps EB, Montgomery F(2022) "Only YOU Can Prevent This Nightmare, America”: Nancy Pelosi as the monstrous-feminine in Donald Trump’s YouTube attacks Women’s Stud Commun 45(3):316–337

Price DJ (1963) Little science, big science. Columbia University Press, New York

Rego R(2018) Changing forms and platforms of misogyny: sexual harassment of women journalists on twitter Media Watch 9(3):472–485

Ritchie J(2013) Creating a monster: Online media constructions of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary Campaign, 2007-8 Fem Media Stud 13(1):102–119

Rodrìguez-Sanchez FJ, Carrillo-de Albornoz J, Plaza L (2021) Overview of EXIST 2021: sEXism Identification in Social neTworks. Proces Leng Nat 67:195–207

Rubio Martìn MJ, Gordo Lòpez A (2021) La perspectiva tecnosocial feminista como antídoto para la misoginia online. Rev Esp Sociol 30(3). https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2021.64

Saluja N, Thilaka DN(2021) Women leaders and digital communication: gender stereotyping of female politicians on Twitter J Content Community Commun 13(7):227–241

Scotto di Carlo G(2023) An analysis of self-other representations in the incelosphere: between online misogyny and self-contempt Discourse Soc 34(1):3–21

Semenzin S, Bainotti L (2020) The use of telegram for non-consensual dissemination of intimate images: gendered affordances and the construction of masculinities. Soc Media + Soc 6(4):2056305120984,453

Shesterina AM, Fedosova OA (2021) Promotion of feminist ideas in instagram texts. Vestnik Mosk Univ Seriya 10 Zhurnalistika 2021(4):114–134

Shushkevich E, Cardiff J (2019) Automatic misogyny detection in social media: a survey. Comput Sist 23(4):1159–1164

Sills S, Pickens C, Beach K(2016) Rape culture and social media: young critics and a feminist counterpublic Fem Media Stud 16(6):935–951

Silva-Paredes D, Ibarra Herrera D (2022) Resisting anti-democratic values with misogynistic abuse against a Chilean right-wing politician on Twitter: the #CamilaPeluche incident Discourse Commun 16(4):426–444

Speckhard A, Ellenberg M, Morton J, Ash A (2021) Involuntary Celibates’ experiences of and grievance over sexual exclusion and the potential threat of violence among those active in an Online Incel Forum. J Strateg Secur 14(2):89–121

Steyvers M, Griffiths T (2006) Probabilistic topic models. In: Landauer T, McNamara D, Dennis S et al (eds) Latent semantic analysis: a road to meaning. Lawrence Erlbaum

Sultana S, Sarker J, Bosu A (2021) A Rubric to identify misogynistic and sexist texts from software developer communications. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

Suominen A, Toivanen H (2016) Map of science with topic modeling: comparison of unsupervised learning and human-assigned subject classification. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(10). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23596

Tomkinson S, Harper T(2015) The position of women in video game culture: Perez and Day’s Twitter Incident Continuum 29(4):617–634

Tontodimamma A, Nissi E, Sarra A (2021) Thirty years of research into hate speech: topics of interest and their evolution. Scientometrics 126(157–179):69–81

Tranchese A, Sugiura L(2021) "I don’t hate all women, just those stuck-up bitches”: how incels and mainstream pornography speak the same extreme language of misogyny Violence Against Women 27(14):2709–2734

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

van Dijk TA (1998) Editorial: discourse and ideology. Discourse Soc 9(3):307–308

VandenBos GR (ed) (2015) APA dictionary of psychology, 2nd edn. American Psychological Association

Wagner A(2022) Tolerating the trolls? Gendered perceptions of online harassment of politicians in Canada Fem Media Stud 22(1):32–47

Whiley LA, Walasek L, Juanchich M(2023) Contributions to reducing online gender harassment: social re-norming and appealing to empathy as tried-and-failed techniques Fem Psychol 33(1):83–104

Wright S, Trott V, Jones C(2020) ‘The pussy ain’t worth it, bro’: assessing the discourse and structure of MGTOW Inf Commun Soc 23(6):908–925

Yang S, Lee K(2022) The intertextuality and interdiscursivity of “mirroring” in South Korean cyberfeminist posts Discourse Soc 33(5):671–689

Zeinert P, Inie N, Derczynski L (2021) Annotating online misogyny. In: Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th international joint conference on natural language processing (vol 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 3181–3197

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was undertaken as part of the ICOMIC (Identifying and Counteracting Online Misogyny in Cyberspace) Project funded by EU Next Generation, MUR-Fondo Promozione e Sviluppo-DM 737/2021

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Legal and Social Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti-Pescara, Italy

Lara Fontanella & Alice Tontodimamma

PRHLT, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

Berta Chulvi

Social Psychology Department, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain

Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti-Pescara, Italy

Elisa Ignazzi

Department of Philosophical, Pedagogical and Economic-Quantitative Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti-Pescara, Italy

Annalina Sarra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LF and BC contributed to the study conception and design, with LF leading the study supervision. LF, BC, and AS contributed to the writing of the manuscript. LF, EI, and AT developed the dataset and conducted the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lara Fontanella .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fontanella, L., Chulvi, B., Ignazzi, E. et al. How do we study misogyny in the digital age? A systematic literature review using a computational linguistic approach. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 478 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02978-7

Download citation

Received : 14 July 2023

Accepted : 18 March 2024

Published : 02 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02978-7

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

Quick links

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

• Case report
• Open access
• Published: 29 March 2024

Pancreaticopleural fistula causing pleural effusion: a case report and review of the literature

• Milan Khadka 1 ,
• Suzit Bhusal 2 ,
• Binod Pantha 1 ,
• Rabin Gautam 1 ,
• Kapil Gautam 1 &
• Ashlesha Chaudhary 3  

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume  18 , Article number:  131 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

130 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Pancreaticopleural fistula is a rare complication of pancreatitis and poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This case report sheds light on the unique challenges posed by pancreaticopleural fistula as a rare complication of pancreatitis. The aim is to contribute valuable insights to the scientific literature by presenting a case involving a middle-aged man with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and associated pleural effusion.

Case presentation

A 41-year-old Asian male with a history of pancreatitis and chronic alcohol use presented with severe dyspnea, chest pain, and left-sided pleural effusion. Elevated serum amylase lipase levels and imaging confirmed acute necrotizing pancreatitis with a computed tomography severity index of 8/10. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography revealed pancreatic necrosis and pseudocyst formation and findings suggestive of pancreaticopleural fistula. The patient was then treated with octreotide therapy.

The management of pancreaticopleural fistula demands a comprehensive and individualized approach. Recognition guided by high clinical suspicion coupled with appropriate investigations and a careful balance between medical, endoscopic, and surgical interventions is crucial for achieving favorable outcomes. This case report adds to the scientific literature by providing insights into the complexities of pancreaticopleural fistula and emphasizing the importance of personalized strategies in its management.

Peer Review reports

Pancreaticopleural fistula (PPF) is a rare complication associated with pancreatitis, particularly chronic pancreatitis, which presents a unique challenge in diagnosis and management [ 1 ]. Chronic pancreatitis, often linked to prolonged alcohol abuse, constitutes a significant etiological factor for PPF [ 2 ]. PPF arises when pancreatic secretions dissect through fascial planes, forming a communication into the retroperitoneum and subsequently into the pleural cavity [ 3 , 4 ]. This case report focuses on the complex manifestations and therapeutic considerations in a 41 year old male with a history of alcohol-induced pancreatitis, showcasing the plausible relationship between pancreatic pathology and pleural involvement. This case report has been reported in accordance with the case report and literature review (CARE) checklist [ 5 ]

A 41-year-old Asian male presented to the medicine department with a 2-month history of progressively worsening shortness of breath, exacerbated over the past 7 days. The dyspnea was insidious in onset, reaching Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale grade IV (MMRC IV), and worsened while sleeping on the right lateral side. Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea (PND) was observed, accompanied by chest pain. The patient developed left-sided chest pain, abdominal pain, and anxiety, with a blood pressure of 150/100 mmHg and SpO 2 of 70%. The patient had a past history of multiple episodes of pancreatitis, which were managed supportively. He was diagnosed as having alcohol-induced pancreatitis, and he had a significant daily alcohol consumption for over 10 years. His family and psychosocial history were irrelevant.

Upon examination, reduced air entry was noted on the left side. After the initial assessment, the patient received intravenous fluids, analgesics, and oxygen therapy. The vitals were then stabilized, and the patient was admitted following the diagnosis of left-sided pleural effusion. Initial laboratory investigations revealed normal complete blood count (CBC), urine routine examination (RE), renal function test (RFT), liver function test (LFT), glucose, and coagulation profile.

Ultrasonography demonstrated a significant left pleural effusion, later confirmed to be around 1 L. The computed tomography (CT) scan indicated pancreatic measurements of 25 mm, 13 mm, 16 mm, and 14 mm in the head, neck, body, and tail regions, respectively. Pancreatic inflammation, peripancreatic fat strandings, and minimal collections were observed. The parenchyma showed heterogeneous enhancement with non enhancing areas. Gross free fluid in the left pleural cavities, along with left lung collapse/consolidation, suggested acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The modified CT severity index was calculated as 8/10 (severe) on the basis of pancreatic inflammation, necrosis, and extrapancreatic complications (Fig.  1 ).

Computed tomography scan showing gross free fluid in the left pleural cavities

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) revealed a heterogeneous signal of the pancreas, ill-defined margins, and fluid surrounding the pancreas suggestive of necrotic pancreatitis with potential pseudocyst formation and extension into the chest cavity (Fig.  2 ).

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography images demonstrating heterogeneous signal of the pancreas, ill-defined margins, and fluid surrounding the pancreas

Diagnostic and therapeutic aspiration of the pleural fluid was done, which revealed dark red hemorrhagic pleural fluid indicative of hemorrhage within the pleural cavity. Approximately 1000 ml of pleural fluid was drained revealing large volume of hemorrhagic effusion. The fluid, while not overtly turbid, displayed a subtle cloudiness likely attributed to the suspended red blood cells. No distinct or abnormal odor was noted during the examination, indicating the absence of infectious or purulent components within the hemorrhagic pleural fluid. The consistency of the fluid was noted to be watery, in line with the typical characteristics of pleural fluid. No unusual viscosity or thickening was observed. (Fig.  3 ). Following the aspiration, the patient had some symptomatic relief.

Dark-red pleural fluid from the patient’s left pleural cavity

Pleural fluid analysis showed protein of 5.3 g/dl, glucose of 71 mg/dl, total leukocyte count (TLC) of 700/mg, with 20% neutrophils, 80% lymphocytes, and the presence of red blood cells (RBCs). Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in the pleural fluid increased from 910 U/L to 1738 U/L comparing the initial assessment of fluid and subsequent assessment, which may suggest increasing cellular damage within the pleural space. Serum amylase lipase levels were elevated at 224/514. Pleural fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA) was 33.8 µ/l, amylase 12442, and the cell count was 350 (N60 L50). These findings collectively contributed to the diagnosis of left-sided pleural effusion, acute necrotizing pancreatitis, and pancreaticopleural fistula.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) revealed sinus tachycardia and q-wave in I avL V5–V6. Following this, a definitive diagnosis of left-sided pleural effusion, acute necrotizing pancreatitis, and pancreaticopleural fistula was made, and the patient was started on octreotide therapy three times daily along with other supportive treatment and underwent regular observation and follow-up to monitor the progress of pancreaticopleural fistula secondary to acute necrotizing pancreatitis and associated pleural effusion with positive outcomes. The treatment approach involved a comprehensive and individualized strategy, considering medical, endoscopic, and surgical interventions as deemed appropriate.

The patient was closely monitored with regular clinical evaluations to assess symptoms, vital signs, and overall well-being. The patient’s response to octreotide therapy was carefully evaluated, focusing on reductions in fistula output and improvements in clinical symptoms. The patient’s symptomatic relief and improvements in quality of life were considered, emphasizing factors such as the resolution of dyspnea, chest pain, and overall respiratory distress. Upon achieving significant clinical improvement and stabilization of the pancreaticopleural fistula (PPF) and associated pleural effusion, the patient was considered for discharge. The patient and caregivers were educated on recognizing early signs of complications or worsening symptoms, emphasizing the importance of prompt medical attention if such issues arose. Dietary recommendations, especially related to alcohol consumption, were provided to promote overall health and prevent future exacerbations of pancreatitis. The patient received comprehensive education regarding the nature of pancreaticopleural fistula, the importance of medication adherence, and lifestyle modifications to prevent recurrence.

The presented case highlights the nature of pancreaticopleural fistula (PPF), a rare complication predominantly associated with chronic pancreatitis and alcohol abuse. The patient’s clinical course, marked by severe respiratory distress and left-sided pleural effusion shows the interplay between chronic alcohol-induced pancreatitis, pancreatic duct disruption, and subsequent pleural involvement, contributing to a refractory and rapidly accumulating pleural effusion. Clinical examination, laboratory investigations, and advanced imaging techniques collectively contributed to the formulation of an accurate diagnosis. Initiation of octreotide therapy was deemed appropriate based on the observed benefits in reducing fistula output and expediting closure. The decision to opt for initial medical management aligns with the evolving trend in PPF treatment, emphasizing a less invasive approach before considering alternative interventions. Regular observation and follow-up are integral components of the comprehensive management plan, allowing for dynamic adjustments based on the patient’s response.

Pancreaticopleural fistula (PPF) remains a rare but challenging complication associated with chronic pancreatitis. Recognition of PPF as a distinct clinical entity has evolved since the late 1960s [ 6 ]. The classic description often involves middle-aged, chronic alcoholic males presenting with breathlessness [ 7 ]. Males constitute the majority of cases, and PPF-mediated pleural effusion predominantly manifests with dyspnea [ 2 , 8 ]. The presented case aligns with this profile, emphasizing the importance of clinical suspicion in such scenarios.

The diagnosis of PPF involves differentiating it from reactive effusions in acute pancreatitis, considering its refractory nature and rapid accumulation [ 1 , 9 , 10 ]. Elevated pleural fluid amylase levels, a characteristic finding, serve as a key diagnostic marker [ 11 ]. However, challenges arise due to various pathologies with increased amylase levels [ 12 , 13 ]. Hence, a high index of suspicion in the right clinical context is crucial for accurate diagnosis. Imaging modalities play a pivotal role in delineating PPF and guiding therapeutic decisions. Computed tomography (CT) is valuable for detecting pleural effusion and associated pancreatic parenchymal changes [ 1 , 10 ]. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) offers noninvasive visualization of ductal anatomy, aiding in stratifying further management [ 14 , 15 ],

While there is no established optimum therapy for PPF, initial conservative approaches involving medical therapy and observation are common [ 1 , 10 ]. Somatostatin analogs, such as octreotide, play a crucial role in reducing fistula output and expediting closure. However, the duration of medical treatment remains a critical question, with a suggested period of 2–4 weeks before considering alternative interventions [ 16 ]

Endoscopic procedures, particularly endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with stent placement, have revolutionized nonoperative therapy for PPF [ 1 , 12 ]. Stents serve dual roles in mechanically occluding the fistulous communication and dilating duct strictures [ 10 ]. Success rates vary, emphasizing the importance of patient selection based on ductal anatomy [ 17 ]. Surgical intervention, though definitive, is typically reserved for cases unresponsive to medical or endoscopic treatments [ 1 , 10 ]. Exploration of the pertinent medical literature reveals the multifaceted landscape of PPF, emphasizing its association with chronic pancreatitis and its atypical manifestation in the form of pleural effusion. The diagnostic challenges are highlighted, with elevated pleural fluid amylase serving as a key marker. The evolving role of imaging modalities, including CT and MRCP, is discussed in guiding accurate diagnosis and therapeutic decisions.

In comparing the presented case with similar instances in the literature, commonalities and differences emerge. Similar cases often involve middle-aged males with a history of chronic pancreatitis, particularly associated with alcohol consumption. The predominant symptomatology is dyspnea, consistent with respiratory distress observed in the present case. Elevated pleural fluid amylase levels, a hallmark of PPF, are consistently reported in the literature [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Contrastingly, the heterogeneity in disease manifestation and therapeutic outcomes is notable. While some cases advocate for a predominantly medical approach using somatostatin analogs, others favor endoscopic interventions such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with stent placement. Surgical intervention, though definitive, is typically reserved for cases unresponsive to initial measures [ 11 ].

Hence, a comprehensive analysis of the patient’s presentation, diagnostic workup, and therapeutic response is crucial. The rationale behind favoring an initial medical approach with octreotide and regular observation lies in the observed benefits of somatostatin analogues in reducing fistula output and expediting closure. The consideration of endoscopic interventions, guided by imaging findings, aligns with the evolving trend in PPF management. Surgical intervention, while recognized as definitive, is reserved for cases unresponsive to initial measures, emphasizing a nuanced and stepwise approach tailored to the individual patient.

The strength of our case lies in the systematic utilization of imaging, laboratory data, and clinical observations to inform therapeutic decisions. The incorporation of evolving endoscopic techniques reflects a commitment to contemporary, less invasive interventions. However, limitations include the rarity of PPF, which affects the generalizability of findings, and the absence of a standardized treatment algorithm. Additionally, as this is a case report, it has inherent limitations in controlling variables and establishing causation.

This case sheds light on the management of pancreaticopleural fistula (PPF), a rare complication often associated with chronic pancreatitis and alcohol abuse. The presented insights emphasize the importance of considering PPF in the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions, particularly in the context of a history of pancreatitis. The diagnostic significance of elevated pleural fluid amylase levels and the evolving role of advanced imaging techniques, notably MRCP, offer crucial guidance for accurate diagnosis. The case highlights the necessity for a tailored and stepwise approach, incorporating medical, endoscopic, and surgical interventions, as deemed appropriate, to optimize patient outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

Abbreviations

• Pancreaticopleural fistula

Computed tomography

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Case report and literature review

Complete blood count

Urine routine examination

Renal function test

Liver function test

Electrocardiogram

Adenosine deaminase

Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale grade IV

Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea

Oxygen saturation

Lactate dehydrogenase

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Sut M, Gray R, Ramachandran M (2009) Pancreaticopleural fistula: a rare complication of ERCP–induced pancreatitis. Ulster Med. J.

Wypych K, Serafin Z, Gałązka P, Strześniewski P, Matuszczak W, Nierzwicka K, Lasek W, Prokurat AI, Bąk M. Pancreaticopleural fistulas of different origin: report of two cases and a review of literature. Pol J Radiol. 2011;76:56–60.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cameron JL, Kieffer RS, Anderson WJ, Zuidema GD. Internal pancreatic fistulas: pancreatic ascites and pleural effusions. Ann Surg. 1976;184:587–93.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lipsett PA, Cameron JL. Internal pancreatic fistula. Am J Surg. 1992;163:216–20.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

CARE checklist —. In: CARE Case Report Guidelines. https://www.care-statement.org/checklist . Accessed 4 Dec 2023

Anderson WJ, Skinner DB, Zuidema GD, Cameron JL. Chronic pancreatic pleural effusions. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973;137:827–30.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hastier P, Rouquier P, Buckley M, Simler JM, Dumas R, Delmont JP. Endoscopic treatment of wirsungo-cysto-pleural fistula. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;10:527–9.

Ali T, Srinivasan N, Le V, Chimpiri AR, Tierney WM. Pancreaticopleural fistula. Pancreas. 2009;38:e26-31.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vyas S, Gogoi D, Sinha SK, Singh P, Yadav TD, Khandelwal N. Pancreaticopleural fistula: an unusual complication of pancreatitis diagnosed with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. JOP. 2009;10:671–3.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dhebri AR, Ferran N. Nonsurgical management of pancreaticopleural fistula. JOP. 2005;6:152–61.

Miller JA, Maldjian P, Seeff J. Pancreaticopleural fistula. An unusual cause of persistent unilateral pleural effusion. Clin Imaging. 1998;22:105–7.

Safadi BY, Marks JM. Pancreatic-pleural fistula: the role of ERCP in diagnosis and treatment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:213–5.

Sonoda S, Taniguchi M, Sato T, et al . Bilateral pleural fluid caused by a pancreaticopleural fistula requiring surgical treatment. Intern Med. 2012;51:2655–61.

Materne R, Vranckx P, Pauls C, Coche EE, Deprez P, Van Beers BE. Pancreaticopleural fistula. Chest. 2000;117:912–4.

King JC, Reber HA, Shiraga S, Hines OJ. Pancreatic–pleural fistula is best managed by early operative intervention. Surgery. 2010;147:154–9.

Rockey DC, Cello JP. Pancreaticopleural fistula. Report of 7 patients and review of the literature. Medicine. 1990;69:332–44.

Wronski M, Slodkowski M, Cebulski W, Moronczyk D, Krasnodebski IW. Optimizing management of pancreaticopleural fistulas. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:4696–703.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine, National Academy of Medical Sciences, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal

Milan Khadka, Binod Pantha, Rabin Gautam & Kapil Gautam

National Trauma Center, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal

Suzit Bhusal

Everest Hospital Pvt Ltd, Kathmandu, Nepal

Ashlesha Chaudhary

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MK conceived and designed the study, collected and interpreted clinical data, and drafted and revised the manuscript; SB contributed to the study design and literature review and participated in drafting and critical revision of the manuscript; BP contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript; RG participated in the design of the study, conducted patient examinations and data collection, and provided critical input in manuscript revision; KG assisted in the coordination and execution of the study and participated in drafting and revising the manuscript; and AC contributed to the study design and literature review, and participated in drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzit Bhusal .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for participation in this study.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of this case and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Khadka, M., Bhusal, S., Pantha, B. et al. Pancreaticopleural fistula causing pleural effusion: a case report and review of the literature. J Med Case Reports 18 , 131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04457-8

Download citation

Received : 24 December 2023

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 29 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04457-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Acute necrotizing pancreatitis
• Pleural effusion
• Octreotide therapy

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.