what is literature review article

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

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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. 

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

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.

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

• What Is the Literature
• Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

• Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
• Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
• Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

• Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
• Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
• Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
• Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
• Results - What was found in the course of the study
• Discussion - What do the results mean
• Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

• Next: What Is the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

• 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, automatically generate references for free.

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Career Feature 23 APR 24

Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs

Career News 18 APR 24

Deadly diseases and inflatable suits: how I found my niche in virology research

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

Postdoctoral Fellow

The Dubal Laboratory of Neuroscience and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) seeks postdoctoral fellows to investigate the ...

San Francisco, California

University of California, San Francsico

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Description Applications are invited for a postdoctoral fellow position at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, to participate...

Toronto (City), Ontario (CA)

Sinai Health

Postdoctoral Research Associate - Surgery

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Open Rank Faculty Position in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics

The Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics (www.virginia.edu/bmg) and the University of Virginia Cancer Center

Charlottesville, Virginia

Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics

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

Quick links

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

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 .

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 9:12 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Academic Skills
• Reading, writing and referencing
• Literature reviews

Writing a literature review

Find out how to write a lit review.

What is a literature review ?

A literature review explores and evaluates the literature on a specific topic or question. It synthesises the contributions of the different authors, often to identify areas that need further exploration.

You may be required to write a literature review as a standalone document or part of a larger body of research, such as a thesis.

• The point of a standalone literature review is to demonstrate that you have read widely in your field and you understand the main arguments.
• As part of a thesis or research paper, the literature review defines your project by establishing how your work will extend or differ from previous work and what contribution it will make.

What are markers looking for?

In the best literature reviews, the writer:

• Has a clear understanding of key concepts within the topic.
• Clarifies important definitions and terminology.
• Covers the breadth of the specific topic.
• Critically discusses the ideas in the literature and evaluates how authors present them.
• Clearly indicates a research gap for future enquiry.

How do I write a literature review?

This video outlines a step by step approach to help you evaluate readings, organise ideas and write critically. It provides examples of how to connect, interpret and critique ideas to make sure your voice comes through strongly.

Tips for research, reading and writing

You may be given a specific question to research or broad topics which must be refined to a question that can be reasonably addressed in the time and word limit available.

Use your early reading to help you determine and refine your topic.

• Too much literature? You probably need to narrow your scope. Try to identify a more specific issue of interest.
• Not enough literature? Your topic may be too specific and needs to be broader.

Start with readings suggested by your lecturers or supervisors. Then, do your own research - the best place to go is the Library Website .

You can also use the Library Guides or speak to a librarian to identify the most useful databases for you and to learn how to search for sources effectively and efficiently.

Cover the field

Make sure your literature search covers a broad range of views and information relevant to your topic. Focussing on a narrow selection of sources may result in a lack of depth. You are not expected to cover all research and scholarly opinions on your topic, but you need to identify and include important viewpoints. A quality literature review examines and evaluates different viewpoints based on the evidence presented, rather than providing only material that reinforces a bias.

Use reading strategies

Survey, skim and scan to find the most relevant articles, and the most relevant parts of those articles. These can be re-read more closely later when you have acquired an overview of your topic.

Take notes as you read

This helps to organise and develop your thoughts. Record your own reactions to the text in your notes, perhaps in a separate column. These notes can form the basis of your critical evaluation of the text. Record any facts, opinions or direct quotes that are likely to be useful to your review, noting the page numbers, author and year.

Stop reading when you have enough

This depends on the word count required of this literature review. A review of one thousand words can only cover the major ideas and probably less than ten references. Longer reviews that form part of a large research paper will include more than fifty. Your tutor or supervisor should be able to suggest a suitable number.

As you read, ask yourself these questions:

• Have I answered my question without any obvious gaps?
• Have I read this before? Are there any new related issues coming up as I search the literature?
• Have I found multiple references which cover the same material or just enough to prove agreement?

There are many possible ways to organise the material. For example:

• chronologically
• by theoretical perspective
• from most to least important
• by issue or theme

It is important to remember that you are not merely cataloguing or describing the literature you read. Therefore, you need to choose an organisation that will enable you to compare the various authors' treatment of ideas. This is often best achieved by organising thematically, or grouping ideas into sets of common issues tackled in the various texts. These themes will form the basis of the different threads that are the focus of your study.

A standalone literature review

A standalone literature review is structured much like an academic essay.

• Introduction - establish the context for your topic and outline your main contentions about the literature
• Main body - explain and support these inferences in the main body
• Conclusion - summarise your main points and restate the contention.

The main difference between an essay and this kind of literature review is that an essay focuses on a topic and uses the literature as a support for the arguments. In a standalone literature review, the literature itself is the topic of discussion and evaluation. This means you evaluate and discuss not only the informational content but the quality of the author’s handling of the content.

A literature review as part of a larger research paper?

As part of a larger research paper, the literature review may take many forms, depending on your discipline, your topic and the logic of your research. Traditionally, in empirical research, the literature review is included in the introduction, or a standalone chapter immediately following the introduction. For other forms of research, you may need to engage more extensively with the literature and thus, the literature review may spread over more than one chapter, or even be distributed throughout the thesis.

Start writing early. Writing will clarify your thinking on the topic and reveal any gaps in information and logic. If your ideas change, sections and paragraphs can be reworked to change your contentions or include extra information.

Similarly, draft an overall plan for your review as soon as you are ready, but be prepared to rework sections of it to reflect your developing argument.

The most important thing to remember is that you are writing a review . That means you must move past describing what other authors have written by connecting, interpreting and critiquing their ideas and presenting your own analysis and interpretation.

Looking for one-on-one advice?

Get tailored advice from an Academic Skills Adviser by booking an Individual appointment, or get quick feedback from one of our Academic Writing Mentors via email through our Writing advice service.

Go to Student appointments

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information

Literature Review

• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary
• Methodology
• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The literature review section of an article is a summary or analysis of all the research the author read before doing his/her own research. This section may be part of the introduction or in a section called Background. It provides the background on who has done related research, what that research has or has not uncovered and how the current research contributes to the conversation on the topic. When you read the lit review ask:

• Does the review of the literature logically lead up to the research questions?
• Do the authors review articles relevant to their research study?
• Do the authors show where there are gaps in the literature?

The lit review is also a good place to find other sources you may want to read on this topic to help you get the bigger picture.

• << Previous: Journal Information
• Next: Author and affiliation >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

MINI REVIEW article

Intertemporal prosocial behavior: a review and research agenda.

• 1 Department of Management and Engineering, Division of Economics, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
• 2 Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences (HMV), The National Center for Priority Setting in Health Care, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
• 3 Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
• 4 Decision Research, Eugene, OR, United States

Research on intertemporal and prosocial decisions has largely developed in separate strands of literature. However, many of the decisions we make occur at the intersection of these two dimensions (intertemporal and prosocial). Trust is an example, where a decision today is made with the expectation that another person will reciprocate (or betray) later. A new literature is emerging to explore the role of time in these types of situations, where time and social considerations are intertwined. In many cases, time introduces (or magnifies) an element of uncertainty about future outcomes and utility that people need to deal with – what will happen, how good will it be, how will it feel. We review this emerging literature on intertemporal prosocial decision-making and discuss how new research can fill existing knowledge gaps.

1 Introduction

Time is a fundamental component in human behavior and interaction. Decisions, desires, views, experiences, and emotions act on and play out over time. Social norms evolve. Societies change. For these reasons, studying how prosocial decisions (here interpreted broadly as decisions affecting and being affected by others) are shaped by time, using controlled experiments, and developing theory, seems important. However, historically this perspective has received little attention. The literatures on intertemporal and prosocial decisions, although each large and vibrant, have mostly developed without significant transfer between them.

Lately, this perplexing isolation between research fields has begun to change. A new literature is emerging at the intersection of temporal and prosocial behavior. What “prosocial” brings to the table here is, primarily, that these decisions often involve a strategic component, where outcomes depend on decisions and expectations by more than one individual; and are to a greater degree influenced by context, norms, personal and social identity. These aspects of decision-making are amenable to time. For example, if people have different motivations for delayed rewards (discounting), then simply adding a time delay to a classic bargaining- or coordination game may substantially change the strategic landscape (and the corresponding game predictions).

Here, we review this emerging literature on intertemporal prosocial decision-making and discuss several promising directions for new research.

2 Emerging literature on intertemporal prosocial decision-making

The core research strategy for most papers in this emerging field has been to add a time delay to a standard prosocial decision-context normally run in the lab, e.g., a trust-, cooperation-, coordination-, or bargaining game. This has produced some thought-provoking findings and predictions, including that small differences in time preference may improve coordination and influence bargaining power (about resource distribution), but also that time may act as a barrier to cooperation. Moreover, initial results indicate that trust and trustworthiness is surprisingly robust to time delay, at least for short delays, and that altruism follows a different intertemporal pattern compared to decisions that are purely personal, including absence of classical time-inconsistent choosing.

Agranov et al. (2023) investigated how differential time preferences influenced coordination. They used a standard protocol for repeated coordination, where participants make decisions over many rounds and continuation is probabilistic. Interestingly, allowing for even a small difference in time preference influenced outcomes (fewer coordination failures), likely working as a coordination anchor; and larger differences gave rise to intertemporal trades, where individuals with steeper discounting received higher payoffs early on, and vice versa for individuals with less steep discounting.

Kim et al. (2023) used a similar approach allowing for discounting differentials to investigate the effect on bargaining behavior. In their experiment, participants bargained repeatedly (submitting alternating offers) about how to share a fix sum of money. Any offer that was rejected triggered a new round of bargaining but also pushed eventual payout further into the future. Here, patience is strategically relevant since it is less costly for more patient players to ‘wait’ for a good offer. Theoretically, opposing players who are less patient should recognize and submit better offers upfront. The results showed that players who faced a longer payoff delay (thus steeper effective discounting) indeed submitted less demanding proposals and enjoyed less favorable outcomes overall.

Two papers investigated the effects of time delay on cooperation. Kim (2023) incorporated time delay in payoffs in a repeated prisoner’s dilemma game. They used a classic repeated-games framework but with the temporal sequence of stage games mapped to staggered payouts for weeks or months, rather than all at once received immediately at the end of the experiment. There was lower cooperation when payoffs were delayed more, thus indicating that steeper discounting decreases cooperation in a repeated games framework. Kölle and Laurer (2024) investigated the effects of time delay on various payoff components in a linear public goods game. In the classic version of this game, participants can keep money for themselves or contribute to a common account that benefits everyone in the group. The parameters are usually set such that it is individually optimal for selfish persons to keep all money for themselves, but socially optimal if everyone contributes fully to the group account. Here, the authors systematically varied which type of benefit (personal, group, none, or both) that was paid immediately and which was paid with a 1 year delay. They found overall substantially lower cooperation rates when group benefits were delayed, and, conversely, increased cooperation when personal benefits were delayed instead. Together these studies suggest that time may act as a barrier to cooperation in the context of solving collective problems, like climate change.

Ederer and Schneider (2022) introduced a time dimension in the classic trust game. Unlike the papers surveyed above, here they kept delay to payout constant but instead systematically varied delay to decision. In the trust game, one player (the ‘trustor’) is given a sum of money and decides how much to send to another player, the ‘trustee.’ The amount sent is multiplied and then the trustee decides how much, if anything, to return to the trustor. Using a variant of this game, Ederer and Schneider introduced delay to the trustee’s decision. Participants as trustors thus decided how much to send to their assigned trustees knowing that the trustee would make their decisions either immediately, 1 day after the experiment, or in 3 weeks’ time. They speculate that trustees’ potential feelings of obligation or guilt might decrease as temporal distance (time since trustor’s decision) increases, and as a result, observed trustworthiness and trust should decrease. However, neither trust nor trustworthiness changed substantially for the delays considered in the experiment (max 3 weeks).

Finally, some papers have investigated the temporal dimension of altruistic behavior. Kölle and Wenner (2023) studied how people allocate effort (for payment) for themselves and others inside a time window of 3 weeks, using a task developed to measure time inconsistency ( Augenblick et al., 2015 ). In short, time inconsistency here means disproportionate valuation of rewards that are immediately available. The novel idea here was that people made temporal allocations not only for themselves but also for others and in particular for self vs. other. In line with previous literature (non-social decisions), they found evidence of time inconsistency when choosing for oneself. However, these results did not extend to choices for others or for self-other tradeoffs. The authors concluded that discounting in social situations appears to be conceptually different from personal discounting. Chopra et al. (2024) also investigated the temporal structure of self-other tradeoffs but used a different design, with substantially longer time frames (up to 1 year) and monetary donations to charity. Interestingly, they found that prosocial decisions in the form of self-other tradeoffs had a distinct temporal profile beyond people’s discounting in either domain (self and other when considered separately) and controlling for their atemporal preference for giving in this context. The authors interpreted this as the upshot of a conceptual distinction between temporal utility flows from consequences vs. choices ( Kovarik, 2009 ; Andreoni and Serra-Garcia, 2021 on the role of time in altruistic behavior).

3 Recent advances in the intertemporal choice literature

Discounting of future monetary rewards is probably one of the most well-researched topics in behavioral social science, and the literature is very active. Over the years a number of stylized patterns have been documented using experiments, e.g., hyperbolicity (i.e., insensitivity to the length of time intervals) and present bias (i.e., disproportionate valuation of immediate rewards), and different theories have been developed to explain them (see, e.g., review by Cohen et al., 2020 ). Traditionally, most of these explanations have focused on motivational factors – deep preference for sooner rewards, self-control failures, impulsivity ( Enke et al., 2023 ).

Interestingly, a newer set of papers has emphasized and begun to formalize temporal discounting from a different explanatory perspective, resulting from ‘cognitive noise’ or decision complexity. Gabaix and Laibson (2022) model temporal discounting as resulting from internal uncertainty about value of future events. Decision makers handle this uncertainty by generating noisy mental simulations of future value, which they combine with their prior beliefs. If noise increases with the horizon (time to delivery) this produces a classic discounting pattern, where future rewards are valued less, even for agents who have no real time preference. Vieider (2021) develops a discounting model based on a similar type of cognitive micro-foundation and Bayesian updating approach, except uncertainty here is tied to perception of time delay rather than future utilities. Gershman and Bhui (2020) extend Gabaix and Laibson’s baseline model to account for adaptive simulation noise. Assuming that attention to signals (mental representations of future utility) is costly, people will “think harder” when potential utility is larger and thus appear to adapt their discounting to reward magnitude, which reproduces a stylized discounting pattern known as ‘the magnitude effect.’ Enke et al. (2023) and Enke and Graeber (2023) operate along the same lines but also make a broader methodological point, noting that temporal choices belong to a class of complex decision problems where people may be reluctant, or unable, to engage in the type of cognitive operations required for optimal choice, and rather resort to simpler decision rules. And many of these rules will produce choice patterns that look like classic discounting even when this is not the underlying value guiding people’s choices.

These developments in the intertemporal choice literature may prove useful for understanding how prosocial decisions are made in an intertemporal context. Because both dimensions (intertemporal and prosocial, respectively) can be conceptualized in terms of mental perspective taking, focusing on current vs. future, or self vs. other. This idea is already a conceptual cornerstone for prosocial decisions, where it is important to understand how somebody else will feel, think, and react, and thus well aligned with the idea (echoed by some of the papers reviewed above) that intertemporal choices are influenced by the extent to which people can understand how something will be or play out in the future.

4 Research agenda

This new literature on intertemporal prosocial decision-making is just emerging and there are many open questions to address. A first line of inquiry should build on the ideas introduced in the papers written so far, where the focus has been to explore how an added time dimension changes the strategic landscape and what observable effects this may have on behavior. This is an exciting topic where much more research is needed, both to replicate patterns that emerged from the few existing studies and to extend to other contexts.

A second aspect to explore is temporal direction; what happens if decisions are extending into the past compared to into the future? Of course, answering this question will require some elaborate experimental-design work, but it is an important perspective to consider. It applies to most games where decisions (thus not only outcomes) are detached in time. The trust game is an example, where the trustor sees to the future but the trustee sees to the past. Conceptually it is not evident that the past and the future are symmetrically perceived. For instance, whereas the present can be experienced, the past and the future have to be mentally constructed ( Trope and Liberman, 2010 ). The source of these construals will be based on memory and imagination (prediction), the past, arguably, to a greater extent on memory, and the future on prediction ( Schacter et al., 2017 ). Down the line there will be interesting connections to be made with literatures on motivated memory and experience-based prediction.

A third, more fundamental task is to start building a conceptual home ground for prosocial decision-making in a temporal context. There is currently no established, unifying conceptual framework. This is not surprising, given that both temporal and prosocial decision-making are complex matters on their own, with a host of different theories existing in either domain, and these theories often rest on different psychological and neural foundations. However, eventually we need to break new ground here. A valuable first step in this process would be to shift focus a little bit by starting to collect large amounts of data within subjects, with the goal of building, and eventually estimating, temporal profiles of prosocial behavior in different contexts. The blueprint would be a densely populated (many different delays) delay discounting task adapted to prosocial choices. These profiles would then form the basis for exploring the effects of different experimental manipulations or looking for differences related to quantitative trait.

Going forward, one possible way to bridge the divide between prior separate conceptualizations of prosocial and temporal choice is to look to new conceptual work in the intertemporal choice literature (reviewed in short above), which emphasizes the role of noisy cognition (and decision complexity) in temporal discounting. One interesting line of thinking here is that decision makers may try to resolve uncertainty about the future by using mental simulations (what will happen, how good will it be, how will I feel), and that this results in temporal discounting. The focus on mental perspective-taking (mental simulations) for temporal decisions is key here because it is conceptually well aligned with the type of cognitive processes we typically attribute to prosocial decisions – “mentalizing” about what we believe other persons will do, how they will feel, what they expect from us, and so on ( Chang et al., 2023 ). This suggests a basic hypothesis about shared substrates in mental perspective taking that are relevant for prosocial decision-making in an intertemporal context. There are many ways in which new research could seek more evidence for (or refute) this hypothesis. One way would be to systematically manipulate temporal distance using episodic time cues ( Peters and Büchel, 2010 ) or emotional salience, e.g., fear of betrayal in the trust game, which should both have a predictable temporal component in their influence on behavior. Ideally this approach is then combined with a search for underlying neural mechanisms, which we touch on briefly below.

An emerging hypothesis in decision neuroscience is that overlapping brain networks are involved in both prosocial and intertemporal decisions. Correlational studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that a specific set of brain areas are consistently activated for prosocial decisions, often referred to as the social brain network (or the mentalizing network) ( Alós-Ferrer and Farolfi, 2019 ; Chang et al., 2023 ). A key functionality facilitated by this network is the cognitive ability to understand and predict other persons’ intentions, beliefs, and actions; a form of mental perspective taking that is crucial for beneficial social interaction. Of note, a similar type of functionality (using a shared neural implementation) is thought to be operating also in temporal decisions ( Soutschek et al., 2016 ). Here the hypothesis is that the mentalizing network enables future perspective taking, thus influencing the extent to which the future is valued, from today’s perspective. This points to a novel mechanism that is quite different from classic temptation/self-control models of intertemporal choice.

Current thinking is that the regions involved in prosocial or temporal decision-making (e.g., the temporoparietal junction or the partially overlapping angular gyrus) provide higher-order cognitive functions that facilitate integration of multisensory input, and that this functionality is particularly useful when building mental representations of complex phenomena, like social context or temporal projection ( Jung et al., 2022 ; Humphreys and Tibon, 2023 ; Lugrin et al., 2023 ). Consistent with this conceptualization, Pietrzak et al. (2023) found that neural activity in angular gyrus and surrounding areas correlated with decisions in a standard temporal discounting task. An interesting and important avenue for future research is thus to establish the casual role (and connectivity) of key regions in the mentalizing network for prosocial decisions made in a temporal context.

5 Discussion

An exciting new literature is emerging at the intersection of temporal and prosocial decision-making. Our review highlighted directions this literature is taking and we discussed knowledge gaps to be filled by future research. Most of our focus was on the need for in-depth understanding of decisions and underlying processes, including unifying conceptualization. Ultimately such deeper understanding will be needed for extrapolating findings to the world outside the experimental lab. And this is where this new literature becomes relevant for real – because the intertemporal prosocial dimension is present in some of today’s biggest societal challenges. How to find behavioral solutions that can speed up climate change mitigation is perhaps the clearest example. Time is important here because costs will be borne now and benefits in the future. Same for health policy, which discounts the lives of future generations. And both of these decisions are made in a social context.

In the behavioral social-science literature, bottom-up climate change mitigation is often cast in a cooperation/social-dilemma type of framework. Here, the key problem for mitigation is the tension that exists between individually optimal behavior (selfishness) and socially optimal behavior (full cooperation). An important question for policy is therefore how to make people more cooperative, and when it comes to environment this often means increase willingness to bear personal costs of climate-friendly actions incurred today (e.g., price, effort, comfort) for common benefits at some point in the future. As noted by the few papers we surveyed on this topic above, time is important to consider here because willingness to cooperate is plausibly influenced by when the benefit (e.g., global warming kept below 1.5°C) is expected to materialize, or when everyone else make their decisions (e.g., overexploitation is often temporally detached among different actors). More research here can help us design better interventions to tackle these problems.

Of course, climate action is not the only topic where understanding the role of time is important. Motivated beliefs, teamwork, trust, economic hold-up are other examples where social outcomes are plausibly shaped by time. We anticipate new exciting research on these and other topics over the coming years, as the emerging literature on intertemporal prosocial choice continues to grow.

For policymaking, the question how to think about time in prosocial decision-making is not only relevant from a behavioral-descriptive point of view; it is also a highly normative matter, which has consequences for the well-being of both current and future generations. Increased knowledge about when and why time shapes behavior and preferences for policy is just a first step when discussing the more fundamental question of when and why time preferences should shape behavior and public policy. How prosocial choices are shaped by time in an intergenerational context is also a question of utmost importance not only for future generations but for the structure of governance if modern democracy as a mechanism for public decision-making is insufficiently sensitive to the concerns of future generations.

Author contributions

EP: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. GT: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. DV: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Agranov, M., Kim, J., and Yariv, L. (2023). Coordination with Differential Time Preferences: Experimental Evidence. CESifo Working Paper 10454. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10454.html (Accessed March 29, 2024).

Google Scholar

Alós-Ferrer, C., and Farolfi, F. (2019). Trust games and beyond. Front. Neurosci. 13:887. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00887

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Andreoni, J., and Serra-Garcia, M. (2021). Time inconsistent charitable giving. J. Public Econ. 198:104391. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104391

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Augenblick, N., Niederle, M., and Sprenger, C. (2015). Working over time: dynamic inconsistency in real effort tasks. Q. J. Econ. 130, 1067–1115. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjv020

Chang, L.-A., Armaos, K., Warns, L., Ma de Sousa, A. Q., Paauwe, F., Scholz, C., et al. (2023). Mentalizing in an economic games context is associated with enhanced activation and connectivity in the left temporoparietal junction. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 18:nsad023. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsad023

Chopra, F., Falk, A., and Graeber, T. (2024). Intertemporal altruism. Am. Econ. J. Microeconomics 16, 329–357. doi: 10.1257/mic.20210319

Cohen, J. D., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D., and White, J. M. (2020). Measuring time preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 58, 299–347. doi: 10.1257/jel.20191074

Ederer, F., and Schneider, F. (2022). Trust and promises over time. Am Econ J Microeconomics 14, 304–320. doi: 10.1257/mic.20200049

Enke, B., and Graeber, T. (2023). Cognitive uncertainty. Q. J. Econ. 138, 2021–2067. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjad025

Enke, B., Graeber, T., and Oprea, R. (2023). Complexity and Time. NBER Working Paper.

Gabaix, X., and Laibson, D. (2022). Myopia and Discounting. NBER Working Paper.

Gershman, S. J., and Bhui, R. (2020). Rationally inattentive intertemporal choice. Nature. Communications 11:3365. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16852-y

Humphreys, G. F., and Tibon, R. (2023). Dual-axes of functional organisation across lateral parietal cortex: the angular gyrus forms part of a multi-modal buffering system. Brain Struct. Funct. 228, 341–352. doi: 10.1007/s00429-022-02510-0

Jung, H., Wager, T. D., and Carter, R. M. (2022). Novel cognitive functions arise at the convergence of macroscale gradients. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 34, 381–396. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01803

Kim, J. (2023). The effects of time preferences on cooperation: experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games. Am Econ J Microeconomics 15, 618–637. doi: 10.1257/mic.20200195

Kim, J., Lim, W., and Schweighofer-Kodritsch, S. (2023). Patience Is Power: Bargaining and Payoff Delay. Hertie School Working Paper.

Kölle, F., and Laurer, T. (2024). Understanding cooperation in an intertemporal context. Manag. Sci. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.03757

Kölle, F., and Wenner, L. (2023). Is generosity time-inconsistent? Present bias across individual and social contexts. Rev. Econ. Stat. 105, 683–699. doi: 10.1162/rest_a_01049

Kovarik, J. (2009). Giving it now or later: altruism and discounting. Econ. Lett. 102, 152–154. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2008.12.005

Lugrin, C., Konovalov, A., and Ruff, C. (2023). Salience-based information aggregation: an overarching function of the “social brain”? bioRxiv . doi: 10.1101/2023.01.30.525877

Peters, J., and Büchel, C. (2010). Episodic future thinking reduces reward delay discounting through an enhancement of prefrontal-mediotemporal interactions. Neuron 66, 138–148. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.026

Pietrzak, M., Yngve, A., Hamilton, P., Kämpe, R., Boehme, R., Asratian, A., et al. (2023). A randomized controlled experimental medicine study of ghrelin in value-based decision making. J. Clin. Invest. 133:e168260. doi: 10.1172/JCI168260

Schacter, D. L., Benoit, R. G., and Szpunar, K. K. (2017). Episodic future thinking: mechanisms and functions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 17, 41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.06.002

Soutschek, A., Ruff, C. C., Strombach, T., Kalenscher, T., and Tobler, P. N. (2016). Brain stimulation reveals crucial role of overcoming self-centeredness in self-control. Sci. Adv. 2:e1600992. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600992

Trope, Y., and Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963

Vieider, F. (2021). Noisy Coding of Time and Reward Discounting. Ghent University Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper 21/1036. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/21-1036.html (Accessed March 29, 2024).

Keywords: prosocial behavior, time, intertemporal, cognitive noise, social brain network

Citation: Persson E, Tinghög G and Västfjäll D (2024) Intertemporal prosocial behavior: a review and research agenda. Front. Psychol . 15:1359447. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1359447

Received: 21 December 2023; Accepted: 25 March 2024; Published: 08 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Persson, Tinghög and Västfjäll. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Emil Persson, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

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
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(1); 2018 Feb

Writing an effective literature review

Lorelei lingard.

Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Health Sciences Addition, Western University, London, Ontario Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

This Writer’s Craft instalment is the first in a two-part series that offers strategies for effectively presenting the literature review section of a research manuscript. This piece alerts writers to the importance of not only summarizing what is known but also identifying precisely what is not, in order to explicitly signal the relevance of their research. In this instalment, I will introduce readers to the mapping the gap metaphor, the knowledge claims heuristic, and the need to characterize the gap.

Mapping the gap

The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown— what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the ‘knowledge deficit’ — thus establishing the need for your research study [ 1 ]. In an earlier Writer’s Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was introduced as a way of opening your paper with a clear statement of the problem that your work grapples with, the gap in our current knowledge about that problem, and the reason the gap matters [ 2 ]. This article explains how to use the literature review section of your paper to build and characterize the Gap claim in your Problem-Gap-Hook. The metaphor of ‘mapping the gap’ is a way of thinking about how to select and arrange your review of the existing literature so that readers can recognize why your research needed to be done, and why its results constitute a meaningful advance on what was already known about the topic.

Many writers have learned that the literature review should describe what is known. The trouble with this approach is that it can produce a laundry list of facts-in-the-world that does not persuade the reader that the current study is a necessary next step. Instead, think of your literature review as painting in a map of your research domain: as you review existing knowledge, you are painting in sections of the map, but your goal is not to end with the whole map fully painted. That would mean there is nothing more we need to know about the topic, and that leaves no room for your research. What you want to end up with is a map in which painted sections surround and emphasize a white space, a gap in what is known that matters. Conceptualizing your literature review this way helps to ensure that it achieves its dual goal: of presenting what is known and pointing out what is not—the latter of these goals is necessary for your literature review to establish the necessity and importance of the research you are about to describe in the methods section which will immediately follow the literature review.

To a novice researcher or graduate student, this may seem counterintuitive. Hopefully you have invested significant time in reading the existing literature, and you are understandably keen to demonstrate that you’ve read everything ever published about your topic! Be careful, though, not to use the literature review section to regurgitate all of your reading in manuscript form. For one thing, it creates a laundry list of facts that makes for horrible reading. But there are three other reasons for avoiding this approach. First, you don’t have the space. In published medical education research papers, the literature review is quite short, ranging from a few paragraphs to a few pages, so you can’t summarize everything you’ve read. Second, you’re preaching to the converted. If you approach your paper as a contribution to an ongoing scholarly conversation,[ 2 ] then your literature review should summarize just the aspects of that conversation that are required to situate your conversational turn as informed and relevant. Third, the key to relevance is to point to a gap in what is known. To do so, you summarize what is known for the express purpose of identifying what is not known . Seen this way, the literature review should exert a gravitational pull on the reader, leading them inexorably to the white space on the map of knowledge you’ve painted for them. That white space is the space that your research fills.

Knowledge claims

To help writers move beyond the laundry list, the notion of ‘knowledge claims’ can be useful. A knowledge claim is a way of presenting the growing understanding of the community of researchers who have been exploring your topic. These are not disembodied facts, but rather incremental insights that some in the field may agree with and some may not, depending on their different methodological and disciplinary approaches to the topic. Treating the literature review as a story of the knowledge claims being made by researchers in the field can help writers with one of the most sophisticated aspects of a literature review—locating the knowledge being reviewed. Where does it come from? What is debated? How do different methodologies influence the knowledge being accumulated? And so on.

Consider this example of the knowledge claims (KC), Gap and Hook for the literature review section of a research paper on distributed healthcare teamwork:

KC: We know that poor team communication can cause errors. KC: And we know that team training can be effective in improving team communication. KC: This knowledge has prompted a push to incorporate teamwork training principles into health professions education curricula. KC: However, most of what we know about team training research has come from research with co-located teams—i. e., teams whose members work together in time and space. Gap: Little is known about how teamwork training principles would apply in distributed teams, whose members work asynchronously and are spread across different locations. Hook: Given that much healthcare teamwork is distributed rather than co-located, our curricula will be severely lacking until we create refined teamwork training principles that reflect distributed as well as co-located work contexts.

The ‘We know that …’ structure illustrated in this example is a template for helping you draft and organize. In your final version, your knowledge claims will be expressed with more sophistication. For instance, ‘We know that poor team communication can cause errors’ will become something like ‘Over a decade of patient safety research has demonstrated that poor team communication is the dominant cause of medical errors.’ This simple template of knowledge claims, though, provides an outline for the paragraphs in your literature review, each of which will provide detailed evidence to illustrate a knowledge claim. Using this approach, the order of the paragraphs in the literature review is strategic and persuasive, leading the reader to the gap claim that positions the relevance of the current study. To expand your vocabulary for creating such knowledge claims, linking them logically and positioning yourself amid them, I highly recommend Graff and Birkenstein’s little handbook of ‘templates’ [ 3 ].

As you organize your knowledge claims, you will also want to consider whether you are trying to map the gap in a well-studied field, or a relatively understudied one. The rhetorical challenge is different in each case. In a well-studied field, like professionalism in medical education, you must make a strong, explicit case for the existence of a gap. Readers may come to your paper tired of hearing about this topic and tempted to think we can’t possibly need more knowledge about it. Listing the knowledge claims can help you organize them most effectively and determine which pieces of knowledge may be unnecessary to map the white space your research attempts to fill. This does not mean that you leave out relevant information: your literature review must still be accurate. But, since you will not be able to include everything, selecting carefully among the possible knowledge claims is essential to producing a coherent, well-argued literature review.

Characterizing the gap

Once you’ve identified the gap, your literature review must characterize it. What kind of gap have you found? There are many ways to characterize a gap, but some of the more common include:

• a pure knowledge deficit—‘no one has looked at the relationship between longitudinal integrated clerkships and medical student abuse’
• a shortcoming in the scholarship, often due to philosophical or methodological tendencies and oversights—‘scholars have interpreted x from a cognitivist perspective, but ignored the humanist perspective’ or ‘to date, we have surveyed the frequency of medical errors committed by residents, but we have not explored their subjective experience of such errors’
• a controversy—‘scholars disagree on the definition of professionalism in medicine …’
• a pervasive and unproven assumption—‘the theme of technological heroism—technology will solve what ails teamwork—is ubiquitous in the literature, but what is that belief based on?’

To characterize the kind of gap, you need to know the literature thoroughly. That means more than understanding each paper individually; you also need to be placing each paper in relation to others. This may require changing your note-taking technique while you’re reading; take notes on what each paper contributes to knowledge, but also on how it relates to other papers you’ve read, and what it suggests about the kind of gap that is emerging.

In summary, think of your literature review as mapping the gap rather than simply summarizing the known. And pay attention to characterizing the kind of gap you’ve mapped. This strategy can help to make your literature review into a compelling argument rather than a list of facts. It can remind you of the danger of describing so fully what is known that the reader is left with the sense that there is no pressing need to know more. And it can help you to establish a coherence between the kind of gap you’ve identified and the study methodology you will use to fill it.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Goldszmidt for his feedback on an early version of this manuscript.

PhD, is director of the Centre for Education Research & Innovation at Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, and professor for the Department of Medicine at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada.

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Collections
• Supplements
• InSight Papers
• BSR Registers Papers
• Virtual Roundtables
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Rheumatology
• About the British Society for Rheumatology
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

P037 Rheum for more? A systematic literature review on undergraduate exposure to rheumatology

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Koushan Kouranloo, Nikki Myall, Jennifer Christie, P037 Rheum for more? A systematic literature review on undergraduate exposure to rheumatology, Rheumatology , Volume 63, Issue Supplement_1, April 2024, keae163.079, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keae163.079

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Since the introduction of Modernising Medical Careers by the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2007, newly-qualified doctors are expected to choose their specialty much sooner than previously. A recent report published by the British Society of Rheumatology (BSR) in 2021 demonstrated a lack of exposure to the specialty for medical students. We conducted a systematic literature review on the quantity and quality of rheumatology teaching amongst undergraduate medical students.

Articles published until June 2023 were included. Eligible articles were: case reports and series, observational studies, qualitative studies and randomised control trials. Medline, Embase, PyscINFO, Cochrane library and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched, restricted to English language articles only. Articles including postgraduate trainees and those pertaining to a single intervention or single student cohort were excluded. Information was extracted on demographics, method of teaching, hours dedicated to rheumatology and students’ and educators’ feedback where mentioned.

After deduplication, 1195 article were identified. After screening title and abstract, 1156 papers were excluded, with 39 proceeding to full text screening. Ultimately, seven articles (all cross-sectional surveys) were included. Publication year of included articles ranged from 1981 to 2018. The countries of included studies were UK (3), USA (2), Australian (1) and Pan-European (1). Year of rheumatology teaching at medical school was reported in four studies (3 UK and 1 USA). The three UK studies were all taught in the latter years (4-6), whereas in the USA study the students were taught at every single year. Where reported, data on the number of hours of exposure to rheumatology were variable, ranging from 15 to 96 hours per medical student. Reported method of teaching included lecture-based, rheumatology inpatient service and shadowing consultations. Student feedback was only provided in one (UK-based) study, from 49 students of whom two regarded rheumatology as “fascinating”, four felt that they had limited exposure and eight considered it as “a niche specialty of no interest”. No feedback from educators were collected in any of the included studies. Factors identified by the included studies for overall poor exposure to rheumatology included: lack of having full-time rheumatologists on the school’s faculty, lack of specialty training programme in their local teaching hospital and greater emphasis on general medical/ acute specialties (e.g. general practice and emergency medicine).

Overall, there are significant limitations in recording the amount and quality of rheumatology teaching amongst undergraduate medical students. Exposure to clinical rheumatology has markedly decreased over time, with variable student awareness of the speciality. Given the ageing UK population and increase in multimorbidity, there is a need to increase exposure and entry to the specialty, which may be partly facilitated by improved incorporation of rheumatology in the undergraduate curriculum.

K. Kouranloo: None. N. Myall: None. J. Christie: None.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Rheumatology Twitter
• BSR Twitter
• BSR Facebook
• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1462-0332
• Print ISSN 1462-0324
• Copyright © 2024 British Society for Rheumatology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Case Report
• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2024

Post-COVID reactivation of latent Bartonella henselae infection: a case report and literature review

• Yanzhao Dong 1 ,
• Ahmad Alhaskawi 1 ,
• Xiaodi Zou 2 ,
• Haiying Zhou 3 ,
• Sohaib Hasan Abdullah Ezzi 4 ,
• Vishnu Goutham Kota 5 ,
• Mohamed Hasan Abdulla Hasan Abdulla 5 ,
• Alenikova Olga 6 ,
• Sahar Ahmed Abdalbary 7 &

BMC Infectious Diseases volume  24 , Article number:  422 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

83 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cat scratch disease (CSD) is caused by Bartonella henselae ( B. henselae ) and presents as lymphadenopathy following close contact with cats. However, in context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, clinical manifestations of CSD may vary, posing new challenges for healthcare professionals. Here we describe a case of a 54-year-old male with painful left upper arm mass, which gradually resolved until he was infected with COVID-19. The mass then rapidly progressed before admission. Meanwhile, pulmonary symptoms including pleural effusion emerged simultaneously. The cause was undetermined with routine blood culture and pathological test until the next generation sequencing (NGS) confirmed the presence of B. henselae . We believe this case is the first to report localized aggravation of CSD after COVID-19 infection and hopefully, offers treatment experience for clinicians worldwide.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Cat-scratch disease (CSD), an uncommon infection often observed in households with domestic cats, is first described in 1950 by Debré R. et al. [ 1 ]. The causative pathogen of CSD is Bartonella henselae ( B. henselae ), a Gram-negative rod that can be detected by immunohistochemistry and several silver staining methods including Warthin-Starry stain, Steiner stain and Dieterle stain [ 2 ]. At the early stage of infection, CSD normally presents as non-specific lymphadenopathy affecting both adults and children [ 3 ]. As an infectious disease, CSD has been reported worldwide and higher incidents are reported in the autumn and winter, perceivably associated the seasonal breeding of domestic cats [ 4 ].

CSD is commonly seen among young adults and children, and the major clinical manifestations of CSD include a papule at the site of microbe entrance and axillary node lymphadenopathy, which could progress to fever, aches, nausea, abdominal pain and malaise [ 5 ]. Diagnosis of CSD is usually dependent on both history of cat contact and primary lesions followed by regional lymphadenopathy, which can be further confirmed via serological evidence, blood or suppuration culture, and the next generation sequencing (NGS). However, B. henselae is a slow-growing bacterium, and bacterial culture could take up to 21 days, with a high false-negative rate. While serological tests could aid in the diagnosis, they often fail to differentiate between B. henselae and other Bartonella species. Furthermore, positive serological results may persist for years after treatment. In contrast, NGS is a highly accurate method for identifying various pathogens including B. henselae . Additionally, NGS can provide quantitative data regarding the detected pathogen, serving as an indicator of the infection’s severity. This quantitative information can be invaluable in monitoring the status of the infection. Approximately 90% of untreated lymphadenitis and lymph node enlargement following CSD gradually regress to normal size in immunocompetent patients over a period of several months, while the remaining 10% patients could progress to cutaneous erythema and result in spontaneous suppuration [ 6 ]. In these cases, the combined use of azithromycin and rifampin orally or intravenously is recommended, although the dosage and course may vary [ 7 , 8 ].

While CSD is the most common manifestation of bartonellosis and over 90% cases of CSD are benign and self-limiting, the spectrum of bartonellosis is expanding as several studies and cases have elucidated association between Bartonella infection and cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, ocular and rheumatic disorders [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. For immunocompromised patients, B. henselae infection elicits vasoproliferative responses instead of localized lymphadenopathy, and manifests as a cutaneous angiogenic lesion with inflammatory cell infiltrates [ 1 ]. What is causing this phenomenon, however, is still under debate. Moreover, disseminated bartonellosis has been observed in several cases of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and one of the cases reported rapid exacerbation to respiratory failure and ultimately, death of the patient [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. As our understanding grows, it is being increasing acknowledged that bartonellosis is a major public health issue, and efforts made to better comprehend its reservoir and vector can be assimilated into solving this problem [ 17 ].

Since its discovery, CSD has been studied comprehensively by research groups across the world. Nevertheless, little is known about CSD progression in the context of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID) infection, with only one case report available on coinfection of COVID and B. henselae in 2021 [ 18 ]. We believe that this is the first case to report reactivation of B. henselae post COVID infection.

Case presentation

On January 31, 2023, a previously healthy male was admitted with a one-month history of red and swollen mass on the ulnar side of left upper arm. At the onset of the swollen mass, he visited the local clinic and ultrasound (US) examination was ordered, indicating inflammation with abscess formation. Therefore, he was prescribed with oral administration of cefuroxime (250 mg, BID) for 7 days and pain relief treatment (irecoxib, 100 mg, BID). The mass gradually resolved until shortly progression complicated with symptoms of fever (Tmax = 39.5 °C), cough, fatigue, myalgia, shortness of breath and anorexia, which was confirmed to be COVID infection by local hospital. During this period, he observed rapid progression of the original mass with both an increase in size and the formation of a purulent spot. In search of second medical opinion, he visited our out-patient clinic. Prehospital magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indicated soft tissue swelling on the ulnar side of the left upper arm, with an internal mass-like elongated T2 signal and cellulitis-like enhancement on the enhancement imaging. He recalled no history of distant travel, animal bites or scratches. As a construction worker, he was generally well and the only significant medical history was lumbar disc herniation microdiscectomy he received 10 years ago.

On admission, the patient complained of coughing with white sputum, severe anorexia and nausea. Worse even, the mass had ruptured on the way to hospital, and he had to covered it with some gauze. During the dressing change, it was observed that the mass was swollen with a sinus tract, and approximately 15 mL exudate was drained. The exudate was initially purulent and became hemopurulent on pressure. Physical examination revealed lymphadenopathy in the unilateral axillary and supratrochlear lymph nodes, with local redness and tenderness around the abscess. Subcutaneous edema on the ulnar side of the left upper arm and forearm was observed. Lung auscultation showed scattered rales in both lungs, occasionally with wheezing. Pre-operative blood tests showed elevated white blood cell count (WBC) of 13.08*10 9 /L (normal range 4.0–10.0*10 9 /L), elevated C reactive protein (CRP) of 37.54 mg/L (normal range 0.00–8.00 mg/L) and negative result of HIV infection. Meanwhile, the patient showed no signs of fever (Temperature = 36.6 °C). Pulmonary CT scan showed inflammation on both lungs with interlobular and pleural effusion. Therefore, the patient was started empirically on intravenous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam for the lesion and possible lower respiratory tract infection. On day 2 of admission, the first surgery was performed, where an extended incision was made to expose the subcutaneous fascia, revealing large amount of inflamed granulation tissue. The ulnar nerve was intact but adherent to surround tissue, and careful dissection was performed to free the ulnar nerve and avoid nerve damage. After excision of necrotic tissue, the abscess cavity was repeatedly irrigated and covered with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) device. The excised tissue was then set for NGS, pathological tests and bacterial culture (Fig.  1 ).

( A) : MRI image of the mass on admission; ( B ): Preoperative view of the mass, the pus head has ruptured; ( C) : Intra-operative view of the mass, most necrotic or infected tissue have been removed; ( D) : Post-operative histopathological results showing acute and chronic inflammation of subcutaneous soft tissue with histiocytes infiltration (marked by green triangle and magnification on the upper right corner), regional inflammatory granulation tissue hyperplasia (marked by red star)

In the meantime, on day 4 of hospitalization, the patient complained of shortness of breath with decreased blood oxygen saturation levels, and an urgent pulmonary CT scan was ordered. The repeated CT report showed progressed bilateral pleural and interlobar effusions with atelectasis of both lower lobes, and a new ground-glass opacity in the apical segment of the right upper lobe, suggestive of inflammatory changes. At consultation in respiratory medicine experts, bilateral thoracentesis and placement of chest drainage tubes was ordered, and a total of 1100 mL yellow clear pleural effusion was drained on the first day. The pleural drainage was collected and underwent routine, biological examination and bacterium culture, indicating Non-septic Exudative Pleural Effusion. Multiple tissue sample were sent for testing and culture, and the NGS result on day 5 reported presence of B. henselae in the abscess, which confirmed the diagnosis of CSD. Further inquiry on medical history revealed that the patient owned a rural warehouse where he kept clothing and bed sheets, and a pet cat, although he remembered frequent visit of local feral cats. The warehouse was relatively poor in terms of air flow, where he would take occasional naps. After alteration of antibiotic plan to doxycycline combined with azithromycin, the pulmonary distress gradually resolved and inflammatory indicators reduced to normal level on day 8 (CRP: 0.49 mg/L; WBC 5.02*10 9 /L).

On day 8 of admission, the patient reported relief from chest tightness and shortness of breath, and a repeated CT showed interstitial changes in both lungs without pleural effusion on day 8 of admission (Fig.  2 ). The bilateral chest drainage tubes were then removed.

Pulmonary CT scan results with effusion indicated by red arrows. A : Taken 2 days prior to admission, showing interstitial changes, pneumonia with minor amount of pleural effusion; ( B) : Taken on day 4 of admission, showing progressed pneumonia with increased pleural effusion; ( C) : Taken on day 8 of admission, showing alleviated pneumonia, and previous pleural effusion absorbed; ( D) : Taken 2 weeks after discharge with normal result

Meanwhile, as the pulmonary symptoms relieved, the patient underwent secondary debridement, which showed localized inflammation and limited residual granulation tissue, and the remaining necrotized tissue was removed before suturing. The patient was generally well after the second surgery and discharged on day 11 of admission.

On out-patient follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient recovered from the previous symptoms. Physical examination showed negative pulmonary signs, and the incision healed without further inflammation.

CSD has been reported to cause pleural effusion possibly due to obstructed lymphatic drainage from the lungs [ 19 ]. In this case, the pulmonary CT scan on day 4 of admission showed interstitial inflammation with bilateral pulmonary effusion, indicating a possible role of COVID infection. This phenomenon was also observed in canine, as reported by Cherry N. et al. in 2009 [ 20 ]. Interestingly, a canine study led by Weeden A. et al. indicated positive B. henselae DNA in pleural and peritoneal effusion while pericardial effusion showed negative results [ 21 ]. In our case, the recurrence of localized mass and subsequent pleural effusion was parallel to COVID infection, possibly due to disrupted immune response.

As a zoonotic pathogen, B. henselae is transmitted to cats by flea feces contamination and ingested while grooming, therefore transmission to human is often achieved by cat scratches and bites [ 22 , 23 ]. This was corroborated by Chomel B. et al. in 1996, where they observed transmission of B. henselae to specific-pathogen-free (SPF) cats through contact with infected flea. They also noted that highly bacteremic cats, in absence of fleas, were unable to infect SPF cats [ 24 ]. The seasonality of CSD diagnosis, interestingly, has also been extensively studied by Nelson A., Saha S. and Mead P. in the United States spanning from 2005 to 2013 [ 25 ]. It was observed that the largest proportion of CSD diagnosis was made during January, followed by August and November, which they attributed to adoption pattern and age susceptibility of kittens, and peaking of fleas during fall and winter [ 26 ]. This is in line with our patient, who was also admitted in January.

In terms of source of infection, our patient denied cat scratch or bite on admission, whereas indirect contact with cats was found possible in his warehouse. The indirect mode of B. henselae transmission in this case was recently reported by Bush J. et al. in 2023, and they revealed the ability of B. henselae to exist stably in several biological and non-biological fluids [ 27 ]. While the discovery is exhilarating, the possibility of indirect B. henselae transmission poses a challenge for clinicians in face of similar patients without relevant history of feline contact.

Infection of B. henselae could cause diverse clinical symptoms depending on the age group, where children and younger individuals are prone to develop lymphadenitis while the elderly are more likely to suffer from endocarditis, and combined with B. quintana account for over 90% Bartonella endocarditis cases [ 28 ]. While it is necessary to consider infection of Bartonella species in the differential diagnosis in patients with fever of unknown causes, CSD is often misdiagnosed since the diagnosis is critically dependent on serological tests or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay as routine blood culture methods fails to detect B. henselae [ 5 ]. While serological test often shows high sensitivity, it fails to distinguish from ongoing infection and past infection. On the other hand, PCR assay has been shown to detect B. henselae in fresh tissue or purulent sample with high sensitivity and specificity, as reported by Gaoz S. et al. in 2022 [ 29 ]. The major challenge for clinicians and microbiologists is that PCR requires specific target, which is sometimes unidentified initially. Another factor for PCR sensitivity is the type of sample, since Khalfe N. and Lin D. observed decreased PCR sensitivity in paraffin embedded sample fixed by formalin [ 30 ]. In comparison, NGS could detect the species of pathogen with a quantity profile, offering assistance for clinicians to narrow down suspected pathogens at an early stage of diseases.

COVID has been characterized as a highly transmissible emerging pathogen, causing mild to severe respiratory symptoms with or without systematic complications and spreading fast across the world [ 31 ]. In context of the global pandemic of COVID, the incidence of various disease has surged due to a variety of reasons. A national study in Argentina in 2022 reported that COVID pandemic is associated with increased incidence of CSD, which was attributed to the prolonged cat contact due to quarantine, and higher rates of systematic CSD, which is yet to be explained [ 32 ].

In conclusion, we present a case underscoring the importance of vigilance in diagnosing and managing unusual presentations of less common diseases, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. While CSD is typically a self-limiting condition, this case was complicated by COVID-19, leading to unique challenges in both diagnosis and treatment. The co-occurrence of these two conditions highlights the complexity of managing infectious diseases in a time of a global pandemic. Clinicians, hence, should consider multiple diagnostic possibilities and adapt treatment strategies accordingly.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included with the article.

Florin TA, Zaoutis TE, Zaoutis LB. Beyond cat scratch disease: widening spectrum of Bartonella henselae infection. Pediatrics. 2008;121(5):e1413–25.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Peng J, Fan Z, Zheng H, Lu J, Zhan Y. Combined application of immunohistochemistry and Warthin-starry silver stain on the pathologic diagnosis of cat scratch disease. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2020;28(10):781–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Klotz SA, Ianas V, Elliott SP. Cat-scratch disease. Am Fam Physician. 2011;83(2):152–5.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Windsor JJ. Cat-scratch disease: epidemiology, aetiology and treatment. Br J Biomed Sci. 2001;58(2):101–10.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mazur-Melewska K, Mania A, Kemnitz P, Figlerowicz M, Sluzewski W. Cat-scratch disease: a wide spectrum of clinical pictures. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2015;32(3):216–20.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bass JW, Vincent JM, Person DA. The expanding spectrum of Bartonella infections: II. Cat-scratch disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1997;16(2):163–79.

Johnson SC, Kosut J, Ching N. Disseminated cat scratch disease in pediatric patients in Hawai’i. Hawaii J Health Soc Welf. 2020;79(5 Suppl 1):64–70.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rolain JM, Brouqui P, Koehler JE, Maguina C, Dolan MJ, Raoult D. Recommendations for treatment of human infections caused by Bartonella species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(6):1921–33.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Breitschwerdt EB, Bradley JM, Maggi RG, Lashnits E, Reicherter P. Bartonella associated cutaneous lesions (BACL) in people with neuropsychiatric symptoms. Pathogens. 2020;9(12).

Breitschwerdt EB, Greenberg R, Maggi RG, Mozayeni BR, Lewis A, Bradley JM. Bartonella henselae bloodstream infection in a boy with pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis. 2019;11:1179573519832014.

Mozayeni BR, Maggi RG, Bradley JM, Breitschwerdt EB. Rheumatological presentation of Bartonella koehlerae and Bartonella henselae bacteremias: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(17):e0465.

Santos LSD, Drummond MR, Franca A, Pavan MHP, Stelini RF, Cintra ML, et al. Chronic type 2 reaction possibly triggered by an asymptomatic Bartonella henselae infection in a leprosy patient. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2022;64:e17.

Drummond MR, de Almeida AR, Valandro L, Pavan MHP, Stucchi RSB, Aoki FH, et al. Bartonella henselae endocarditis in an elderly patient. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(7):e0008376.

Guccion JG, Gibert CL, Ortega LG, Hadfield TL. Cat scratch disease and acquired immunodeficiency disease: diagnosis by transmission electron microscopy. Ultrastruct Pathol. 1996;20(3):195–202.

Camargo ME. Cat scratch disease and AIDS. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1994;27(2):65–7.

Shi Y, Yang J, Qi Y, Xu J, Shi Y, Shi T, et al. Detection of Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii in an HIV patient using metagenomic next-generation sequencing. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):1764–7.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cheslock MA, Embers ME. Human Bartonellosis: an underappreciated public health problem? Trop Med Infect Dis. 2019;4(2).

Garland H, Stoll S, Patel S, Mogal R. A case of Bartonellosis presenting as a puzzling multisystem disorder complicated by nosocomial COVID-19 infection. BMJ Case Rep. 2021;14(8).

Whitman BW, Krafte-Jacobs B. Cat-scratch disease associated with pleural effusions and encephalopathy in a child. Respiration. 1995;62(3):171–3.

Cherry NA, Diniz PP, Maggi RG, Hummel JB, Hardie EM, Behrend EN, et al. Isolation or molecular detection of Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii from dogs with idiopathic cavitary effusions. J Vet Intern Med. 2009;23(1):186–9.

Weeden AL, Cherry NA, Breitschwerdt EB, Cheves AG, Wamsley HL. Bartonella henselae in canine cavitary effusions: prevalence, identification, and clinical associations. Vet Clin Pathol. 2017;46(2):326–30.

Chomel BB, Boulouis HJ, Breitschwerdt EB, Kasten RW, Vayssier-Taussat M, Birtles RJ, et al. Ecological fitness and strategies of adaptation of Bartonella species to their hosts and vectors. Vet Res. 2009;40(2):29.

Demers DM, Bass JW, Vincent JM, Person DA, Noyes DK, Staege CM, et al. Cat-scratch disease in Hawaii: etiology and seroepidemiology. J Pediatr. 1995;127(1):23–6.

Chomel BB, Kasten RW, Floyd-Hawkins K, Chi B, Yamamoto K, Roberts-Wilson J, et al. Experimental transmission of Bartonella henselae by the cat flea. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34(8):1952–6.

Nelson CA, Saha S, Mead PS. Cat-scratch disease in the United States, 2005-2013. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(10):1741–6.

Guptill L, Wu CC, HogenEsch H, Slater LN, Glickman N, Dunham A, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and genetic diversity of Bartonella henselae infections in pet cats in four regions of the United States. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42(2):652–9.

Bush JC, Maggi RG, Breitschwerdt EB. Viability and desiccation resistance of Bartonella henselae in biological and non-biological fluids: evidence for pathogen environmental stability. Pathogens. 2023;12(7).

Fournier PE, Lelievre H, Eykyn SJ, Mainardi JL, Marrie TJ, Bruneel F, et al. Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of Bartonella quintana and Bartonella henselae endocarditis: a study of 48 patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2001;80(4):245–51.

Goaz S, Rasis M, Binsky Ehrenreich I, Shapira L, Halutz O, Graidy-Varon M, et al. Molecular diagnosis of cat scratch disease: a 25-year retrospective comparative analysis of various clinical specimens and different PCR assays. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(2):e0259621.

Khalfe N, Lin D. Diagnosis and interpretation of testing for cat scratch disease. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2022;35(1):68–9.

Hui DS, Azhar EI, Madani TA, Ntoumi F, Kock R, Dar O, et al. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health - The latest 2019 Novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. Int J Infect Dis 2020;91:264–266.

Praino MLJG, Tineo S, Martinez M, Caratozzolo A, Toledano A, Cazes C, Contrini MM, López EL. 1357. Collateral consequence of COVID pandemic: Increased incidence of cat scratch disease. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9(Suppl 2):ofac492.1186.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, #79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310003, People’s Republic of China

Yanzhao Dong, Ahmad Alhaskawi & Hui Lu

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310003, People’s Republic of China

School of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Rm 706, 7/F, Lo Kwee-Seong Integrated Biomedical Science Bldg, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, China

Haiying Zhou

Department of Orthopedics, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, #138 Tongzi po Road, Changsha, Hunan Province, 410013, People’s Republic of China

Sohaib Hasan Abdullah Ezzi

Zhejiang University School of Medicine, #866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 3100058, People’s Republic of China

Vishnu Goutham Kota & Mohamed Hasan Abdulla Hasan Abdulla

Department of Neurology, Republican Research and Clinical Center of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Skoriny, Minsk, Belarus

Alenikova Olga

Department of Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Nahda University in Beni Suef, Beni Suef, Egypt

Sahar Ahmed Abdalbary

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Hui Lu designed the study; Yanzhao Dong and Ahmad Alhaskawi drafted the manuscript, Xiaodi Zou and Haiying Zhou performed literature selection and drew the figures; Sohaib Hasan Abdullah Ezzi and Vishnu Goutham Kota collected patient data, Sahar Ahmed Abdalbary, Alenikova Olga and Mohamed Hasan Abdulla Hasan Abdulla revised the manuscript. The authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Lu .

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication.

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of clinical details and clinical images. Upon request, a copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor of this journal.

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.

Dong, Y., Alhaskawi, A., Zou, X. et al. Post-COVID reactivation of latent Bartonella henselae infection: a case report and literature review. BMC Infect Dis 24 , 422 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09336-7

Download citation

Received : 30 October 2023

Accepted : 19 April 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09336-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cat scratch disease (CSD)
• Bartonella henselae
• High-throughput sequencing

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

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