aim of the literature review

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Request Info
• Search Search Site Faculty/Staff
• Open Navigation Menu Menu Close Navigation Menu
• Literature Review Guidelines

Making sense of what has been written on your topic.

Goals of a literature review:.

Before doing work in primary sources, historians must know what has been written on their topic.  They must be familiar with theories and arguments–as well as facts–that appear in secondary sources.

Before you proceed with your research project, you too must be familiar with the literature: you do not want to waste time on theories that others have disproved and you want to take full advantage of what others have argued.  You want to be able to discuss and analyze your topic.

Your literature review will demonstrate your familiarity with your topic’s secondary literature.

GUIDELINES FOR A LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) LENGTH:  8-10 pages of text for Senior Theses (485) (consult with your professor for other classes), with either footnotes or endnotes and with a works-consulted bibliography. [See also the  citation guide  on this site.]

2) NUMBER OF WORKS REVIEWED: Depends on the assignment, but for Senior Theses (485), at least ten is typical.

3) CHOOSING WORKS:

Your literature review must include enough works to provide evidence of both the breadth and the depth of the research on your topic or, at least, one important angle of it.  The number of works necessary to do this will depend on your topic. For most topics, AT LEAST TEN works (mostly books but also significant scholarly articles) are necessary, although you will not necessarily give all of them equal treatment in your paper (e.g., some might appear in notes rather than the essay). 4) ORGANIZING/ARRANGING THE LITERATURE:

As you uncover the literature (i.e., secondary writing) on your topic, you should determine how the various pieces relate to each other.  Your ability to do so will demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of literature.

You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology.  This list is not exhaustive.  You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria.  There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.

The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle.  Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into.  How do you do that?  For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources.  Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources?  If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature.  If not, you might still have a thesis.

Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature?  For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period?  Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic?  Do interpretations change at some point?  Does the major methodology being used change?  Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

Follow these links for more help on analyzing  historiography  and  historical perspective .

5) CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients:

a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature c) A clear argument, using the works on topic as evidence, i.e., you discuss the sources in relation to your thesis, not as a separate topic.

These ingredients must be presented in an essay with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

6) ARGUING YOUR THESIS:

The thesis of a literature review should not only describe how the literature has evolved, but also provide a clear evaluation of that literature.  You should assess the literature in terms of the quality of either individual works or categories of works.  For instance, you might argue that a certain approach (e.g. social history, cultural history, or another) is better because it deals with a more complex view of the issue or because they use a wider array of source materials more effectively. You should also ensure that you integrate that evaluation throughout your argument.  Doing so might include negative assessments of some works in order to reinforce your argument regarding the positive qualities of other works and approaches to the topic.

Within each group, you should provide essential information about each work: the author’s thesis, the work’s title and date, the author’s supporting arguments and major evidence.

In most cases, arranging the sources chronologically by publication date within each section makes the most sense because earlier works influenced later ones in one way or another.  Reference to publication date also indicates that you are aware of this significant historiographical element.

As you discuss each work, DO NOT FORGET WHY YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT.  YOU ARE PRESENTING AND SUPPORTING A THESIS ABOUT THE LITERATURE.

When discussing a particular work for the first time, you should refer to it by the author’s full name, the work’s title, and year of publication (either in parentheses after the title or worked into the sentence).

For example, “The field of slavery studies has recently been transformed by Ben Johnson’s The New Slave (2001)” and “Joe Doe argues in his 1997 study, Slavery in America, that . . . .”

Your paper should always note secondary sources’ relationship to each other, particularly in terms of your thesis about the literature (e.g., “Unlike Smith’s work, Mary Brown’s analysis reaches the conclusion that . . . .” and “Because of Anderson’s reliance on the president’s personal papers, his interpretation differs from Barry’s”). The various pieces of the literature are “related” to each other, so you need to indicate to the reader some of that relationship.  (It helps the reader follow your thesis, and it convinces the reader that you know what you are talking about.)

7) DOCUMENTATION:

Each source you discuss in your paper must be documented using footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography.  Providing author and title and date in the paper is not sufficient.  Use correct Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style form.  [See  Bibliography  and  Footnotes/Endnotes  pages.]

In addition, further supporting, but less significant, sources should be included in  content foot or endnotes .  (e.g., “For a similar argument to Ben Johnson’s, see John Terry, The Slave Who Was New (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 3-45.”)

8 ) CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

Your conclusion should not only reiterate your argument (thesis), but also discuss questions that remain unanswered by the literature.  What has the literature accomplished?  What has not been studied?  What debates need to be settled?

Additional writing guidelines

History and American Studies

• About the Department
• Major Requirements & Courses
• What courses will I take as an History major?
• What can I do with my History degree?
• History 485
• Methodology
• Choosing a Topic
• Book Reviews
• Historiographic Clues
• Understanding Historical Perspective
• Sample Literature Review
• Using Quotations
• Ellipses and Brackets
• Footnotes and Endnotes
• Content Notes
• Citation Guide
• Citing Non-Print Resources
• How to Annotate
• Annotated Examples
• Journals vs. Magazines
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Historians Define Plagiarism
• Plagiarism Tutorial
• UMW Honor System
• Presentation Guidelines
• Tips for Leading Seminars
• Hints for Class Discussion
• Speaking Center
• Guidelines for a Research Paper
• Library Research Plan
• How to Use ILL
• Database Guide
• Guide to Online Research
• Writing Guidelines
• Recognizing Passive Voice
• Introduction and Conclusion
• MS Word’s Grammar and Spellcheck
• Writing Center
• What You Need to Know
• Links to Online Primary Sources by Region
• What will I learn from my American Studies major?
• What courses will I take as an American Studies major?
• What can I do with my American Studies degree?
• American Studies 485
• For Prospective Students
• Honors and Award Recipients
• Internships

Alumni Intros

How have History & American Studies majors built careers after earning their degrees? Learn more by clicking the image above.  

Recent Posts

• History and American Studies Symposium–April 26, 2024
• Fall 2024 Courses
• Fall 2023 Symposium – 12/8 – All Welcome!
• Spring ’24 Course Flyers
• Internship Opportunity – Chesapeake Gateways Ambassador
• Congratulations to our Graduates!
• History and American Studies Symposium–April 21, 2023
• View umwhistory’s profile on Facebook
• View umwhistory’s profile on Twitter

Workshop: Literature Reviews- What you need to know

• How to write a literature review

Useful Titles for All of your Boxes

The Seven Steps to Producing a Literature Review:

1. Identify your question

2. Review discipline style

3. Search the literature

4. Manage your references

5. Critically analyze and evaluate

6. Synthisize

7. Write the review

• University of North Carolina Writing Center "How To" UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center "How To" on writing a literature review.
• Purdue Owl Purdue Owl help on writing a literature review

Feedback and Additional Information

• Library Workshop Evaluation Brief survey for workshop participants. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
• TTU Library Workshops Additional information about TTU Library Workshops. All workshops are taught by Personal Librarians in Instruction Lab 150 unless otherwise noted.
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 8:06 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ttu.edu/litreview

Unravelling customer gratitude: navigating the literature and paving the way forward with the TCCM framework

• Original Article
• Published: 30 August 2024

Cite this article

• Karan Grover   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-3430-3722 1 &

In light of the critical need for businesses to cultivate enduring customer relationships, this study investigates the role of customer gratitude (CG). Research has demonstrated that gratitude plays a transformative role in interpersonal relationships. Despite significant research growth in CG in recent years, there is a notable lack of comprehensive reviews in this field. This study conducts a systematic review of the extensive literature on CG and introduces a unified framework that identifies potential avenues for future research. The thorough review encompasses 44 articles spanning the period from 2005 to 2023, offering an in-depth exploration of the CG concept. The study synthesizes diverse literature on CG, by employing theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodologies (TCCM) framework as outlined by Paul and Rosado-Serrano (2019). The framework-based approach effectively provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolutionary trajectory of CG research over time. Findings of the study indicate that research on CG has been conducted in 16 countries, with a significant focus on the United States, where it has been featured in 19 studies. The majority of research in this area employed survey-based designs, followed by experimental and mixed-method approaches. Among the 25 theories used in CG studies, Social Exchange Theory is the most frequently employed. Based on the synthesis, a conceptual framework is proposed, outlining the antecedents, mediators, and consequences of CG. Additionally, the TCCM framework is utilized to structure potential trajectories for future research. This study makes various forms of contributions, including incremental, revelatory, and consolidatory contributions. Furthermore, marketers can capitalize on the insights gathered from this study to cultivate a nuanced understanding of CG across diverse industries and countries. The current study presents a thorough analysis of CG that has rarely been explored in depth previously.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this study since no datasets was collected.

Abhilash, Shenoy, S. S., & Shetty, D. K. (2022). A state-of-the-art overview of green bond markets: Evidence from technology empowered systematic literature review. Cogent Economics & Finance , 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2135834

Ameen, N., Sharma, G. D., Tarba, S., Rao, A., & Chopra, R. (2022). Toward advancing theory on creativity in marketing and artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, 39 (9), 1802–1825. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21699

Article   Google Scholar  

Appiah, D., Ozuem, W., Howell, K. E., & Lancaster, G. (2019). Brand switching and consumer identification with brands in the smartphones industry. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 18 (6), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1785

Audrain-Pontevia, A.-F., & Garnier, I. (2021). Are your customers grateful? How customer gratitude impacts loyalty programme effectiveness. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49 (12), 1660–1679. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2020-0426

Badrinarayanan, V., Ramachandran, I., & Madhavaram, S. (2019). Mirroring the Boss: Ethical Leadership, Emulation Intentions, and Salesperson Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 159 (3), 897–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3842-1

Bennett, R., & Rundel-Thiele, S. (2005). The brand loyalty life cycle: Implications for marketers. Journal of Brand Management, 12 (4), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540221

Bhardwaj, P., & Kalro, A. D. (2024). Consumer well‐being—A systematic literature review and research agenda using TCCM framework. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12991

Bhattacharya, S., & Dalal, A. (2024). Exploring the brand gratitude paradigm at BOP in the context of emerging markets. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-024-00403-y

Bi, Q. (2019). Cultivating loyal customers through online customer communities: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Business Research, 103 , 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.005

Bock, D. E., Folse, J. A. G., & Black, W. C. (2016a). Gratitude in service encounters: Implications for building loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2015-0223

Bock, D. E., Folse, J. A. G., & Black, W. C. (2016b). When Frontline Employee Behavior Backfires. Journal of Service Research, 19 (3), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516633754

Bock, D. E., & Thomas, V. L. (2023). Too Exciting to Care? When Expressing Gratitude Is a Detriment to the Brand. Journal of Advertising, 52 (2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1990812

Bock, D., Thomas, V., Wolter, J., Saenger, C., & Xu, P. (2021). An extended reciprocity cycle of gratitude: How gratitude strengthens existing and initiates new customer relationships. Psychology & Marketing, 38 (3), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21456

Bridger, E. K., & Wood, A. (2017). Gratitude mediates consumer responses to marketing communications. European Journal of Marketing, 51 (1), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0810

Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management (pp. 112–129). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.013.0007

Cammarota, A., D’Arco, M., Marino, V., & Resciniti, R. (2023). Brand activism: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47 (5), 1669–1691. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12967

Che Mohd Salleh, M. (2016). The significant contribution of islamic relationship marketing practice in malaysian takaful industry towards determining customer gratitude, trust, and commitment. Asian Academy of Management Journal , 21 (Suppl.1), 171–207. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2016.supp.1.8

Chou, C. Y., Leo, W. W. C., Tsarenko, Y., & Chen, T. (2023). When feeling good counts! Impact of consumer gratitude and life satisfaction in access-based services. European Journal of Marketing, 57 (2), 626–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2021-0655

Chou, S., & Chen, C.-W. (2018). The influences of relational benefits on repurchase intention in service contexts: The roles of gratitude, trust and commitment. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33 (5), 680–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2017-0187

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

Dawes, J., Meyer-Waarden, L., & Driesener, C. (2015). Has brand loyalty declined? A longitudinal analysis of repeat purchase behavior in the UK and the USA. Journal of Business Research, 68 (2), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.006

Raggio, R. D., Walz, A. M., Bose Godbole, M., & Folse, J. A. G. (2014). Gratitude in relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 48 (1/2), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2009-0355

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage Publications Ltd.

DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Baumann, J., Williams, L. A., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10 (2), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017883

Eggert, A., Steinhoff, L., & Garnefeld, I. (2015). Managing the Bright and Dark Sides of Status Endowment in Hierarchical Loyalty Programs. Journal of Service Research, 18 (2), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514566797

Eggert, A., Steinhoff, L., & Witte, C. (2019). Gift Purchases as Catalysts for Strengthening Customer-Brand Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 83 (5), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919860802

Fazal e Hasan Lings Neale Mortimer, S. I. L. G. (2014). The role of customer gratitude in making relationship marketing investments successful. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (5), 788–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.06.00

Fazal E Hasan, S., et al. (2017). Examining the antecedents and consequences of gratitude. Journal of Services Marketing, 31 (1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2016-0048

Fazal-e-Hasan, S., Mortimer, G., Lings, I., & Kaur, G. (2020). How gratitude improves relationship marketing outcomes for young consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 37 (7), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-10-2019-34

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359 (1449), 1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Gingiss, D. (2024). Customer Experience: Why Customers Are Switching Brands More Often. The Experience Maker. https://dangingiss.com/switching-brands/

Gong, T., Wang, C.-Y., & Lee, K. (2020). The consequences of customer-oriented constructive deviance in luxury-hotel restaurants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57 , 102254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102254

Huang, M.-H. (2015). The influence of relationship marketing investments on customer gratitude in retailing. Journal of Business Research, 68 (6), 1318–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.001

Huggins, K. A., White, D. W., Holloway, B. B., & Hansen, J. D. (2020). Customer gratitude in relationship marketing strategies: A cross-cultural e-tailing perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 37 (4), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-08-2019-3380

Jin, N. P., & Merkebu, J. (2015). The role of employee attractiveness and positive emotion in upscale restaurants. Anatolia, 26 (2), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2014.948895

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution Theory and Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31 (1), 457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325

Khan, F. M., Anas, M., & Uddin, S. M. F. (2024). Anthropomorphism and consumer behaviour: A SPAR‐4‐SLR protocol compliant hybrid review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12985

Kim, J., & Park, T. (2020). How corporate social responsibility (CSR) saves a company: The role of gratitude in buffering vindictive consumer behavior from product failures. Journal of Business Research, 117 , 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.024

Kim, Y. S., & Baker, M. A. (2019). Observer reactions to other customer incivility. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31 (3), 1292–1308. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0262

Kim, Y., Smith, R. D., & Kwak, D. H. (2018). Feelings of gratitude: A mechanism for consumer reciprocity. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18 (3), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1389973

Koch, O. F., & Benlian, A. (2015). Promotional Tactics for Online Viral Marketing Campaigns: How Scarcity and Personalization Affect Seed Stage Referrals. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32 , 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.09.005

Koskie, M. M., Freling, R. E., Locander, W. B., & Freling, T. H. (2023). The role of brand gratitude in consumer relationships with cool brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-2023-4343

Lages, C. R., Perez-Vega, R., Kadić-Maglajlić, S., & Borghei-Razavi, N. (2023). A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of the dark side of customer behavior: An integrative customer incivility framework. Journal of Business Research, 161 , 113779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113779

Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2022). Past, present, and future of customer engagement. Journal of Business Research, 140 , 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014

Liu, C.-R., Kuo, T. M., Wang, Y.-C., Shen, Y.-J., Chen, S.-P., & Hong, J.-W. (2022). Perceived luxurious values and pay a price premium for Michelin-starred restaurants: A sequential mediation model with self-expansion and customer gratitude. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103 , 103185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103185

Mangus, S. M., Bock, D. E., Jones, E., & Folse, J. A. G. (2017). Gratitude in buyer-seller relationships: A dyadic investigation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37 (3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2017.1352447

Mariani, M., & Borghi, M. (2019). Industry 4.0: A bibliometric review of its managerial intellectual structure and potential evolution in the service industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149 , 119752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119752

McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249

McKechnie, S., Nath, P., & Xun, J. (2018). New insights into emotion valence and loyalty intentions in relational exchanges. Psychology & Marketing, 35 (2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21077

Mendini, M., Peter, P. C., & Maione, S. (2022). The potential positive effects of time spent on Instagram on consumers’ gratitude, altruism, and willingness to donate. Journal of Business Research, 143 , 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.046

Milstein, N., Striet, Y., Lavidor, M., Anaki, D., & Gordon, I. (2022). Rivalry and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Organizational Psychology Review, 12 (3), 332–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221082128

Mishra, A. A. (2016). The role of customer gratitude in relationship marketing: Moderation and model validation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24 (6), 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2016.1148762

Morales, A. C. (2005). Giving Firms an “E” for Effort: Consumer Responses to High-Effort Firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1086/426615

Nakazawa, M., Yoshida, M., & Gordon, B. S. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of sponsor-stadium fit. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 6 (4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-08-2015-0025

Nanda, A. P., & Banerjee, R. (2021). Consumer’s subjective financial well-being: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45 (4), 750–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12668

Nicholson, J. D., LaPlaca, P., Al-Abdin, A., Breese, R., & Khan, Z. (2018). What do introduction sections tell us about the intent of scholarly work: A contribution on contributions. Industrial Marketing Management, 73 , 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.02.014

Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkoff, J. R., & Kardes, F. R. (2009). The Role of Customer Gratitude in Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.1

Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695

Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models. International Marketing Review, 36 (6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280

Qi, J. M., Peng, Y., Lowman, G. H., & He, X. (2023a). The impact of service climate on gratitude in driving customer outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 37 (1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-12-2021-0458

Qi, J. M., Wang, S., & Lindsey Hall, K. K. (2023b). Bridging employee engagement and customer engagement in a service context. Journal of Business Research, 160 , 113803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113803

Quach, S., Weaven, S. K., Thaichon, P., Baker, B., & Edwards, C. J. (2019). Gratitude in franchisor-franchisee relationships: Does personality matter? European Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 109–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0458

Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Explaining Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114 (2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1337-z

Ruz-Mendoza, M. Á., Trifu, A., Cambra-Fierro, J., & Melero-Polo, I. (2021). Standardized vs. customized firm-initiated interactions: Their effect on customer gratitude and performance in a B2B context. Journal of Business Research, 133 , 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.006

Simon, F. (2013). The influence of empathy in complaint handling: Evidence of gratitudinal and transactional routes to loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20 (6), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.003

Singh, B., & Tiwari, A. A. (2020). Customer stewardship behavior and stewardship fatigue: A conceptual framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38 (3), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2019-0071

Singh, S., & Dhir, S. (2019). Structured review using TCCM and bibliometric analysis of international cause-related marketing, social marketing, and innovation of the firm. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 16 (2–4), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-019-00233-3

Soscia, I. (2007). Gratitude, delight, or guilt: The role of consumers’ emotions in predicting postconsumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing, 24 (10), 871–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20188

Suetrong, P., & Pires, G. D. (2021). Brand liking and consumer gratitude effects on consumer-brand love relationships and repurchase intention. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 21 (4), 458. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2021.115504

Wang, X., Keh, H. T., & Yan, L. (2020). Customer perceptions of frontline employees’ extra-role helping behaviors. Journal of Services Marketing, 34 (6), 869–883. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2019-0298

Zhu, Z., Chen, X., Liu, J., Yang, M., & Fan, X. (2022). Your thanks make me work harder: A multiple identification perspective. Journal of Business Research, 144 , 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.027

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18 (3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jindal Global Business School, O.P. Jindal Global University, 131001, Sonipat, Delhi NCR, India

Karan Grover &  Garima

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karan Grover .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 84 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Grover, K., Garima Unravelling customer gratitude: navigating the literature and paving the way forward with the TCCM framework. Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-024-00415-8

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2024

Accepted : 25 July 2024

Published : 30 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-024-00415-8

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

• Customer Gratitude
• Systematic Literature Review
• TCCM framework
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections
• < Previous

Home > ETD > Doctoral > 5930

Doctoral Dissertations and Projects

The effectiveness of an interdisciplinary care team: an integrative review.

Lindsey Marie Ellingford , Liberty University Follow

School of Nursing

Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)

Tonia Kennedy

multidisciplinary team, integrative team, interdisciplinary team, interprofessional team, or healthcare team

Disciplines

Recommended citation.

Ellingford, Lindsey Marie, "The Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Care Team: An Integrative Review" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects . 5930. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5930

As health care is ever growing and changing, demands for interdisciplinary care team collaboration are crucial for collective competence and team performance across settings. In healthcare facilities across the county, interdisciplinary care teams are made up of multiple disciplines. The following is an integrative review with a purpose to determine if the existing literature supports the implementation of an interdisciplinary care team in the healthcare environment. After completion of this integrative review, the author concluded there should be a standardized tool in the healthcare system to guide the creation and implementation of an interdisciplinary care team. The Jerry Falwell Library at Liberty University was searched, and databases included: Consumer Health Database, PubMed, Cochran Library, EBSCO, and CINAHL. Parameters of the search included peer-reviewed articles published in the English language within the past five years. A total of 1,116 results were identified; 16 articles were used in the literature review. The articles were leveled using Melnyk’s level of evidence and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used as a guide to support the reporting of this integrative review.

Since August 29, 2024

Included in

Nursing Commons

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Research
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Open access
• Published: 28 August 2024

Historical and practical aspects of macular buckle surgery in the treatment of myopic tractional maculopathy: case series and literature review

• Francyne Veiga Reis Cyrino 1 ,
• Moisés Moura de Lucena 1 ,
• Letícia de Oliveira Audi 1 ,
• José Afonso Ribeiro Ramos Filho 1 ,
• João Pedro Romero Braga 1 ,
• Thais Marino de Azeredo Bastos 1 ,
• Igor Neves Coelho 1 &
• Rodrigo Jorge 1  

International Journal of Retina and Vitreous volume  10 , Article number:  60 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Uncorrected myopia is a leading cause of blindness globally, with a rising prevalence in recent decades. Pathological myopia, often seen in individuals with increased axial length (AXL), can result in severe structural changes in the posterior pole, including myopic tractional maculopathy (MTM). MTM arises from tractional forces at the vitreoretinal interface, leading to progressive macular retinoschisis, macular holes, and retinal detachment (RD). This study aims to outline preoperative evaluation and surgical indication criteria for MTM, based on the MTM staging system, and to share our Brazilian experience with three cases of macular buckle (MB) surgery, all with over a year of follow-up.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of three cases of MTM-associated RD treated with MB surgery, with or without pars plana vitrectomy. Preoperative evaluations included optical coherence tomography (OCT) and ultrasonography (USG) to assess the extent of macular involvement and retinal detachment. Surgical indications were determined based on the MTM staging system. The MB was assembled using customizable and accessible materials. Surgical procedures varied according to the specific needs of each case. An informed consent form regarding the surgical procedure was appropriately obtained for each case. The study was conducted with the proper approval of the institution’s ethics committee.

All three cases demonstrated successful retinal attachment during the mean follow-up of eighteen months. In the first case, combined phacoemulsification, vitrectomy, and MB were performed for MTM with macular hole and RD. The second case required MB and vitrectomy after two failed RD surgeries. In the third case, a macular detachment with an internal lamellar hole was treated with MB alone. These cases highlight the efficacy of MB surgery in managing MTM in highly myopic eyes.

Conclusions

MB surgery is an effective treatment option for MTM-associated RD in highly myopic eyes, providing long-term retinal attachment. Our experience demonstrates that with proper preoperative evaluation and surgical planning, MB can be successfully implemented using accessible materials, offering a viable solution in resource-limited settings. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate these findings and refine surgical techniques.

Introduction

Uncorrected myopia is considered one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide [ 1 ], and its prevalence has grown significantly in recent decades [ 2 ]. Specifically, in myopic individuals with increased axial length (AXL), structural changes may occur in the posterior pole that characterizes pathological myopia, including posterior staphyloma, myopic macular degeneration, optic neuropathy associated with myopia, and myopic tractional maculopathy (MTM) [ 3 , 4 ]. The incidence of pathological myopia increases with age but can also occur in younger patients [ 5 ]. The impact of myopic maculopathy lies in its frequent occurrence in both eyes, its irreversibility, and its potential to affect individuals of working age [ 6 ].

MTM is a specific condition of pathological myopia secondary to tangential and anteroposterior tractional alterations at the vitreoretinal interface, where the retina is unable to adapt to the progressive increase in AXL and ends up undergoing structural changes. Characteristically, it involves a progressive combination of macular retinoschisis, lamellar or full-thickness macular holes, and, ultimately, retinal detachment (RD) [ 1 ]. Hence, while antiangiogenic therapy is used to treat neovascular membranes and there is no treatment for atrophic changes, MTM, and its complications require precise surgical interventions, and Macular buckle (MB) surgery, with or without vitrectomy, is one of the surgical techniques options.

In this study, we present the historical aspects of MB, discussing preoperative evaluation and criteria for surgical indication. Hereby we also discuss our experience with MB surgery cases, describing the assembly of a customizable MB using accessible materials.

Historical context and evolution of the macular buckle

The surgical treatment of RD has undergone revolutionary advancements following the theory developed by Jules Gonin in 1921, which involved surgically blocking tears and breaks in the retina [ 2 ]. However, it was soon understood that cases of surgical failure were related to the traction exerted by the vitreous on areas of retinal discontinuity, perpetuating the infiltration of subretinal fluid [ 3 , 4 ]. In an attempt to alleviate this traction by approximating the underlying choroid to the detached retina, several authors proposed techniques such as subchoroidal injection of plasma, transient indentation with gauze, or even a piece of plastic sutured to the sclera near the treated area [ 5 , 6 ]. In 1957, Schepens conceived the technique now known as scleral buckling, revolutionizing retinal surgery, and also proposing some adaptations for the treatment of the macular region in cases of retinal detachment associated with macular holes by positioning the buckle beneath the macular region [ 6 ].

Over time, other MB techniques were developed by different authors [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In 1980, Ando [ 13 ] created the first solid silicone MB, facilitating its implantation without the need for muscle disinsertion or suturing of the implant to the thinned posterior sclera. However, it presented limitations such as the adjustment of force and interference in imaging exams due to the presence of embedded metal [ 14 ]. In 2012, Stirpe et al. developed a new MB that did not contain metal wires and had adjustable sutures [ 15 ], while Mateo et al. proposed the coupling of an illuminated probe to facilitate the precise positioning of Ando’s MB beneath the macula [ 16 ].

Unfortunately, Ando’s device presents limitations regarding shape, tension adjustment, and posterior suture thus hindering its reproducibility. Hence, certain authors explored alternative methods to tailor their implants, such as utilizing silicone sponges internally coated with stainless steel [ 17 ] or employing a titanium stent [ 18 , 19 ], as described by Parolini et al. (2013). In their report, Parolini et al. detailed three cases where they utilized MB exclusively for macular detachment unrelated to macular holes. Additionally, they introduced a novel L-shaped design of MB devoid of posterior sutures, enhancing its feasibility for surgical implementation [ 18 ].

In Brazil, there are no commercially available MBs, so we chose to manufacture one following the descriptions provided by Parolini et al. [ 18 ], as we will describe throughout this article.

Preoperative evaluation, imaging exams in myopic tractional maculopathy, and their role in the surgical indication of macular buckle

Macular buckle surgery requires a comprehensive preoperative ophthalmological assessment and complementary imaging exams to assist in the classification of MTM and surgical planning. Here, we highlight and discuss ocular ultrasonography (USG) and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Ocular ultrasonography

The importance of USG in the surgical planning of MB procedures lies in its ability to assess vitreous and retinal conditions, such as the presence of anteroposterior vitreoretinal tractions (VMT) and/or tears, and to locate and estimate the extent of RD. OCT can also be useful for identifying VTM, but standard OCT does not have sufficient width and depth to capture the entire retinal detachment. Sometimes, in eyes with very high myopia, it is challenging to acquire images of the macular holes and, in these cases, examining with the patient using contact lenses can provide better image acquisition. As wide-field OCT is not available in Brazil, USG is very useful in these situations.

USG also aids in selecting the appropriate surgical technique and determining the indication for MB [ 18 , 19 ]. Moreover, it facilitates the measurement of AXL in cases where optical biometry is unreliable, allows for the accurate calculation of intraocular lens power using the immersion technique to avoid corneal compression [ 21 ], assists in identifying structures in cases of media opacity, and ensures accurate intraoperative positioning and postoperative follow-up of the MB. Regarding the anesthetic procedure, USG is essential in evaluating the size of the staphyloma, helping to select the most suitable anesthetic method for highly myopic eyes (retrobulbar block or subtenon anesthesia) to avoid complications such as ocular perforation or intraocular injection of anesthetic in significantly large eyes [ 22 , 23 , 24 ].

Optical coherence tomography

The diagnosis and monitoring of MTM can be challenging due to the atrophic changes associated with pathological myopia. In this context, OCT has emerged as a fundamental diagnostic method for the non-invasive and detailed evaluation of the vitreoretinal interface, retinal layers, the retinal pigment epithelium, and the choroid, allowing for a better understanding and classification of these structures, as described below [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ].

Classification and criteria for surgical indication in MTM based on OCT findings

The evaluation of OCT and the correct interpretation of findings are essential steps in surgical indication in MTM. In 2021, Parolini et al. [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ] introduced a new OCT classification for MTM, which has strong reproducibility between examiners, intending to streamline information sharing and improve understanding of disease progression. [ 29 ]. The MTM staging system (MSS) categorizes findings into two types of evolution: perpendicular and tangential. Perpendicular evolution describes the anatomical sequence of predominantly internal or inner retinoschisis (stage 1), predominantly external retinoschisis (stage 2), retinoschisis with macular detachment (stage 3), and complete macular detachment without schisis (stage 4). Tangential evolution, in turn, describes the anatomical sequence of preserved foveal contour (a), internal lamellar macular hole (b), and full-thickness macular hole (c). This classification allows for the combination of evolution types, facilitating disease categorization. The occurrence of external lamellar macular holes is described in the classification as “O”, which can happen at any stage, while the presence of epiretinal abnormalities is indicated as “Plus” [ 28 ].

Based on the MSS, a surgical management approach for MTM was proposed. The idea is that comparing MB vitrectomy and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) alone does not make sense, as each approach has its value in treatment. Early-stage cases warrant observation (stages 1a and 2a), while intervention is reserved for those who experience a progressive decline in visual acuity (stages 1b and 2b). When tangential forces predominate, PPV alone presents good results in stages 1a, with significant epiretinal membrane, and 1b and 1c.

In cases where perpendicular evolution predominates, MB alone has proven effective in stages 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b. If epiretinal abnormalities are identified as clinically significant for visual improvement following the MB procedure, rapprochement with PPV remains a viable option. Finally, in cases where perpendicular and tangential forces are present, leading to macular involvement and/or macular or retinal detachment, MB + PPV is indicated (stages 2c, 3c, and 4c). The presence of “plus” alterations may require surgical intervention to improve complaints of metamorphopsia. Table  1 summarizes OCT findings and their implications in surgical indication [ 30 ].

Based on the criteria outlined by Parolini et al. [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], we sought to share our experience in this small case series, where all patients underwent MB surgery, with or without PPV, and have been followed up for over a year. Additionally, we will outline the methodology employed for the MB procedure and offer a concise analysis of the results, correlating them with the current literature.

This retrospective study analyzed three patients with MTM-associated RD treated with MB surgery, with or without PPV. Preoperative evaluations used OCT and USG to determine macular involvement and the extent of RD. Surgical indications were guided by the MTM staging system, and the MB was assembled using customizable materials. Procedures were tailored to the specific needs of each patient. All participants provided written informed consent. The study received approval from the ethics committee of the Clinical Hospital of the University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil, and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Cases report

We describe the surgical management of three cases of highly myopic eyes with MTM, where MB surgery was performed. In cases 1 and 2, RD was associated with a macular hole (MH). In case 2, the indication for MB was due to two previous failures of vitreoretinal surgery (PPV) for the treatment of retinal detachment with a macular hole. In case 3, a macular detachment was associated with an internal lamellar hole. Table  2 summarizes the main findings of each case, and Figs.  1 , 2 and 3 illustrate them.

a : Color fundus photographs of wide-field preoperative imaging, showing retinal detachment in the posterior pole with a macular hole in the left eye (OS); b : Postoperative color fundus photography of the OS with attached retina and a residual gas bubble; c : Preoperative USG evidencing retinal detachment and posterior staphyloma; d : Intraoperative USG evidencing correct positioning of the buckle flattening the posterior staphyloma; e : Preoperative OCT showing a retinal detachment with associated macular hole; f : Postoperative OCT showing a reattached retina with a grade 2 macular hole closure exhibiting applied edges (grade 2 closure, Kang et al.’s classification [ 31 ])

a : Ultrasound of the left eye shows retinal detachment; b : Postoperative OCT reveals attached retina; c : Postoperative color fundus photography of the left eye demonstrates a reattached retina

a : Preoperative USG showing a large posterior staphyloma with macular detachment (arrow); b : Postoperative USG evidencing flattening of the posterior staphyloma due to the positioning of the buckle; c : Preoperative OCT showing an internal lamellar hole with macular detachment and nasal macular retinoschisis. Vitreomacular adhesion can also be observed; d : Postoperative OCT evidencing flattening of the posterior staphyloma, resolution of the lamellar hole, and macular detachment, as well as reduction of retinoschisis; the vitreomacular adhesion remains stable; e : fundus retinography showing attached retina

Description of implant fabrication and the surgical technique

one 1.5-mm titanium microplate for osteosynthesis containing 8 holes Traumec ® (Medical Support, Brazil); one 270 sleeve-type band (Labitician, USA); one 506G oval sponge (Labitician, USA); one 15-degree blade; pliers, and strong scissors (Fig.  4 a).

Implant fabrication

We used a titanium osteosynthesis plate containing 16 holes, which was cut in half (8 holes) using strong scissors (or pliers), creating the ideal size for our implant. This plate was then inserted into a 270 sleeve-type band (sleeve), covering its entire surface, with the help of Kelly forceps to open the sleeve and facilitate plate insertion, preventing any tearing. Approximately 2.0 mm of the band should be left beyond the plate on the vertical portion to protect the extremity and prevent conjunctival erosion after fixation. The plate is then bent into an “L” shape using pliers, leaving 3 holes horizontally (short arm of the L) and 5 holes vertically (long arm of the L). Next, a tunnel is made in the middle of the linear length of the 506G sponge with a 15-degree blade, ensuring it is longer than the short arm of the titanium plate to cover it, and without letting the tunnel pierce the sponge (to avoid plate exposure). Finally, the short arm of the L-shaped plate is inserted into the 506G sponge through the tunnel, and the 506G sponge should then be cut to cover the short arm of the implant, leaving at least 1.0 mm beyond the implant length to prevent exposure beyond the sponge (Fig.  4 a-c).

Surgical technique

The initial procedures remain similar, whether isolated MB surgery or combined surgery with vitrectomy is performed. The procedure begins with a temporal peritomy at the limbus of the conjunctiva and Tenon’s capsule from 11 to 4 o’clock. The lateral and superior rectus muscles were isolated using a suture of silk thread 2.0 (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Brazil) to promote eye motility. Before positioning the implant, anterior chamber paracentesis is performed to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) and minimize pressure changes when positioning the MB. Next, the implant is placed in the upper temporal quadrant, where the shorter arm will be positioned under the macula, and the longer arm should be inserted parallel to the lateral rectus muscle (Fig.  4 d). After, a 25-gauge Chandelier optic fiber is positioned at 6 o’clock (Alcon Constellation Vision System, USA) to enable visualization of the fundus.

Subsequently, we confirm the proper positioning of the implant under the macular region using a panoramic visualization system coupled to a microscope (Resight 500 ® , Zeiss) with delicate manipulation of the implant. Once the MB positioning is confirmed, the vertical portion of the device (long arm) is sutured to the sclera using 5.0 Mersilene ® suture (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Brazil) with 2 separate stitches. In order to confirm the proper positioning of the MB, we perform preoperative USG, covering the USG probe and cable with a sterile plastic cover, and at the same time, it is possible to measure the comparative AXL.

a : Material to be used for the fabrication of the macular buckle b : Schematic figure of the shape to be molded for the buckle; c : MB fabricated in the operating room for the described cases; d : Postoperative aspect of the correctly positioned macular buckle; it can be observed under the conjunctiva in the upper temporal quadrant

As reported above, in two cases, where there was retinal detachment associated to MH, we performed combined MB and PPV surgery (cases 1 and 2), and after positioning the MB, we routinely carried out PPV surgery. In case one, besides PPV and MB, phacoemulsification was carried out, and C3F8 was chosen as a vitreous substitute. In case 2, due to the history of previous PPV and retinal re-detachment with MH, it was decided to use silicone oil as a vitreous substitute in addition to MB. One case presenting an internal lamellar hole (stage 4b) with macular detachment and nasal macular retinoschisis (patient 3) was managed only with MB, despite slight vitreomacular adherence, which was not considered significant.

In the immediate postoperative period of the three cases operated at our service, the patients presented with slight hyperemia, mild pain improved with analgesic (dipyrone), and none showed increased IOP. Patient 3 presented with retinal hemorrhage in the posterior pole in the immediate postoperative period, probably due to the significant reduction of the large preoperative staphyloma after MB implantation. The approach was expectant, and there was complete absorption of the hemorrhage, and progressive reabsorption of the subretinal fluid, leading to the repositioning of the macula throughout the following months, despite a stable vitreomacular adhesion may be seen. In patient 1, during follow-up, the attached retina and grade 2 closure of the macular hole were observed (according to Kang et al.’s classification) [ 31 ]. Patient 2 evolved also with retina applied, macular hole closure, and silicon oil. There were no reports of diplopia among the operated patients and/or limitations in ocular mobility.

All three patients (100%) showed visual acuity improvement after surgery, maintaining retina attached and stable vision for more than a year of follow-up. No patient (100%) experienced complications such as conjunctival erosion, displacement/rotation of the MB, endophthalmitis, or anterior chamber reactions throughout the follow-up period.

The use of MB surgery significantly decreased in the 1980s with the advancement of vitrectomy, primarily because of technical difficulties and the lack of related scientific studies at that time [ 32 , 33 ]. Nonetheless, in highly myopic eyes with posterior staphyloma, PPV can result in surgical failures in 26.7 to 50% of cases due to the inability to alter the axial length of the eye and reduce the anteroposterior forces exerted by the staphyloma [ 34 ]. The use of MB in these circumstances can reduce the anteroposterior force, providing positive results. This evidence, combined with the relevant study by Sasoh et al., which demonstrated good results and safety of MB use in the early 2000s, encouraged the resumption of studies and the development of the MB technique [ 35 ].

In 2001, Ripandelli et al. [ 36 ], compared highly myopic patients with retinal detachment and macular holes undergoing vitrectomy via pars plana (group A) and MB surgery (group B). They observed a surgical success rate of 73.3% in group A and 93.3% in group B, with group B also showing a significant improvement in vision, unlike the vitrectomy group. These results suggested anatomical and functional superiority when MB was used. Similarly, Ando et al., in 2007, reported anatomical success in the MB group in 93.3% of cases after the first surgery and 100% after the second procedure, while only 50% of the cases treated with vitrectomy achieved retinal reattachment in the first procedure, and 86% in the second approach, which was associated with MB [ 37 ].

In a literature review, Alkabes and Mateo [ 32 ] showed that after MB surgery, the retinal reattachment rate ranged from 81.8 to 100%, while the MH closure rate ranged from 40 to 93.3%. Although persistent MH was identified as a risk factor for retinal re-detachment, eyes with persistent MH that underwent MB did not experience retinal re-detachment. Furthermore, the literature indicates that patients with AXLs greater than 30 mm have a higher risk of early retinal re-detachment after PPV. Several studies have shown statistically significant higher rates of retinal re-detachment after PPV for treating RD associated with MH in patients with AXL > 30 mm [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. For these patients, when undergoing the MB procedure, the retina was reattached in 100% of cases and the MH closure rate ranged from 40 to 100%. Notably, no re-detachment was observed in cases of persistent MH [ 32 ]. In our two cases involving RD and MH that underwent combined surgery, both achieved successful outcomes with retinal reattachment and macular hole closure, with no retinal re-detachment observed.

In general, outcomes of both PPV or MB procedures have been shown to be effective in improving retinal anatomy and visual acuity. However, PPV, particularly when combined with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative MH. Due to the lack of randomized studies, it is challenging to determine if MB or PPV is superior for treating progressive macular foveoschisis. Given its progressive nature and potential for RD with MH, surgical intervention should be considered if the schisis progresses or visual acuity decreases. Regular OCT monitoring and early interventions based on physician experience are recommended [ 32 , 41 , 42 ].

Regarding complications, patient 3 experienced retinal hemorrhage following MB surgery, which resolved spontaneously within one month. This patient had a deep staphyloma of the posterior pole, and after MB, the AXL was significantly reduced by 7.9 mm. Despite performing a paracentesis at the beginning of the procedure, no hypotony was observed. We attributed the retinal hemorrhage to the pronounced reduction in AXL. Mateo and colleagues previously described cases where excessive compression of the choroidal vessels could lead to increased local hydrostatic pressure and changes in the RPE, resulting in subretinal fluid and, in some cases, macular atrophy [ 32 , 43 ]. However, we did not observe any of these complications in patient 3 or the other patients.

Other potential complications reported in various case series include scleral perforation, orbital fat prolapse, improper positioning of the explant, and ocular muscle disinsertion during buckle placement [ 32 ]. During the mean follow-up period of eighteen months, no issues such as intraocular pressure changes, strabismus, eye movement restriction, explant displacement, choroidal effusion, choroidal detachment, or posterior pole atrophy were observed.

As demonstrated by Parolini et al., the management of MTM can range from using MB alone to performing combined surgeries. When full-thickness macular holes and macular or retinal detachment are present, a combination of PPV and MB is recommended, as each surgical method targets different force vectors affecting MTM [ 29 , 30 ].

Despite the positive outcomes demonstrated in this report and the literature, MB can present complications. It is essential to carefully evaluate the risk-benefit ratio carefully and reserve its use for cases where it is truly necessary, based on an appropriate classification system. Therefore, we recommend considering MB + PPV surgery as the first choice for highly myopic patients with macular RD associated with MH, given the high rates of retinal re-detachment. In our small case series reported herein, success was achieved with combined surgery in two of our cases and MB alone in one case, proving to be effective in improving anatomical and functional outcomes without the need for additional interventions. None of the patients experienced re-RD with combined surgery or MB alone, which is consistent with the literature.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the contralateral eye of all three patients continues to be followed up with OCT and fundoscopy. Macular buckling should be considered if any anatomical or visual deterioration occurs, depending on the classification of tractional maculopathy.

MB has proven to be effective in our small experience, whether alone or conjunction with PPV, in managing MTM. Its indication should consider the pathophysiological mechanism of MTM, which is influenced by tangential and anteroposterior forces, with PPV often needing to be combined in many cases. Decision-making should be based on the patient’s evolution regarding symptoms of decreased vision, anatomical findings on fundoscopy, ocular ultrasound, and based on OCT classification. The postoperative results reported here, and in the literature, have shown good anatomical and functional results, the absence of recurrence of retinal detachment, showing that the macular buckle can contribute to better results in eyes with very long axial lengths.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Axial length

Counting fingers

Intraocular pressure

Macular buckle

Macular hole

MTM staging system

Myopic tractional maculopathy

Pars plana vitrectomy

Retinal detachment

Silicon oil

Phacoemulsification

Ultrasonography

Visual acuity

Flitcroft DI, He M, Jonas JB, Jong M, Naidoo K, Ohno-Matsui K, et al. IMI – defining and classifying myopia: a proposed set of standards for clinical and epidemiologic studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2019;60(3):M20–30.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Morais FB. Jules Gonin and the Nobel Prize: Pioneer of retinal detachment surgery who almost received a Nobel Prize in medicine. 4, Int J Retina Vitreous. 2018.

Schepens CL. Progress in detachment surgery. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1951;55.

Schepens CL. Clinical aspects of pathologic changes in the vitreous body. Am J Ophthalmol. 1954;38(1 PART 2).

Custodis E. Die Behandlung Der Netzhautablösung durch umschriebene diathermiekoagulation und einer mittels Plombenaufnähung Erzeugten Eindellung Der Sklera Im Bereich Des Risses. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd Augenarztl Fortbild. 1956;129(4).

Schepens CL, Okamura ID, Brockhurst RJ. The Scleral Buckling Procedures. Surgical Techniques and Management. AMA Arch Ophthalmol [Internet]. 1957;58(6):797–811. http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/

Rosengren B. The silver plomb method in macular holes. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1966;86:49–53.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Theodossiadis GP. A simplified technique for the surgical treatment of retinal detachments resulting from macula holes (author’s transl)]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1973;162(6):719–28.

Siam A. Macular hole with central retinal detachment in high myopia with posterior staphyloma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969;53(1):62–3.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Klöti R. Silver clip for central retinal detachments with macular hole. Mod Probl Ophthalmol. 1974;12(0):330–6.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Feman SS, Hepler RS, Straatsma BR. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment due to macular hole. Management with cryotherapy and a Y-shaped sling. Arch Ophthalmol. 1974;91(5):371–2.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Landolfo V, Albini L, Romano A. Macular hole-induced retinal detachment: treatment with an armed-silicone implant. Ophthalmic Surg. 1986;17(12):810–2.

Ando F. Use of a special macular explant in surgery for retinal detachment with macular hole. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1980;24:29–34.

Google Scholar  

Susvar P, Sood G. Current concepts of macular buckle in myopic traction maculopathy. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. Volume 66. Wolters Kluwer Medknow; 2018. pp. 1772–84.

Stirpe M, Ripandelli G, Rossi T, Cacciamani A, Orciuolo M. A new adjustable macular buckle designed for highly myopic eyes. Retina. 2012;32(7):1424–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182550648 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mateo C, Marco, Medeiros D, Alkabes M, Burés-Jelstrup A, Postorino M et al. Illuminated Ando Plombe for Optimal Positioning in Highly Myopic Eyes With Vitreoretinal Diseases Secondary to Posterior Staphyloma [Internet]. http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/

Mortada HA, Mortada HA. A Novel Episcleral Macular Buckling: wire-strengthened sponge exoplant for recurrent Macular Hole and Retinal detachment in high myopic eyes. Volume 2. Discovery & I nnovation Ophthalmology Journal; 2013.

Parolini BMD, Frisina RMD, Pinackatt SMD, Mete. Maurizio MD † . A New L-Shaped Design of Macular Buckle to Support a Posterior Staphyloma in High Myopia. Retina 33(7):p 1466–1470, July/August, 2013. | https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e31828e69ea

Parolini B, Frisina R, Pinackatt S, Gasparotti R, Gatti E, Baldi A et al. Indications and results of a New L-shaped Macular Buckle to support a posterior staphyloma in high myopia. Retina. 2015.

Ahmed J, Shaikh F, Rizwan A, Memon MF, Ahmad J. Evaluation of Vitreo-Retinal pathologies using B-Scan Ultrasound. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2009;25(4).

Gulkilik G, Ustuner A, Ozdamar A. Comparison of optical coherence biometry and applanation ultrasound biometry in high-myopic eyes with posterior Pole staphyloma. Ann Ophthalmol. 2007;39(3).

Palte HD. Local and Regional Anesthesia Dovepress Ophthalmic regional blocks: management, challenges, and solutions. Local Reg Anesth. 2015;8(AUGUST).

Qureshi MA, Laghari K. Role of B-scan ultrasonography in pre-operative cataract patients. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2010;4(1).

Shinar Z, Chan L, Orlinsky M. Use of ocular ultrasound for the evaluation of retinal detachment. J Emerg Med. 2011;40(1).

Alanazi R, Schellini S, AlSheikh O, Elkhamary S. Scleral buckle induce orbital cellulitis and scleritis – a case report and literature review. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2019;33(4).

Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science (1979). 1991;254(5035).

Panozzo G, Mercanti A. Optical Coherence Tomography Findings in Myopic Traction Maculopathy. Vol. 122, Arch Ophthalmol. 2004.

Parolini B, Palmieri M, Finzi A, Besozzi G, Lucente A, Nava U et al. The New Myopic Traction Maculopathy Staging System. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(3).

Parolini B, Arevalo JF, Hassan T, Kaiser P, Rezaei KA, Singh R et al. International Validation of myopic traction Maculopathy Staging System. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2023;54(3).

Parolini B, Palmieri M, Finzi A, Frisina R. Proposal for the management of myopic traction maculopathy based on the new MTM staging system. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(6).

Kang SW, Ahn K, Ham DI. Types of macular hole closure and their clinical implications. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(8).

Alkabes M, Mateo C. Macular buckle technique in myopic traction maculopathy: a 16-year review of the literature and a comparison with vitreous surgery. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. Volume 256. Springer; 2018. pp. 863–77.

Gonvers M, Machemer R. A New Approach to treating Retinal detachment with Macular Hole. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94(4):468–72.

Ikuno Y, Sayanagi K, Oshima T, Gomi F, Kusaka S, Kamei M, et al. Optical coherence tomographic findings of macular holes and retinal detachment after vitrectomy in highly myopic eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136(3):477–81.

Sasoh M, Yoshida S, Ito Y, Matsui K, Osawa S, Uji Y. Macular buckling for retinal detachment due to macular hole in highly myopic eyes with posterior staphyloma. Retina. 2000;20(5):445–9.

Ripandelli G, Coppé AM, Fedeli R, Parisi V, D’Amico DJ, Stirpe M. Evaluation of primary surgical procedures for retinal detachment with macular hole in highly myopic eyes a randomized comparison of vitrectomy versus posterior episcleral buckling surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(12):2258–64.

Ando F, Ohba N, Touura K, Hirose H. Anatomical and visual outcomes after episcleral macular buckling compared with those after pars plana vitrectomy for retinal detachment caused by macular hole in highly myopic eyes. Retina. 2007;27(1):37–44.

Suda K, Hangai M, Yoshimura N. Axial length and outcomes of macular hole surgery assessed by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(1).

Nadal J, Verdaguer P, Canut MI. Treatment of retinal detachment secondary to macular hole in high myopia: vitrectomy with dissection of the inner limiting membrane to the edge of the staphyloma and long-term tamponade. Retina. 2012;32(8).

Arias L, Caminal JM, Rubio MJ, Cobos E, Garcia-Bru P, Filloy A et al. Autofluorescence and axial length as prognostic factors for outcomes of macular hole retinal detachment surgery in high myopia. Retina. 2015;35(3).

Jo Y, Ikuno Y, Nishida K, Retinoschisis. A predictive factor in vitrectomy for macular holes without retinal detachment in highly myopic eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(2).

Sun CB, Liu Z, Xue AQ, Yao K. Natural evolution from macular retinoschisis to full-thickness macular hole in highly myopic eyes. Eye. 2010;24(12).

Mateo C, Burés-Jelstrup A. Macular buckling with Ando plombe may increase choroidal thickness and mimic serous retinal detachment seen in the tilted disk syndrome. Retin Cases Brief Rep. 2016 Fall;10(4):327–30.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Barbara Parolini for her invaluable contributions to the field of macular buckling surgery. Her pioneering work in describing the staging system for myopic tractional maculopathy and the surgical techniques for macular buckling has been instrumental in the execution and development of our study.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, 3900, Bandeirantes Ave, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14049-900, Brazil

Francyne Veiga Reis Cyrino, Moisés Moura de Lucena, Letícia de Oliveira Audi, José Afonso Ribeiro Ramos Filho, João Pedro Romero Braga, Thais Marino de Azeredo Bastos, Igor Neves Coelho & Rodrigo Jorge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

F.C., J.R.F., and R.J. were primarily responsible for the research design. F.C., J.R.F., J.B., T.B., and I.C. were responsible for data acquisition. M.L., L.A., and I.C. performed the data analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. F.C., J.R.F. and R.J. provided critical revisions and contributed to the refinement of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francyne Veiga Reis Cyrino .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The institutional review board and ethics committee of the Division of Ophthalmology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, approved this study (CAAE: 79706624.6.0000.5440).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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.

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.

Cyrino, F.V.R., de Lucena, M.M., de Oliveira Audi, L. et al. Historical and practical aspects of macular buckle surgery in the treatment of myopic tractional maculopathy: case series and literature review. Int J Retin Vitr 10 , 60 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-024-00578-w

Download citation

Received : 04 June 2024

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-024-00578-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

International Journal of Retina and Vitreous

ISSN: 2056-9920

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Drivers and consequences of land degradation on livestock productivity in sub-saharan africa: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. study design, 2.2. pertinence and state of the matter studied, 2.3. literature search, 2.4. inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.5. Data Extraction and Synthesis

2.6. data analysis, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. primary drivers of land degradation in sub-saharan rangelands.

3.2. Impact of Land Degradation on Livestock Health, Productivity, and Mortality

3.3. Socio-Economic Consequences of Reduced Livestock Productivity

3.4. Effectiveness of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

3.5. Key Themes and Insights from the Word Cloud on Land Degradation, Rangelands, and Livestock in Sub-Saharan Africa

3.6. insights from the co-occurrence network diagram on land degradation, rangelands, and livestock in sub-saharan africa, 4. recommendations for policy makers in charge of these problems and future research directions, 5. potential limitations, 6. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Szangolies, L.; Lohmann, D.; Hauptfleisch, M.; Jeltsch, F. Balanced Functional Herbivore Composition Stabilizes Tree-Grass Coexistence and Productivity in a Simulated Savanna Rangeland Ecosystem. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2023 , 90 , 208–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sibanda, A.; Tui, S.H.K.; Van Rooyen, A.; Dimes, J.; Nkomboni, D.; Sisito, G. Understanding community perceptions of land use changes in the rangelands, Zimbabwe. Exp. Agric. 2011 , 47 , 153–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tesfaye, K.; Jaleta, M.; Jena, P.; Mutenje, M. Identifying potential recommendation domains for conservation agriculture in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi. Environ. Manag. 2015 , 55 , 330–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hoffman, M.; Skowno, A.; Bell, W.; Mashele, S. Long-term changes in land use, land cover and vegetation in the Karoo drylands of South Africa: Implications for degradation monitoring. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2018 , 35 , 209–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gxasheka, M.; Beyene, S.T.; Mlisa, N.L.; Lesoli, M. Farmers’ perceptions of vegetation change, rangeland condition and degradation in three communal grasslands of South Africa. Trop. Ecol. 2017 , 58 , 217–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahumba, A.; Tefera, S. Pastoralists’ indigenous knowledge and perceptions of rangeland degradation in three communal rangelands of central northern Namibia. J. Arid. Environ. 2023 , 216 , 105009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourne, A.; Muller, H.; de Villiers, A.; Alam, M.; Hole, D. Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of rangeland restoration in Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecol. 2017 , 218 , 7–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Worqlul, A.W.; Dile, Y.T.; Schmitter, P.; Jeong, J.; Meki, M.N.; Gerik, T.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Lefore, N.; Clarke, N. Water resource assessment, gaps, and constraints of vegetable production in Robit and Dangishta watersheds, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Agric. Water Manag. 2019 , 226 , 105767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vetter, S. Development and sustainable management of rangeland commons–aligning policy with the realities of South Africa’s rural landscape. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2013 , 30 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ringrose, S.; Vanderpost, C.; Matheson, W. The use of integrated remotely sensed and GIS data to determine causes of vegetation cover change in southern Botswana. Appl. Geogr. 1996 , 16 , 225–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wessels, K.J.; Prince, S.D.; Carroll, M.; Malherbe, J. Relevance of rangeland degradation in semiarid northeastern South Africa to the nonequilibrium theory. Ecol. Appl. 2007 , 17 , 815–827. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Onduru, D.D.; Du Preez, C.C. Ecological and agro-economic study of small farms in sub-Saharan Africa. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2007 , 27 , 197–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Munthali, M.G.; Davis, N.; Adeola, A.M.; Botai, J.O.; Kamwi, J.M.; Chisale, H.L.; Orimoogunje, O.O. Local perception of drivers of land-use and land-cover change dynamics across Dedza District, Central Malawi Region. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 832. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bennett, J.E.; Palmer, A.R.; Blackett, M.A. Range degradation and land tenure change: Insights from a ‘released’ communal area of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Land Degrad. Dev. 2012 , 23 , 557–568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mureithi, S.M.; Verdoodt, A.; Njoka, J.T.; Gachene, C.K.; Van Ranst, E. Benefits derived from rehabilitating a degraded semi-arid rangeland in communal enclosures, Kenya. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016 , 27 , 1853–1862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Inman, E.N.; Hobbs, R.J.; Tsvuura, Z.; Valentine, L. Current vegetation structure and composition of woody species in community-derived categories of land degradation in a semiarid rangeland in Kunene region, Namibia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020 , 31 , 2996–3013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ward, D.; Ngairorue, B.T.; Apollus, A.; Tjiveze, H. Perceptions and realities of land degradation in arid Otjimbingwe, Namibia. J. Arid. Environ. 2000 , 45 , 337–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bekele, N.; Kebede, G. Rangeland degradation and restoration in semi-arid areas of southern Ethiopia: The case of Borana rangeland. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2014 , 3 , 94–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bekele, A.E.; Drabik, D.; Dries, L.; Heijman, W. Large-scale land investments, household displacement, and the effect on land degradation in semiarid agro-pastoral areas of Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021 , 32 , 777–791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matarira, D.; Mutanga, O.; Dube, T. Landscape scale land degradation mapping in the semi-arid areas of the save catchment, Zimbabwe. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2021 , 103 , 183–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moyo, B.; Dube, S.; Moyo, P. Rangeland management and drought coping strategies for livestock farmers in the semi-arid savanna communal areas of Zimbabwe. J. Hum. Ecol. 2013 , 44 , 9–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taiye, O.A.; Dauda, M.M.; Emmanuel, A.O. Assessment of the effects of emerging grazing policies on land degradation in Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 21 , 1183–1187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mganga, K.Z.; Kinyamario, J.I.; Ekaya, W.N. Effect of grazing pressure on plant species composition and rangeland condition in the southern Kenya rangelands. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2010 , 27 , 129–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research feld: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory feld. J. Informetr. 2011 , 5 , 146–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Monroe, M.C.; Plate, R.R.; Oxarart, A.; Bowers, A.; Chaves, W.A. Identifying Effective Climate Change Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research. Environ. Edu. Res. 2017 , 25 , 791–812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bettany-Saltikov, J. Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 2. Nurs. Stand. (Through 2013) 2010 , 24 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing ; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 3 March 2024).
• Royle, P.; Kandala, N.B.; Barnard, K.; Waugh, N. Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: Analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst. Rev. 2013 , 2 , 74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linnenluecke, M.K.; Marrone, M.; Singh, A.K. Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust. J. Manag. 2020 , 45 , 175–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks. J. Informetr. 2014 , 8 , 802–823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spear, D.; Chappel, A. Livelihoods on the edge without a safety net: The case of smallholder crop farming in north-central Namibia. Land Use Policy 2018 , 77 , 494–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hurni, H. Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In World Soil Erosion and Conservation ; Pimentel, D., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993; pp. 27–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dougill, A.J.; Fraser, E.D.; Reed, M.S. Anticipating vulnerability to climate change in dryland pastoral systems: Using dynamic systems models for the Kalahari. Ecol. Soc. 2010 , 15 , 17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adedoyin, A. Deforestation and land degradation in the Nigerian savanna: Implications for sustainable rural livelihoods. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2001 , 8 , 255–266. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mwangi, E.; Dohrn, S. Securing access to drylands resources for multiple users in Africa: A review of recent research. Land Use Policy 2008 , 25 , 240–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murwira, A.; Murwira, K.S. Degradation of rangelands in Zimbabwe: Are smallholder farmers responsible? Afr. J. Ecol. 2005 , 43 , 251–258. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyahunda, L.; Tirivangasi, H.M. Harnessing of social capital as a determinant for climate change adaptation in Mazungunye communal lands in Bikita, Zimbabwe. Scientifica 2021 , 2021 , 8416410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solomon, T.B.; Snyman, H.A.; Smit, G.N. Cattle-rangeland management practices and perceptions of pastoralists towards rangeland degradation in the Borana zone of southern Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manag. 2007 , 82 , 481–494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abel, N. Mis-measurement of the productivity and sustainability of African communal rangelands: A case study and some principles from Botswana. Ecol. Econ. 1997 , 23 , 113–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mganga, K.Z.; Musimba, N.K.; Nyariki, D.M. Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya. Environ. Manag. 2015 , 56 , 1538–1548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oba, G.; Kaitira, L.M. Herder knowledge of landscape assessments in arid rangelands in northern Tanzania. J. Arid. Environ. 2006 , 66 , 168–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dregne, H.E. Land degradation in the drylands. Arid. Land Res. Manag. 2002 , 16 , 99–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mugerwa, S.; Emmanuel, Z. Drivers of grassland ecosystems’ deterioration in Uganda. Appl. Sci. Rep. 2014 , 2 , 103–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sebego, R.J.; Atlhopheng, J.R.; Chanda, R.; Mulale, K.; Mphinyane, W. Land use intensification and implications on land degradation in the Boteti area: Botswana. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2019 , 38 , 32–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kideghesho, J.; Rija, A.; Mwamende, K.; Selemani, I. Emerging issues and challenges in conservation of biodiversity in the rangelands of Tanzania. Nat. Conserv. 2013 , 6 , 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ngwenya, B.N.; Thakadu, O.T.; Magole, L.; Chimbari, M.J. Memories of environmental change and local adaptations among molapo farming communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana—A gender perspective. Acta Trop. 2017 , 175 , 31–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perkins, J.S.; Thomas, D.S.G. Spreading deserts or spatially confined environmental impacts? Land degradation and cattle ranching in the Kalahari desert of Botswana. Land Degrad. Dev. 1993 , 4 , 179–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mwalyosi, R.B. Land-use changes and resource degradation in south–west Masailand, Tanzania. Environ. Conserv. 1992 , 19 , 145–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beyene, S.T. Rangeland Degradation in a Semi-Arid Communal Savannah of Swaziland: Long–Term DIP-Tank Use Effects on Woody Plant Structure, Cover and their Indigenous Use in Three Soil Types. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015 , 26 , 311–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scoones, I. Land degradation and livestock production in Zimbabwe’s communal areas. Land Degrad. Dev. 1992 , 3 , 99–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reed, M.S.; Dougill, A.J. Linking degradation assessment to sustainable land management: A decision support system for Kalahari pastoralists. J. Arid. Environ. 2010 , 74 , 149–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chakoma, I.; Chummun, B.Z. Forage seed value chain analysis in a subhumid region of Zimbabwe: Perspectives of smallholder producers. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2019 , 36 , 95–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nkonya, E.; Mirzabaev, A.; von Braun, J. (Eds.) Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 431–469. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Slayi, M.; Zhou, L.; Dzvene, A.R.; Mpanyaro, Z. Drivers and Consequences of Land Degradation on Livestock Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Land 2024 , 13 , 1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091402

Slayi M, Zhou L, Dzvene AR, Mpanyaro Z. Drivers and Consequences of Land Degradation on Livestock Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Land . 2024; 13(9):1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091402

Slayi, Mhlangabezi, Leocadia Zhou, Admire Rukudzo Dzvene, and Zolisanani Mpanyaro. 2024. "Drivers and Consequences of Land Degradation on Livestock Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Literature Review" Land 13, no. 9: 1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091402

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available or a set of summaries." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

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 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: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 What is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

- Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

• Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
• Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
• Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
• Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
• Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

• Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Searching >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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.

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 short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

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

• 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
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

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.

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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