how to do a literature review in health and social care

• Find My Rep

You are here

Doing a Literature Review in Nursing, Health and Social Care

• Michael Coughlan - Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Patricia Cronin - Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Description

A clear and practical guide to completing a literature review in nursing and healthcare studies.

Providing students with straightforward guidance on how to successfully carry out a literature review as part of a research project or dissertation, this book uses examples and activities to demonstrate how to complete each step correctly, from start to finish, and highlights how to avoid common mistakes.

The third edition includes:

• Expert advice on selecting and researching a topic
• A chapter outlining the different types of literature review
• Increased focus on Critical Appraisal Tools and how to use them effectively
• New real-world examples presenting best practice
• Instructions on writing up and presenting the final piece of work

Perfect for any nursing or healthcare student new to literature reviews and for anyone who needs a refresher in this important topic.

Praise for the previous edition:

'This book is an excellent resource for practitioners wishing to develop their knowledge and understanding of reviewing literature and the processes involved. It uses uncomplicated language to signpost the reader effortlessly through key aspects of research processes. Practitioners will find this an invaluable companion for navigating through evidence to identify quality literature applicable to health and social care practice.' 

'Students often struggle with writing an effective literature review and this invaluable guide will help to allay their concerns. Key terms are clearly explained, and the inclusion of learning outcomes is a helpful feature for students and lecturers alike.  The examples are also very helpful, particularly for less confident students.  This is an accessible yet authoritative guide which I can thoroughly recommend.' 

'A must have - this book provides useful information and guidance to students and professionals alike. It guides the reader through various research methods in a theoretical and pragmatic manner.' 

' It's a very readable, concise, and accessible introduction to undertaking a literature review in the field of healthcare. The book’s layout has a logical format which really helped me to think methodically about my research question. An excellent reference for undergraduates who are about to undertake their first literature review.' 

'This book is an essential resource for students. Clearly written and excellently structured, with helpful study tools throughout, it takes the reader step by step through the literature review process in an easy, informative and accessible manner. This text gives students the skills they need to successfully complete their own review.' 

'The updating of the chapters will be exceptionally helpful given the rapid changes in online availability of resources and open-access literature.'  

Excellent resource. Useful for any stage of studying

Excellent text for masters and doctoral level students

An excellent primer to help the level 7 students write their systemised review for the assignment.

This book provides a comprehensive overview of the practical process of literature review in healthcare. It contains all details required to conduct a review by students.

This is an excellent clear and concise book on undertaking literature reviews being particularly good at demystifying jargon. It is timely given the move to student dissertations being primarily literature reviews in the current Covid pandemic. However nearly all the examples are drawn from nursing and health making the text less useful for social care and social work. A little disappointing given the title. SW students are likely to gravitate to texts where their subject is more prominent for a primary text.

Accessible, informative, step to step guide

This is a really helpful, accessible text for students and academic staff alike.

A really good addition to the repertoire of skills and techniques for understanding the essential process of literature reviewing.

Preview this book

For instructors.

Please select a format:

Select a Purchasing Option

• Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Building the Evidence for Health Care Quality

There are important research and non-research reasons to systematically review the literature. This article describes a step-by-step process to systematically review the literature along with links to key resources. An example of a graduate program using systematic literature reviews to link research and quality improvement practices is also provided.

Introduction

Systematic reviews that summarize the available information on a topic are an important part of evidence-based health care. There are both research and non-research reasons for undertaking a literature review. It is important to systematically review the literature when one would like to justify the need for a study, to update personal knowledge and practice, to evaluate current practices, to develop and update guidelines for practice, and to develop work related policies. 1 A systematic review draws upon the best health services research principles and methods to address: What is the state of the evidence on the selected topic? The systematic process enables others to reproduce the methods and to make a rational determination of whether to accept the results of the review. An abundance of articles on systematic reviews exist focusing on different aspects of systematic reviews. 2 – 9 The purpose of this article is to describe a step by step process of systematically reviewing the health care literature and provide links to key resources.

Systematic Review Process: Six Key Steps

Six key steps to systematically review the literature are outlined in Table 1 and discussed here.

Systematic Review Steps

1. Formulate the Question and Refine the Topic

When preparing a topic to conduct a systematic review, it is important to ask at the outset, “What exactly am I looking for?” Hopefully it seems like an obvious step, but explicitly writing a one or two sentence statement of the topic before you begin to search is often overlooked. It is important for several reasons; in particular because, although we usually think we know what we are searching for, in truth our mental image of a topic is often quite fuzzy. The act of writing something concise and intelligible to a reader, even if you are the only one who will read it, clarifies your thoughts and can inspire you to ask key questions. In addition, in subsequent steps of the review process, when you begin to develop a strategy for searching the literature, your topic statement is the ready raw material from which you can extract the key concepts and terminology for your strategies. The medical and related health literature is massive, so the more precise and specific your understanding of your information need, the better your results will be when you search.

2. Search, Retrieve, and Select Relevant Articles

The retrieval tools chosen to search the literature should be determined by the purpose of the search. Questions to ask include: For what and by whom will the information be used? A topical expert or a novice? Am I looking for a simple fact? A comprehensive overview on the topic? Exploration of a new topic? A systematic review? For the purpose of a systematic review of journal research in the area of health care, PubMed or Medline is the most appropriate retrieval tool to start with, however other databases may be useful ( Table 2 ). In particular, Google Scholar allows one to search the same set of articles as PubMed/MEDLINE, in addition to some from other disciplines, but it lacks a number of key advanced search features that a skilled searcher can exploit in PubMed/MEDLINE.

Examples of Electronic Bibliographic Databases Specific to Health Care

Note: These databases may be available through university or hospital library systems.

An effective way to search the literature is to break the topic into different “building blocks.” The building blocks approach is the most systematic and works the best in periodical databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE. The “blocks” in a “building blocks” strategy consist of the key concepts in the search topic. For example, let’s say we are interested in researching about mobile phone-based interventions for monitoring of patient status or disease management. We could break the topic into the following concepts or blocks: 1. Mobile phones, 2. patient monitoring, and 3. Disease management. Gather synonyms and related terms to represent each concept and match to available subject headings in databases that offer them. Organize the resulting concepts into individual queries. Run the queries and examine your results to find relevant items and suggest query modifications to improve your results. Revise and re-run your strategy based on your observations. Repeat this process until you are satisfied or further modifications produce no improvements. For example in Medline, these terms would be used in this search and combined as follows: cellular phone AND (ambulatory monitoring OR disease management), where each of the key word phrases is an official subject heading in the MEDLINE vocabulary. Keep detailed notes on the literature search, as it will need to be reported in the methods section of the systematic review paper. Careful noting of search strategies also allows you to revisit a topic in the future and confidently replicate the same results, with the addition of those subsequently published on your topic.

3. Assess Quality

There is no consensus on the best way to assess study quality. Many quality assessment tools include issues such as: appropriateness of study design to the research objective, risk of bias, generalizability, statistical issues, quality of the intervention, and quality of reporting. Reporting guidelines for most literature types are available at the EQUATOR Network website ( http://www.equator-network.org/ ). These guidelines are a useful starting point; however they should not be used for assessing study quality.

4. Extract Data and Information

Extract information from each eligible article into a standardized format to permit the findings to be summarized. This will involve building one or more tables. When making tables each row should represent an article and each column a variable. Not all of the information that is extracted into the tables will end up in the paper. All of the information that is extracted from the eligible articles will help you obtain an overview of the topic, however you will want to reserve the use of tables in the literature review paper for the more complex information. All tables should be introduced and discussed in the narrative of the literature review. An example of an evidence summary table is presented in Table 3 .

Example of an evidence summary table

Notes: BP = blood pressure, HbA1c = Hemoglobin A1c, Hypo = hypoglycemic, I = Internet, NS = not significant, PDA = personal digital assistant, QOL = quality of life, SMBG = self-monitored blood glucose, SMS = short message service, V = voice

5. Analyze and Synthesize Data and information

The findings from individual studies are analyzed and synthesized so that the overall effectiveness of the intervention can be determined. It should also be observed at this time if the effect of an intervention is comparable in different studies, participants, and settings.

6. Write the Systematic Review

The PRISMA 12 and ENTREQ 13 checklists can be useful resources when writing a systematic review. These uniform reporting tools focus on how to write coherent and comprehensive reviews that facilitate readers and reviewers in evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses. A systematic literature review has the same structure as an original research article:

TITLE : The systematic review title should indicate the content. The title should reflect the research question, however it should be a statement and not a question. The research question and the title should have similar key words.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT: The structured abstract recaps the background, methods, results and conclusion in usually 250 words or less.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction summarizes the topic or problem and specifies the practical significance for the systematic review. The first paragraph or two of the paper should capture the attention of the reader. It might be dramatic, statistical, or descriptive, but above all, it should be interesting and very relevant to the research question. The topic or problem is linked with earlier research through previous attempts to solve the problem. Gaps in the literature regarding research and practice should also be noted. The final sentence of the introduction should clearly state the purpose of the systematic review.

METHODS: The methods provide a specification of the study protocol with enough information so that others can reproduce the results. It is important to include information on the:

• Eligibility criteria for studies: Who are the patients or subjects? What are the study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes? Were there language restrictions?
• Literature search: What databases were searched? Which key search terms were used? Which years were searched?
• Study selection: What was the study selection method? Was the title screened first, followed by the abstract, and finally the full text of the article?
• Data extraction: What data and information will be extracted from the articles?
• Data analysis: What are the statistical methods for handling any quantitative data?

RESULTS: The results should also be well-organized. One way to approach the results is to include information on the:

• Search results: What are the numbers of articles identified, excluded, and ultimately eligible?
• Study characteristics: What are the type and number of subjects? What are the methodological features of the studies?
• Study quality score: What is the overall quality of included studies? Does the quality of the included studies affect the outcome of the results?
• Results of the study: What are the overall results and outcomes? Could the literature be divided into themes or categories?

DISCUSSION: The discussion begins with a nonnumeric summary of the results. Next, gaps in the literature as well as limitations of the included articles are discussed with respect to the impact that they have on the reliability of the results. The final paragraph provides conclusions as well as implications for future research and current practice. For example, questions for future research on this topic are revealed, as well as whether or not practice should change as a result of the review.

REFERENCES: A complete bibliographical list of all journal articles, reports, books, and other media referred to in the systematic review should be included at the end of the paper. Referencing software can facilitate the compilation of citations and is useful in terms of ensuring the reference list is accurate and complete.

The following resources may be helpful when writing a systematic review:

CEBM: Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Dedicated to the practice, teaching and dissemination of high quality evidence based medicine to improve health care Available at: http://www.cebm.net/ .

CITING MEDICINE: The National Library of Medicine Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. This resource provides guidance in compiling, revising, formatting, and setting reference standards. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7265/ .

EQUATOR NETWORK: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. The EQUATOR Network promotes the transparent and accurate reporting of research studies. Available at: http://www.equator-network.org/ .

ICMJE RECOMMENDATIONS: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. The ICJME recommendations are followed by a large number of journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/icmje-recommendations/ .

PRISMA STATEMENT: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Authors can utilize the PRISMA Statement checklist to improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Available at: http://prisma-statement.org .

THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION: A reliable source for making evidence generated through research useful for informing decisions about health. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/ .

Examples of Systematic Reviews To Link Research and Quality Improvement

Over the past 17 years more than 300 learners, including physicians, nurses, and health administrators have completed a course as part of a Master of Health Administration or a Master of Science in Health Informatics degree at the University of Missouri. An objective of the course is to educate health informatics and health administration professionals about how to utilize a systematic, scientific, and evidence-based approach to literature searching, appraisal, and synthesis. Learners in the course conduct a systematic review of the literature on a health care topic of their choosing that could suggest quality improvement in their organization. Students select topics that make sense in terms of their core educational competencies and are related to their work. The categories of topics include public health, leadership, information management, health information technology, electronic medical records, telehealth, patient/clinician safety, treatment/screening evaluation cost/finance, human resources, planning and marketing, supply chain, education/training, policies and regulations, access, and satisfaction. Some learners have published their systematic literature reviews 14 – 15 . Qualitative comments from the students indicate that the course is well received and the skills learned in the course are applicable to a variety of health care settings.

Undertaking a literature review includes identification of a topic of interest, searching and retrieving the appropriate literature, assessing quality, extracting data and information, analyzing and synthesizing the findings, and writing a report. A structured step-by-step approach facilitates the development of a complete and informed literature review.

Suzanne Austin Boren, PhD, MHA, (above) is Associate Professor and Director of Academic Programs, and David Moxley, MLIS, is Clinical Instructor and Associate Director of Executive Programs. Both are in the Department of Health Management and Informatics at the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Contact: ude.iruossim.htlaeh@snerob

None reported.

Health and Social Care

• Getting Started
• Journals & Databases
• NHS Scotland Knowledge Network
• Literature Reviewing

Literature reviewing - the overview

• What is a literature review?
• How are literature reviews relevant to health and social care?
• Types of Literature Review
• Reporting and Conducting Guidance
• What's in a good literature review?
• Common mistakes?

A literature review:

• Finds existing literature/sources published on a specific topic/to answer a review question.
• Brings together the literature sources into a single body of literature.
• Makes comparisons between the different included sources to identify both patterns/similarities and conflicts/differences.

Within healthcare literature reviews are often known as 'evidence synthesis reviews' and usually have specific methods and processes which are detailed in more depth in the section below titled 'Literature reviewing - the process'. This can differ from other field areas so if you have not done a healthcare evidence synthesis review before you may find it very different to previous expectations or experiences.

There are also a number of different types of evidence synthesis reviews within healthcare and the type of review impacts the purpose and methods. The next tab gives more information about different types of review. If you are doing a review as part of an academic assignment then please ensure you follow the requirements and any methods set out in your assignment brief.

Taking a Systematic Approach

Within healthcare evidence synthesis reviews there is an expectation that the approach taken, no matter what type of review is being done, is systematic. Whilst a systematic review is a specific review type, any review type can still take a systematic approach which strengths the quality of the methods, and therefore also strengthens the quality of the findings, write up, and usefulness/applicability of the review.

• Wakefield, A.(2014). Searching and critiquing the research literature. Nursing Standard, 28(39), 49-57
• Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32(8), 878-886
• Smith, J., Noble, H. (2016) Reviewing the literature. Evidence Based Nursing, 19 (1), 2-3.

In health and social care there are a number of different types of review. The resources below give an outline of the different types and outline the differences between them:

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

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.  Health Information and Libraries Journal ,  36 (3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276   

If you are doing a literature review as part of an academic assignment then please ensure you follow the requirements and any methods set out in your assignment brief. You may be advised to do a specific type of review, but when reading the guidance of how to conduct one find that it differs from your assignment brief. If so, discuss this with your supervisor or module leader.

Choosing a Review Type

You need to understand the purpose of different review types and match this up with what you are intending to achieve from carrying out your review in order to select the most appropriate type. You can include this explanation and justification within your write up. As well as the guidance above please see some further resources below to support your decision making.

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), 143–143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Jonkoping University. (n.d.). Which review is right for you?   https://guides.library.ju.se/c.php?g=690269&p=4943634

Right Review. (2024). Right Review Tool.  https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/

There are a number of published reporting and conducting guidelines and handbooks to support you in both carrying out and writing up your review. These help to ensure the quality and transparency of your review by ensuring you have included and conducted your review in a way that meets established methodological expectations.

Reporting guidelines give information on what you need to include in the write up of the review. Conducting guidelines provide more methodological guidance on how to carry out and undertake each stage of a review, not just stating what you need to include/report. When using these they need to be cited and referenced and the wording you would use needs to distinguish if it is a reporting or conducting resource, and therefore how it has been used. Examples:

'this review/protocol was reported using . . . '

'the conducting of this review was guided by . . . '

A lot of these were designed for quantitative systematic reviews of interventions, however a number of resources now exist for different types of evidence synthesis reviews. Below are resources of some of the most commonly used guidelines.

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement consists of a 27-item checklist that covers the elements needed in the write up of a systematic review, and a flow diagram.

There is an article giving further explanation of every element of the checklist and a glossary of terms .

PRISMA also have guidance for reporting protocols, known as the  PRISMA-P extension.

There is also a checklist extension for Scoping Reviews called PRISMA- ScR , which is very similar to the Systematic Review checklist but with some key differences.

Also a more in-depth explanatory paper for this checklist as well.  

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions needs to be followed if you were to publish a review or review protocol in the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews.

There are a set a reporting guidelines for both review protocols and full reviews .

Key aspects of the Cochrane handbook are collated as the Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews – takes you through steps needed to conduct.

The Cochrane Handbook Chapter V also details methodology for conducting Overviews of Reviews.

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group have published a series of 6 papers covering qualitative evidence synthesis methods .

Other Guides

The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis separates SRs out by types of evidence included, as well as having chapters on Mixed Methods Reviews, Scoping Reviews and Umbrella Reviews.

RAMSES reporting can be used for realist reviews and meta-narrative reviews.

The ENTREQ checklist can be used to report reviews of qualitative literature, alongside a fuller article explaining the development of the checklist .

Further reporting and conducting guidelines can be found on this useful page from the University of Illinois .

Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for reviewing the evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991575_EVIDENT_Guidance_for_Reviewing_the_Evidence_a_compendium_of_methodological_literature_and_websites

A good literature review should:

• Address a focused, explicit research question.
• Take a systematic approach to the searching of the literature.
• Document the search process so that it is replicable  by others  (often a requirement for publication within many academic journals)
• Demonstrate that a wide range of sources have been searched.
• Undertake a critical analysis of the retrieved literature, not merely describe what has been read.
• Justify why particular items of literature are being referred to. They should summarise the current state of research,  perhaps debates that have taken place over a period of time within that topic or arguments for and against a particular aspect of the topic.
• Relate the question to the larger body of knowledge within which your topic sits, and to put your work into context.
• Summarise the current state of the research evidence.
• Identify the gap in the literature that your research question is going to answer.

Common Mistakes

• Review is too descriptive. No critiquing or critical evaluation of the evidence. No identification of strengths and weaknesses. It becomes an essay, not a review. It does not set the foundation for your own research process.
• It becomes a dumping ground to write down everything you know about the topic  or is presented as a series of quotes from the papers you have read.
• Not enough time has been allocated to searching and reviewing the literature. Do your literature reviewing early. It helps inform your final research question, future methodologies and identifies whether there is indeed a "gap" in the current research literature that your queston is going to answer.
• Literature used is not from scholarly peer reviewed sources.
• There is no documentation or explanation of how the search was undertaken and the key terms used. No explanation of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Referencing does not follow the School guidelines. It is not consistent in style or presentation.
• There has been no revision or proof reading. Thinking develops as you write. Go back over what you have written a few days after you have done it. Check grammar and language – give it to someone else to proof read.

Here are 5 top tips towards a stress free  literature review

• Top tips for literature reviewing

Literature reviewing - the process

• Question Development
• Eligibility Criteria
• Planning the Search Strategy
• Searching the Literature
• Selecting the Literature
• Keeping track of your literature
• Critical Appraisal
• Analysing and Discussing the Literature

Formulating a review question is a key stage of the review process as this impacts the development of the outcomes of the review, the eligibility criteria for selection, and the development of the search strategy. If you make changes to your review question after already moving on to other stages of the review you may need to go back and make changes to these other steps.

Ideally a review should add new knowledge to that topic or field, so you want to develop a question that has a new focus or outcomes that has not previously been explored. Sometimes it is appropriate to update a previous review using the same question and outcomes to see if the findings of the review have changed with the inclusion of new literature since the previous one was published.

If you are a Masters student it is particularly important that you choose a topic that is both viable and manageable within the word count and timescales for completion. Viable means a topic where there is published literature, you cannot do a literature review on a question where there is no available literature. Manageable means selecting a focused topic where there will not be too vast an amount of literature to include as you have a word count limit and a timescale in which to submit the assignment.

To help you develop a question try and identify an area from practice that you are interested in – ideally something the practice area can benefit from which will give value to your review findings.

The question you develop from this topic should be focused, manageable and answerable within the timescales you have.

Scoping the Literature

This is where we run initial literature searches around our topic of interest to get an initial idea of what literature is out there. This will help us to:

• Check what reviews have already been done on this topic.
• Check our topic is viable - there is enough literature out there.
• Check our topic is not too broad - too much literature out there.

From these initial searches of the literature you can start to refine your review question, broadening or focusing as necessary. Please see the following video on Scoping Searches to Refine Your Topic for an example of how this works in practice.

• Question Formulation Frameworks

Question formulation frameworks are used particularly within healthcare to help you identify the key concepts of your topic, to then structure into a research or review question. The following document shows you examples of the most commonly used ones in healthcare, breaking down each framework into what the concepts mean, giving examples in practice of questions structured using that framework, and suggestions of review outcomes and types best suited to each framework.

The eligibility criteria can also be referred to as the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This is a set of criteria you will develop which you will use during the selection process of the review to decide which sources of literature to include and exclude. This criteria helps to reduce selection bias, because every decision you make should be based on this pre-determined set of criteria. 

When take a systematic approach to searching and selecting the literature your eligibility criteria needs to be very detailed, both for you to be able to make decisions for each of the pieces of literature you have found, but also for someone else to be able to use the criteria with the same set of literature and make the same decisions as you. If you are doing a review as part of a review team for publication then there should be a minimum of two people involved in the selection of the literature, both using the same criteria to make selection decisions. This aligns to the systematic criteria of transparency . 

When developing your eligibility criteria think about the following elements:

• Each of your question concepts from your question formulation framework and detail exactly what criteria would mean a source would be included or excluded in relation to each question concept.

E.g. your population group is people with dementia, so as inclusion criteria you would state that each literature source needs this population group and any source without this population group would be excluded. But what about literature where participants and both people with dementia and people with Parkinsons. Would this be included or excluded? Your criteria needs to be detailed enough to capture all of the potential decisions you would need to make.

• The study criteria for research literature, so the methodology, design and any further details. Depending on your review question there will sometimes be specific types of data most suited to answer the question, so sometimes either quantitative or qualitative data only would be appropriate, and sometimes only specific study designs like randomised controlled trials

E.g. you're question is exploring the experiences and views of a particular group of participants, therefore the data most appropriate to 'answer' this question would be qualitative.

• Types of publications, so are you only including primary research or wider sources of literature? Even with primary research there are a number of different source types this could be presented in such as journal articles, theses, conference proceedings.
• Publication dates, so is there a specific date range you will only be including literature from? Try to think about the context of your specific topic/question and what would make something too old. 

E.g. there has been a new guideline in your topic area published in a specific year with major changes to how a specific procedure is done in practice, meaning that older literature is not relevant to the current guideline. Topics related to technology could be outdated more easily due to specific technological developments in a specific field or equipment. 

A search strategy includes where and how you are searching. Can someone else use your process to find what you found? This aligns with the systematic criteria of being  transparent.

You need to plan and include the following detail in your write up to allow someone else to replicate your search:

• Search Strategy Planning Template

When searching in databases most of the time you want to use the advanced search feature to build a search that will find a more relevant set of search results. To do this you need to be able to plan effective search strategies, using appropriate keyword search terms, and inputting these into the database in the most effective combination.

The videos below demonstrate how to input a planned systematic search strategy into a database. Different database platforms will look slightly different, but the principles for doing an advanced search are the same across them all, but differences are demonstrated.

Searching in EBSCO databases (CINAHL, Medline, APA PsycInfo etc.)

Searching in PubMed

Searching in Ovid

Searching in Web of Science

Searching in Proquest

The selection process is where you will use your eligibility criteria to select the literature for inclusion in your review. Considerations needed are:

Keeping track of literature

Writing a literature review will mean that you will collect a large number of pieces of information from many sources.  Before you begin searching, give some thought as to how you are going to manage this information. 

Reference management software will enable you to automatically  export references you collect from database searches and store them in the reference manager.   Once you have read each paper you can then make personal research notes and store these within each reference inside the reference manager.

Use the software  to format the citations within the text of your review. It will also produce the reference list at the end of your document formatted in a style of your choosing e.g.   APA 7th.

See  our Reference Management LibGuide  on how to get started with Endnote or Mendeley, Edinburgh Napier’s referencing management software.

NHS Scotland users can also use the Refworks ref management software supplied on the NHS Knowledge network site instead of Endnote,  if they would prefer.

What is critical appraisal? 

Critical appraisal/quality assessment is a specific aspect of critical analysis where you examine and assess research in order to judge its:

You are evaluating the quality of the research and how it has been conducted, as well as the findings themselves and how it has been reported. Please see the following video by Cochrane on an Introduction to Critical Appraisal for a more in depth description.

Why do we do it?

Critical appraisal is often carried out using checklists that help signpost areas to look for while reading a paper. There are different types of checklist depending on the type of research you are reviewing.

The following document lists some of the main appraisal tools used in published reviews and would be a good place to start when deciding on which tool to use. 

• Critical Appraisal/Quality Assessment Tools

Further Critical Appraisal Resources

Two excellent videos from Andrew Booth at SCHARR at the University of Sheffield. These take you through the actual process of appraising papers using the CASP tool.

Appraising a Quantitative Study              [13 mins]

Critical Appraisal of a Qualitative Study   [12 mins]

Data Extraction and Charting

Your literature findings need to be presented and discussed both descriptively and analytically. It is usually to present a summary of the included sources in the form of a data extraction or study characteristics table, a process also referred to as data extraction and charting your results.  The video below covers how to present your findings in this way.

• Presenting Your Results in a Study Characteristics Table

Analysing and Synthesising the Findings of the Literature

Depending on the type of review you are doing and also whether the review is being done as an assignment, there may be differing expectations of how you analyse the included literature sources.

At Masters dissertation level you would be expected as a minimum to provide a narrative thematic analysis, where you compare and contrast the literature to identify patterns and themes and interpret these in relation to your review question. You can use a deductive approach where you start with a pre-existing framework of themes, or an inductive approach where themes are generated from reading the literature.

At PhD or researcher for publication level there would be an expectation of a more complex analysis of the literature, appropriate to the literature sources. A scoping review including a wide range of source types would likely best be suited to a narrative analysis, but if the review literature is all research then an appropriate quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods form of analysis of the data would be expected.

Most Systematic Review conduction and reporting guidelines are designed around an analysis of quantitative data, so if this does not fit the data of your literature you may need to use different analysis and synthesis guidance. There are a number of different analysis methods, some examples and resources are listed below as a starting point but you may also want to look at examples of similar reviews fur further methods.

• Chapters 10 and 11 of the Cochrane Handbook covers quantitative meta-analysis.
• Chapter 12 covers over methods, however these are all still mainly quantitative methods.
• The eMergE reporting guidance covers meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis, and the ENTREQ statement can also be used for qualitative synthesis.

Recommended Reading

• << Previous: NHS Scotland Knowledge Network
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.napier.ac.uk/shsc

Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care Helen Aveyard Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care OUP: McGraw-Hill Education £163;17.99 184pp 9780335238859 0335238858 [Formula: see text]

• PMID: 27759508
• DOI: 10.7748/nop.23.1.9.s11

WRITTEN IN simple and easy to understand language, this book provides practical and useful guidance for health and social care students. each chapter is well organised and summarised. The book is well illustrated with real-life scenarios and examples encountered by students. It can help students devise their research question and develop a clear literature search strategy. It also provides detailed information about various critical appraisal tools that can be used to approach different types of studies.

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Subject Research
• Public Health
• Literature reviews

Public Health: Literature reviews

Created by health science librarians.

• Sciwheel & Citation managers
• Data & software
• Grey literature
• Popular search strategies

Section Objective

What is a literature review, clearly stated research question, search terms, searching worksheets, boolean and / or.

• Systematic reviews
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Sciences and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Behavior
• Health Policy and Management
• Maternal and Child Health
• Public Health Leadership

The content in the Literature Review section defines the literature review purpose and process, explains using the PICO format to ask a clear research question, and demonstrates how to evaluate and modify search results to improve the accuracy of the retrieval.

A literature review seeks to identify, analyze and summarize the published research literature about a specific topic.  Literature reviews are assigned as course projects; included as the introductory part of master's and PhD theses; and are conducted before undertaking any new scientific research project.

The purpose of a literature review is to establish what is currently known about a specific topic and to evaluate the strength of the evidence upon which that knowledge is based. A review of a clinical topic may identify implications for clinical practice. Literature reviews also identify areas of a topic that need further research.

A systematic review is a literature review that follows a rigorous process to find all of the research conducted on a topic and then critically appraises the research methods of the highest quality reports. These reviews track and report their search and appraisal methods in addition to providing a summary of the knowledge established by the appraised research.

The UNC Writing Center provides a nice summary of what to consider when writing a literature review for a class assignment. The online book, Doing a literature review in health and social care : a practical guide (2010), is a good resource for more information on this topic.

Obviously, the quality of the search process will determine the quality of all literature reviews. Anyone undertaking a literature review on a new topic would benefit from meeting with a librarian to discuss search strategies. A consultaiton with a librarian is strongly recommended for anyone undertaking a systematic review.

Use the email form on our Ask a Librarian page to arrange a meeting with a librarian.

The first step to a successful literature review search is to state your research question as clearly as possible.

It is important to:

• be as specific as possible
• include all aspects of your question

Clinical and social science questions often have these aspects (PICO):

• People/population/problem  (What are the characteristics of the population?  What is the condition or disease?)
• Intervention (What do you want to do with this patient?  i.e. treat, diagnose)
• Comparisons [not always included]  (What is the alternative to this intervention?  i.e. placebo, different drug, surgery)
• Outcomes  (What are the relevant outcomes?  i.e. morbidity, death, complications)

If the PICO model does not fit your question, try to use other ways to help be sure to articulate all parts of your question. Perhaps asking yourself Who, What, Why, How will help.  

Example Question:  Is acupuncture as effective of a therapy as triptans in the treament of adult migraine?

Note that this question fits the PICO model.

• Population: Adults with migraines
• Intervention: Acupuncture
• Comparison: Triptans/tryptamines
• Outcome: Fewer Headache days, Fewer migraines

A literature review search is an iterative process. Your goal is to find all of the articles that are pertinent to your subject. Successful searching requires you to think about the complexity of language. You need to match the words you use in your search to the words used by article authors and database indexers. A thorough PubMed search must identify the author words likely to be in the title and abstract or the indexer's selected MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) Terms.

Start by doing a preliminary search using the words from the key parts of your research question.

Step #1: Initial Search

Enter the key concepts from your research question combined with the Boolean operator AND. PubMed does automatically combine your terms with AND. However, it can be easier to modify your search if you start by including the Boolean operators.

migraine AND acupuncture AND tryptamines

The search retrieves a number of relevant article records, but probably not everything on the topic.

Step #2: Evaluate Results

Use the Display Settings drop down in the upper left hand corner of the results page to change to Abstract display.

Review the results and move articles that are directly related to your topic to the Clipboard .

Go to the Clipboard to examine the language in the articles that are directly related to your topic.

• look for words in the titles and abstracts of these pertinent articles that differ from the words you used
• look for relevant MeSH terms in the list linked at the bottom of each article

The following two articles were selected from the search results and placed on the Clipboard.

Here are word differences to consider:

• Initial search used acupuncture. MeSH Terms use Acupuncture therapy.
• Initial search used migraine.  Related word from MeSH Terms is Migraine without Aura and Migraine Disorders.
• Initial search used tryptamines. Article title uses sumatriptan. Related word from MeSH is Sumatriptan or Tryptamines.

With this knowledge you can reformulate your search to expand your retrieval, adding synonyms for all concepts except for manual and plaque.

#3 Revise Search

Use the Boolean OR operator to group synonyms together and use parentheses around the OR groups so they will be searched properly. See the image below to review the difference between Boolean OR / Boolean AND.

Here is what the new search looks like:

(migraine OR migraine disorders) AND (acupuncture OR acupuncture therapy) AND (tryptamines OR sumatriptan)

• Search Worksheet Example: Acupuncture vs. Triptans for Migraine
• Search Worksheet
• << Previous: Popular search strategies
• Next: Systematic reviews >>
• Last Updated: May 14, 2024 1:21 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/publichealth