Skip to Main Content
University of Newcastle Library Guides

Literature Reviews: What are literature reviews

This guide is an introduction to the Literature Review process - including its purpose and strategies, guidelines and resources to help you get started

What is a Literature Review

A literature review is a critical and in-depth evaluation of previous research. It is a summary and synopsis of a particular area of research, allowing anybody reading the paper to establish why you are pursuing this particular research program. A good literature review expands upon the reasons behind selecting a particular research question. 

The purpose of a literature review is to:

  • establish a theoretical framework for your topic / subject area
  • define key terms, definitions and terminology
  • identify studies, models, case studies etc supporting your topic
  • define / establish your area of study, ie your research topic.

A literature review should be structured like any other essay, containing an introduction, body, and conclusion.

The introduction should:

  • Define your topic and provide an appropriate context for reviewing the literature;
  • Establish your reasons – i.e. point of view – for reviewing the literature;
  • Explain the organisation – i.e. sequence – of the review;
  • State the scope of the review – i.e. what is included and what isn’t included.
    For example, if you were reviewing the literature on obesity in children you might say something like: There are a large number of studies of obesity trends in the general population. However, since the focus of this research is on obesity in children, these will not be reviewed in detail and will only be referred to as appropriate.

The middle or main body should:

  • Organise the literature according to common themes;
  • Provide insight into the relation between your chosen topic and the wider subject area e.g. between obesity in children and obesity in general;
  • Move from a wider view of the literature being reviewed, to the specific focus of your research.

The conclusion should:

  • Summarise the important aspects of the existing body of literature;
  • Evaluate the current state of the literature reviewed;
  • Identify significant flaws or gaps in existing knowledge;
  • Outline areas for future study;
  • Link your research to existing knowledge.

Source: https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/

Example

Writing the literature review from University of Queensland.

What type of review?

A literature review is a critical and in-depth evaluation of previous research. It is a summary and synopsis of a particular area of research, allowing anybody reading the paper to establish why you are pursuing this particular research program. A good literature review expands upon the reasons behind selecting a particular research question. 

Question Not necessarily focused on a single question, but may describe an overview
Protocol No protocol is included.
Background Provides summary of the available literature on a topic
Objectives Objective may or may not be identified
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Criteria may not be specified
Search strategy Strategy may not be explicitly stated
Process of selecting articles Not described in a literature review
Process of evaluating articles Evaluation of study quality may or may not be included
Process of extracting relevant information Not clear or explicit
Results and data synthesis Summary based on studies where the quality of the articles may not be expected. May also be influenced by the reviewer's theories, needs and beliefs
Discussion Written by expert/s with a detailed knowledge of the issues
Number of reviewers Can be conducted by one reviewer

Visit the Researcher Skills Toolkit for more information on how to conduct literature review research. 

A systematic literature review is designed to review relevant literature in your field through a highly rigorous and 'systematic' process. 

The process of undertaking a systematic literature review covers not only the content found in the literature but the methods used to find the literature, what search strategies you used, how and where you searched, what was included/excluded from your research and to determine whether any gaps can be found in existing research. 

Question Focused on a single question
Protocol A protocol may be created
Background Provides a summary of the available literature on the topic
Objectives Clear objectives are identified
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Criteria stated before the review is conducted
Search strategy Comprehensive search conducted in a systematic way
Process of selecting articles Usually clear and explicit
Process of evaluating articles Comprehensive evaluation of study quality
Process of extracting relevant information Usually clear and specific
Results and data synthesis Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence
Discussion Written by expert/s with a detailed knowledge of the issues
Number of reviewers Can be conducted by one reviewer

Visit the Researcher Skills Toolkit for more information on how to conduct literature review research. 

The following drop downs provide a brief descriptions of other common reviews types. There are tools such as the 'what review is right for you?' that can assist in helping you decide which review to conduct.

 

A systematic review is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies and that uses appropriate statistical techniques to combine these valid studies.

 

Question Focused on a single question
Protocol A protocol is usually registered or published prior to commencing the review
Background Provides a summary of the available literature on the topic
Objectives Clear objectives are identified
Inclusion and exclusion criteria Criteria stated before the review is conducted
Search strategy Comprehensive search conducted in a systematic way
Process of selecting articles Transparent to minimize bias and human error, detailed in the protocol
Process of evaluating articles Comprehensive evaluation of study quality
Process of extracting relevant information Usually clear and specific
Results and data synthesis Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence
Discussion Written by expert/s with a detailed knowledge of the issues
Number of reviewers At least three to independently evaluate studies and adjudicate any differences

Visit the Systematic Review LibGuide for more information on how to conduct this type of review.

Some characteristics of an Integrative review include; generating or refining a theory or hypothesis; combine empirical and theoretical research; examine research on a given health phenomenon; inform healthcare policy and practice

Meta-analysis provides statistical combination of the results of quantitative studies. They aim for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. Meta-analysis can be included in systematic reviews, but note that not all systematic reviews contain a meta-analysis. Characteristics include: ability to draw together smaller studies to contribute to larger picture of impact; Time-efficient for decision makers, compared with reviewing individual studies.

Qualitative reviews are interpretative studies that can incorporate reports from users and observations from practitioners to allow for broader understanding than data-only would allow. Characteristics include: Allowing for synthesis of non-statistical information; Can highlight themes across individual studies; Complements research evidence with reports from users and observations from practitioners.

Scoping reviews provide an ‘environmental scan’ (preliminary assessment) of the literature that is currently available in an area of research. Scoping reviews differ from mapping reviews as the outcome is only the review, not designed to conduct further reviews or research. Characteristics include; provides a quick search than can inform if a full review is needed; a systematic approach.

For a more detailed list of review types, see:

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Sage Research Methods