differences between introduction and literature review

Home » Education » Difference Between Introduction and Literature Review

Difference Between Introduction and Literature Review

Main difference – introduction vs literature review.

Although introduction and literature review are found towards the beginning of a text, there is a difference between them in terms of their function and purpose. The main difference between introduction and literature review is their purpose; the purpose of an introduction is to briefly introduce the text to the readers whereas the purpose of a literature review is to review and critically evaluate the existing research on a selected research area. 

In this article, we will be discussing,

     1. What is an Introduction?           – Definition, Features, Characteristics

     2. What is a Literature Review?           – Definition, Features, Characteristics

What is an Introduction

An introduction is the first part of an article, paper, book or a study that briefly introduces what will be found in the following sections. An introduction basically introduces the text to the readers. It may contain various types of information, but given below some common elements that can be found in the introduction section.

• Background/context to the paper
• Outline of key issues
• Thesis statement
• Aims and purpose of the paper
• Definition of terms and concepts

Note that some introductions may not have all these elements. For example, an introduction to a short essay will only have several lines. Introductions can be found in nonfiction books, essays, research articles, thesis, etc. There can be slight variations in these various genres, but all these introductions will provide a basic outline of the whole text. 

Introduction of a thesis or dissertation will describe the background of the research, your rationale for the thesis topic, what exactly are you trying to answer, and the importance of your research.

What is a Literature Review

A literature review, which is written at the start of a research study, is essential to a research project. A literature review is an evaluation of the existing research material on a selected research area. This involves reading the major published work (both printed and online work) in a chosen research area and reviewing and critically evaluating them. A literature review should show the researcher’s awareness and insight of contrasting arguments, theories, and approaches. According to Caulley (1992) a good literature review should do the following:

• Compare and contrast different researchers’ views
• Identify areas in which researchers are in disagreement
• Group researchers who have similar conclusions
• Criticize the research methodology
• Highlight exemplary studies
• Highlight gaps in research
• Indicate the connection between your study and previous studies
• Indicate how your study will contribute to the literature in general
• Conclude by summarizing what the literature says

Literature reviews help researchers to evaluate the existing literature, to identify a gap in the research area, to place their study in the existing research and identify future research.

Introduction is at the beginning of a text.

Literature Review is located after the introduction or background.

Introduction introduces the main text to the readers.

Literature Review critically evaluates the existing research on the selected research area and identifies the research gap.

Introduction will have information such as background/context to the paper, outline of key issues, thesis statement, aims, and purpose of the paper and definition of terms and concepts. 

Literature Review will have summaries, reviews, critical evaluations, and comparisons of selected research studies.

Image Courtesy: Pixabay

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Introductions and Literature Reviews

• Author By Troy Mikanovich
• Publication date December 16, 2022
• Categories: Academic Publication , Research Writing
• Categories: academic journal , CARS , introduction , literature review , research , research question

Writing literature reviews is one of the trickiest things you’ll have to do in graduate school.  It is even more tricky because a lot of professors will want you to do things that are pedagogically valuable but so tailored to the specific class they are teaching that it can be hard to generalize the lessons you are meant to take away.

This page is meant to be a general overview to the goals and purposes of introductions and literature reviews (or an introduction that contains a literature review–we’ll talk about that), so even if it doesn’t exactly match what you have been asked to do in an assignment, I hope it’ll be helpful.

What is the difference between an introduction and a literature review?

As of writing this, the year is 2022 and words mean nothing. Rather than getting caught up on what these things are in some kind of objective sense, let’s look at what they are supposed to do.

The introduction and the literature review of your paper have the same job. Both are supposed to justify the question(s) you are asking about your topic and to demonstrate to your audience that the thing you are writing about is interesting and of some importance.  However, while they have the same job, they do it in two different ways.

An introduction should demonstrate that there is some broader real-world significance to the thing that you are writing about. You can do this by establishing a problem or a puzzle or by giving some background information on your topic to show why it is important.  Here’s an example from Brian E. Bride’s “Prevalence of Secondary Traumatic Stress among Social Workers” (2007, link below), where he begins by establishing a problem:

“ In the United States, the lifetime prevalence of exposure to traumatic events ranges from 40 percent to 81 percent, with 60.7 percent of men and 51.2 percent of women having been exposed to one or more traumas and 19.7 percent of men and 11.4 percent of women reporting exposure to three or more such events (Breslau, Davis, Peter-son, & Schultz, 1997; Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, & Nelson, 1995; Stein, walker, Hazen, & Forde, 1997). Although exposure to traumatic events is high in the general population, it is even higher in subpopulations to whom social workers are likely to provide services…

Although not exhaustive of the populations with whom social workers practice, these examples illustrate that social workers face a high rate of professional contact with traumatized people. Social workers are increasingly being called on to assist survivors of childhood abuse, domestic violence, violent crime, disasters, and war and terrorism. It has become increasingly apparent that the psychological effects of traumatic events extend beyond those directly affected.”

So, Bride (2007) starts with a broad problem (lots of people with exposure to traumatic events) and narrows it to a more specific problem (social workers who work with those people are exposed to secondary trauma as they assist them) .

A literature review should demonstrate that there is some academic significance to the thing you are writing about. You can do this by establishing a scholarly problem (i.e. a “research gap”) and by demonstrating that the state of the existing scholarship on your topic needs to develop in a particular way.

As Bride (2007) transitions to talking about the scholarship on the topic of social workers and secondary trauma, he establishes what scholarship has done and identifies what it has not done .

“Figley (1999) defined secondary traumatic stress as “the natural, consequent behaviors and emotions resulting from knowledge about a traumatizing event experienced by a significant other. It is the stress resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person” (p. 10). Chrestman (1999) noted that secondary traumatization includes symptoms parallel to those observed in people di-rectly exposed to trauma such as intrusive imagery related to clients’ traumatic disclosures (Courtois, 1988; Danieli, 1988; Herman, 1992; McCann & Pearlman, 1990); avoidant responses (Courtois; Haley, 1974); and physiological arousal (Figley, 1995; McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Thus, STS is a syndrome of symptoms identical to those of PTSD, the characteristic symptoms of which are intrusion, avoidance, and arousal (Figley, 1999)…

Collectively, these studies have provided empirical evidence that individuals who provide services to traumatized populations are at risk of experiencing symptoms of traumatic stress (Bride). However, the extant literature fails to document the prevalence of individual STS symptoms and the extent to which diagnostic criteria for PTSD are met as a result of work with traumatized populations.”

Taken together, Bride (2007) justifies its existence–the research that the author has undertaken in order to read the article that you are now reading–like this:

Broad real world background: Lots of people are suffering from traumatic stress.

Narrowed real world background: People who have suffered traumatic experiences often work with social workers.

Real world problem: Many social workers may through their work suffer from secondary exposure to traumatic experiences.

Broad academic background: There has been a lot of research on secondary traumatic stress

Narrowed academic background: Particularly, this research has shown that social workers are at risk of experiencing symptoms of secondary traumatic stress.

Academic problem/gap : We don’t know how prevalent individual symptoms of secondary traumatic stress are.

Introductions, then, give you space to explain why you are writing about the thing you are writing about, and literature reviews are where you explain what prior scholarship has said about the topic and what the consequences of that prior scholarship are. In an introduction you are writing about the topic; in a literature review you are writing about people writing about the topic.

So does a literature review need to be a separate section from an introduction? Or is a literature review part of an introduction?

It depends on your field, tbh. And on the expectations of the assignment/journal/outlet that you are writing for.

For instance, in the above example (Bride, 2007) the literature review is a part of the introduction. Here’s that paper and some other examples of other places where this is the case. Notice that they do not differentiate between an introductory section and a distinct “Literature Review” as they outline their topic/questions before describing their methodology:

Bride, B. E. (2007) Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers.  Social Work, 52 (1), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/52.1.63

Wei, X., Teng, X., Bai, J., & Ren, F. (2022). Intergenerational transmission of depression during adolescence: The mediating roles of hostile attribution bias, empathetic concern, and social self-concept.  The Journal of Psychology, 157 (1), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2022.2134276

Stephens, R., Dowber, H., Barrie, A., Sannida, A., & Atkins, K. 2022) Effect of swearing on strength: Disinhibition as a potential mediator.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221082657

However, plenty of other articles have distinct “Literature Review” sections separate from their introductions. The first two examples name it as such, while the third organizes its literature review with thematic sub-sections:

Schraedley, M.K., & Dougherty, D.S. (2021). Creating and disrupting othering during policymaking in a polarized context.  Journal of Communication, 72 (1), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab042

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Cheng, Z., & González-González, P. (2022). Effects of the news finds me perception on algorithmic news attitudes and social media political homophily. Journal of Communication, 72 (5), 578-591. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac025

Brandão, T., Brites, R., Hipólito, J., & Nunes O. (2022) Attachment orientations and family functioning: The mediating role of emotion regulation. The Journal of Psychology , 157 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2022.2128284

Whether you separate your literature review into its own distinct section is mostly a function of what you’ve been asked to do (if you are writing for a class) or what the conventions and constraints are of your field.

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

When you need an introduction for a literature review

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

What to include in a literature review introduction

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

Examples of literature review introductions

Example 1: an effective introduction for an academic literature review paper.

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

Phd thesis literature review chapter introduction, phd thesis literature review introduction.

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Steps to write your own literature review introduction

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, minor revisions: sample peer review comments and examples, sample emails to your thesis supervisor, co-authorship guidelines to successfully co-author a scientific paper, how to select a journal for publication as a phd student.

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Literature reviews

What this guide covers, what is a literature review, literature review resources, types of literature reviews, what is the difference between a literature review and a systematic review, related information and guides, further help.

• Conduct your search
• Store and organise the literature
• Evaluate and critique the literature
• Different subject areas
• Find literature reviews

Reusing content from this guide

Attribute our work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The literature review process involves a number of steps.

This guide focuses on:

• evaluating.

A literature review is a survey and critical analysis of what has been written on a particular topic, theory, question or method.

"In writing the literature review, the purpose is to explore what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, what approaches and viewpoints have been adopted, and what are their strengths and weaknesses."

Source: "Focus and frame". (2008). In Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. Introducing Qualitative Methods: Qualitative methods in business research (pp. 44) . London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9780857028044.

Get an overview on doing a literature review:

• Sage research methods online - Literature review methods map Information on the literature review methodology with links to further resources - the Project Planner, books, articles, videos and more.
• Ten simple rules for writing a literature review Gives 10 tips on how to approach and carry out a literature review. By Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol9(7): e1003149.
• The literature review. In: Doing your undergraduate program This chapter looks at the purpose of literature reviews, how it is done, setting the boundaries of your search and more.

• More books on literature reviews A selection of literature review books available via UQ Library Search.

The type of literature review you do will depend on a variety of factors:

• Your discipline
• The purpose - undergraduate assessment, PHD thesis, journal article?
• Your lecturer or supervisor's requirements.

Always follow the guidelines outlined by your lecturer or supervisor or consult the instructions for authors (for journal articles), when conducting your literature review.

• is an overview of the significant literature on a topic
• typically includes a critical analysis of each work included
• demonstrates the reviewers knowledge of the topic.
• is a list of citations of research sources (books, journal articles, websites etc) on a topic
• includes a brief summary and analysis or evaluation of each citation = the annotation.
• a critical assessment of all research studies on a particular research question
• has specific criteria for collecting and evaluating the literature
• includes a synthesis of the findings of the included studies.
• This method developed by Griffith University's School of Environment bridges the gap between traditional narrative review methods and meta-analyses to enable students to produce results that are reliable, quantifiable and reproducible.

The requirements of narrative literature reviews are usually quite different than systematic reviews . However, you may be required to adopt some of the characteristics of a systematic approach when doing your literature review. Check the guidelines or criteria that have been set by your supervisor so you know what is expected of you.

Characteristics of reviews

• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements This article defines different review types and discusses appropriate search methods for each type.
• Writing literature reviews - Student Support Student Support provides information on how to write effective literature reviews.
• Writing skills Learn strategies for good writing from the Graduate School.
• Systematic reviews An overview of systematic reviews and resources to support producing one.
• Subject guides See recommended resources in different subject areas.
• Grey literature Find literature that is not available in traditional channels of publishing and distribution.
• How to find guides Techniques and resources to find specific information formats.

Contact the Librarian team .

Phone: + 617 334 64312 during opening hours

Email: [email protected]

• Next: Conduct your search >>
• Last Updated: Jul 11, 2024 11:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/research-techniques/literature-reviews

Research Skills

Introduction and literature review.

This section is the beginning of the article, but don’t expect it to contain any sort of position or argument. In academic articles, this section has one, overarching purpose: to demonstrate that the authors are familiar with all previous relevant research on the issue they are writing about. Therefore, this section is usually the most “citation-heavy” section of the paper. It is not uncommon to have one or more citations at the end of each sentence. You will likely also encounter a number of compound citations: parentheticals in which not one source, but two or more are cited at one time. Each sentence that precedes a citation in this section is typically a very brief paraphrase of the relevant methods or applicable findings of the other articles that have come before. This review of prior studies is a very important exercise for scholars because it demonstrates the depth of their understanding. None of the articles you read occur in a vacuum; they are usually part of an evolving web of scholarship. Each new article picks up the thread (or, usually, several threads) left by articles published recently. Another important thing to realize is that, in a very real sense, the authors have not really begun; they do not make an argument or say much that is new in this section. It is designed to provide an academic history and theoretical context for the topic of discussion.

At the very end of every literature review section, however, the authors do something important. After having demonstrated their familiarity with previous research, authors indicate that, even though much research has been done, there are still gaps in the research that need filling. You should try to find language such as, “While many studies have examined this subject, no one has looked at this particular issue in this way.” The authors then announce their intention to address that gap in knowledge with the research that follows. This rhetorical move always appears at the end of this section, and often gives the reader the clearest and most detailed description of what exactly the authors are looking at—and why. This is not a thesis, however. Academic articles are not like the essays you may be used to writing, in which the thesis appears at the end of the introduction. The research gap is more akin to a hypothesis than a thesis. It does not make an argument, which comes much later—usually in the discussion or conclusion.

There are also articles that are stand-alone literature reviews; these are sometimes called “Review Articles” or “Meta-analyses.” Rather than engaging in original research, these articles, if they are recent and on point, can provide you with the bibliographic information of all the important, recent sources on your topic. There are many ways to find sources that don’t involve a search engine of any kind. Look at your articles’ references lists to see if they contain any relevant-sounding articles that you haven’t found by other means. You can save a great deal of time this way.

• Parts of An Article. Authored by : Kerry Bowers. Provided by : The University of Mississippi. Project : WRIT 250 Committee OER Project. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Privacy Policy

Literature Reviews

• Tools & Visualizations
• Literature Review Examples
• Videos, Books & Links

Business & Econ Librarian

Click to Chat with a Librarian

Text: (571) 248-7542

What is a literature review?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area. Often part of the introduction to an essay, research report or thesis, the literature review is literally a "re" view or "look again" at what has already been written about the topic, wherein the author analyzes a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles. Literature reviews provide the reader with a bibliographic history of the scholarly research in any given field of study. As such,  as new information becomes available, literature reviews grow in length or become focused on one specific aspect of the topic.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but usually contains an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, whereas a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. The literature review might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. Depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

A literature review is NOT:

• An annotated bibliography – a list of citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each citation. The annotations inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy and quality of the sources cited.
• A literary review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work.
• A book review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book.
• Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners
• The UNC Writing Center – Literature Reviews
• The UW-Madison Writing Center: The Writer’s Handbook – Academic and Professional Writing – Learn How to Write a Literature Review

What is the difference between a literature review and a research paper?

The focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions, whereas academic research papers present and develop new arguments that build upon the previously available body of literature.

How do I write a literature review?

There are many resources that offer step-by-step guidance for writing a literature review, and you can find some of them under Other Resources in the menu to the left. Writing the Literature Review: A Practical Guide suggests these steps:

• Chose a review topic and develop a research question
• Locate and organize research sources
• Select, analyze and annotate sources
• Evaluate research articles and other documents
• Structure and organize the literature review
• Develop arguments and supporting claims
• Synthesize and interpret the literature
• Put it all together

What is the purpose of writing a literature review?

Literature reviews serve as a guide to a particular topic: professionals can use literature reviews to keep current on their field; scholars can determine credibility of the writer in his or her field by analyzing the literature review.

As a writer, you will use the literature review to:

• See what has, and what has not, been investigated about your topic
• Identify data sources that other researches have used
• Learn how others in the field have defined and measured key concepts
• Establish context, or background, for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
• Explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and ideas might be
• Contribute to the field by moving research forward
• To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments in a particular field of study
• Develop alternative research projects
• Put your work in perspective
• Demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
• Provide evidence that may support your own findings
• Next: Tools & Visualizations >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://subjectguides.library.american.edu/literaturereview

Supporting writers since 1790

Essay Guide

Our comprehensive guide to the stages of the essay development process. Back to Student Resources

Display Menu

• Writing essays
• Essay writing
• Being a writer
• Thinking critically, thinking clearly
• Speaking vs. Writing
• Why are you writing?
• How much is that degree in the window?
• Academic writing
• Academic writing: key features
• Personal or impersonal?
• What tutors want – 1
• What tutors want – 2
• Be prepared to be flexible
• Understanding what they want – again
• Basic definitions
• Different varieties of essay, different kinds of writing
• Look, it’s my favourite word!
• Close encounters of the word kind
• Starting to answer the question: brainstorming
• Starting to answer the question: after the storm
• Other ways of getting started
• How not to read
• You, the reader
• Choosing your reading
• How to read: SQ3R
• How to read: other techniques
• Reading around the subject
• Taking notes
• What planning and structure mean and why you need them
• Introductions: what they do
• Main bodies: what they do
• Conclusions: what they do
• Paragraphs and links
• Process, process, process
• The first draft
• The second draft
• Editing – 1: getting your essay into shape
• Editing – 2: what’s on top & what lies beneath
• Are you looking for an argument?
• Simple definitions
• More definitions
• Different types of argument
• Sources & plagiarism
• Direct quotation, paraphrasing & referencing
• MLA, APA, Harvard or MHRA?
• Using the web
• Setting out and using quotations
• Recognising differences
• Humanities essays
• Scientific writing
• Social & behavioural science writing
• Beyond the essay
• Business-style reports
• Presentations
• What is a literature review?
• Why write a literature review?
• Key points to remember

The structure of a literature review

• How to do a literature search

Introduction

• What is a dissertation? How is it different from an essay?
• Getting it down on paper
• Drafting and rewriting
• Planning your dissertation
• Planning for length
• Planning for content
• Abstracts, tone, unity of style
• General comments

A literature review should be structured like any other essay: it should have an introduction, a middle or main body, and a 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 general, 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.

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

Introduction vs. Literature Review — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Introduction and Literature Review

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, role in paper, relation to other research, compare with definitions, introduction, literature review, common curiosities, how does a literature review differ from an introduction in terms of content, what should i include in the introduction of my paper, how long should an introduction be, is it essential for a research paper to have both an introduction and a literature review, how detailed should a literature review be, should an introduction be captivating, what's the main purpose of an introduction in academic writing, can a literature review identify gaps in existing research, do all research papers have a literature review section, is the introduction the first section of a research paper, what's the primary goal of a literature review, can an introduction mention previous studies, is the literature review limited to academic articles, is a literature review subjective, can a literature review include recent research, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. 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. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some 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 consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• 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 biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of 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.

Sometimes, though, you might 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. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show 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 review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

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. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review

• Step #1: Choosing a Topic
• Step #2: Finding Information
• Step #3: Evaluating Content
• Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• #5 Writing the Review
• Citing Your Sources

WRITING THE REVIEW 

You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.

The actual review generally has 5 components:

Abstract  -  An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:

• A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
• Your thesis statement
• A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
• Summarize your findings
• Conclusion(s) based upon your findings

Introduction :   Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
• Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)  - 

Body :  The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-

• Chronological -  by publication or by trend
• Thematic -  organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
• Methodical -  the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing

You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.

Conclusion :  In the conclusion, you should:

Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography :   Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.

• Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
• Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
• << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

What is a Literature Review?

#scribendiinc

Learn the basics about writing a literature review

If you've ever written a research paper , it's likely you've done some form of literature review. A literature review is a survey of current books and articles on a particular topic. While they may sound tedious, literature reviews are helpful windows into the cutting edge of any field.

Literature reviews are often closely associated with annotated bibliographies, which also list and analyze scholarly sources. However, unlike an annotated bibliography, a literature review is usually written in the form of an essay, with full paragraphs, an introduction, and a conclusion. Literature reviews also differ from book reviews , despite their similar names, since they focus on bodies of work rather than singular sources.

Why are literature reviews important?

Doing a literature review is the first step to writing a great research paper. Whether you know a lot about a topic or only a little, a literature review will help familiarize you with the most important scholars, themes, and sources in the field.

Writing a literature review can also help you build a solid thesis before you tackle the rest of an essay. Even if you've selected an interesting topic, articulating a great argument can be trickier than you think. Often, students realize that their thesis is untenable halfway through writing their papers, usually because there aren't enough sources to support their arguments. By carrying out a literature review, you'll build an inventory of research that you can use at any point in the writing process.

Since most researchers draw on networks of other scholarship, reviewing literature can also help you find sources that you didn't know about before. For example, the citations in a journal article or book often direct you to seminal works in the field. Even if you can't read every last paper, a literature review will leave you better informed about where to turn if you need more information.

What are the stages of writing a literature review?

Poring over books and articles for a literature review takes some dedication. By dividing up your work into four different steps, you'll save time and finish your review faster.

1) Research

A thorough amount of research is a prerequisite for writing a good literature review. In the research stage, you should visit a library or browse a journal database to begin collecting your sources. Start by searching for a broad topic and hone in on your research question as you become more confident about your subject.

2) Consolidation of information

Next, you should compile all the information that you've gleaned from your research. Aim to organize your notes in a way that's logical, such as thematically or chronologically. It may be helpful to use visual aids, such as charts or graphs, to keep track of all the sources you’ve surveyed. For every book or article, make note of the full author's name, title, and publishing information, so that you can use these details in your bibliography .

3) Analysis

Now you can go back over the data that you've collected and look for connections between sources and your research question. You can also expand your notes from the consolidation phase and categorize each source by the author's main argument and type of evidence. This will help simplify your analysis and make it easier to draw conclusions in your literature review.

4) Presentation

The final stage is when you put everything you know onto paper. Introduce readers to your research question and lead them through existing scholarly works, starting with the most impactful and important sources. Don’t forget to write an introduction , make transitions between paragraphs, and present a conclusion. 

Putting the final touches on your literature review

After reading our guide, you may still have questions about perfecting your literature review. Our academic editors are happy to help—don't hesitate to contact us!

Have You Read?

"The Complete Beginner's Guide to Academic Writing"

Related Posts

How to Make an Ebook

How to Write a Book Proposal

How to Write a Book Review

Upload your file(s) so we can calculate your word count, or enter your word count manually.

We will also recommend a service based on the file(s) you upload.

English is not my first language. I need English editing and proofreading so that I sound like a native speaker.

I need to have my journal article, dissertation, or term paper edited and proofread, or I need help with an admissions essay or proposal.

I have a novel, manuscript, play, or ebook. I need editing, copy editing, proofreading, a critique of my work, or a query package.

I need editing and proofreading for my white papers, reports, manuals, press releases, marketing materials, and other business documents.

I need to have my essay, project, assignment, or term paper edited and proofread.

I want to sound professional and to get hired. I have a resume, letter, email, or personal document that I need to have edited and proofread.

 Prices include your personal % discount.

 Prices include % sales tax ( ).

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Difference between literature review and introduction part of a research proposal

I have started writing a research proposal on a topic of my interest. I am confused about the difference between the introduction and literature review sections. What I have observed so far by going through some proposals that the introduction part also contains some review of the subject. This means that there is some similarity between the two sections. Then what are the main differences between the two topics ?

• literature-review
• research-proposal
• introduction

If you follow the golden advice that the introduction is the last part of a research article (or thesis, or any writing) to write, then it will make much more sense. Even though the introduction is the first thing that the reader reads, it should be the last thing that the writer writes. I'll explain why shortly.

The purpose of the literature review is to situate your work in the context of other academic research. Its purpose is NOT primarily to summarize all related research (contrary to what some might say); its purpose is to show how your work complements and extends the literature. The literature review section should only summarize work that shows three main things:

• What scholars have done so far to resolve the research question that you are treating, or very closely related research questions;
• Clearly show that past research has not sufficiently resolved your specific research question.
• Frame the specific shortcomings or opportunities in the literature that your work aims to resolve or at least extend.

When I write a background literature review, I try to focus only on these points and leave out anything that does not clearly serve these points. Otherwise, it becomes long and rambling and distracts from the value of the current work, rather than helping it.

With that understood, the purpose of the introduction is to show your reader that your work successfully treats an important problem, thus the full article is worth reading. A general formula that I use for my introductions is something like this:

• Show how the topic is important in the practitioner world beyond academia.
• Summarize scholars' attempts so far to address the problem. This is essentially a summary of the literature review section (which is why the literature review should be written before the introduction, or else you don't know what to summarize).
• Briefly but clearly present my research objective or research question.
• Summarize the methodology and procedures that I used to carry out the research objective.
• Summarize the major contributions of the study (contributions to scholars and to practice).
• Brief outline of the structure of the rest of the article.

I hope it is now clear that an article that follows a similar approach will have a brief summary of the literature review section in the introduction and then an expanded literature review in a subsequent section, often soon after the introduction. Since an introduction is essentially an extended abstract of the entire article, part of it should include a summary of the literature review section.

• Very helpful and insightful answer! Thank you! –  can't stop me now Commented May 20, 2023 at 18:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged literature-review research-proposal introduction ..

• Featured on Meta
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• ^ symbol in music theory
• Condition on the data of table
• How to remove the circled numbers from the image and obtain an image without circled numbers?
• How were East German citizens who defected to West Berlin able to travel to the rest of West Germany? (If at all)
• Defining command for use with ifnum
• Is there any family history for Klaus Stortebeker?
• Could Swashplate be replaced with small electric motors?
• Is believing the role of man in John 3:16? Is believing not by Holy Spirit work?
• Convergence of iterated conditional expectations
• Why does modified z-score not pick up an obvious outlier?
• Is it correct to say: "To solve an addiction"?
• Is the term "terrorism" defined in international law?
• Parsing vivado reports
• Wife missing in Italy
• What game features a battle against a giant gold/bronze man?
• How to convert digital value from MEMS microphone to Pa
• Thermal printer head made out of PCB
• How is the name "Took" pronounced?
• Asymptotics of sum involving square roots
• In terms of Material Science, why do household garbage bag seal water and air, but allow odor to pass through?
• The existence of an eigenvalue of a finite-dim matrix, in a vector space over an arbitrary field.
• Can I store flour that is already mixed with the dry ingredients & butter
• "make / work / find one's way to somewhere"
• How can DC charge a capacitor?

Believe in yourself, Prove yourself, Be yourself

Introduction vs Literature Review

Introduction is at the beginning of a text while literature review is located after the introduction or background.

Introduction is the part that introduces the main text to the readers while literature review critically evaluates the existing research on the selected research area and identifies the research gap.

Introduction have elements such as background, outline of key issues, thesis statement, aims and purpose of the paper and definition of terms and concepts while literature review have summaries, reviews, critical evaluations, and comparisons of selected research studies.

Recent Posts

• iHumEnTech 2024 July 8, 2024

Academic Staff Personal Site

Although I am just someone who does some teaching, some research, and some writing but my dream still alive which is to live in the simplest way, in the way you like with fully appreciation and love.

“Believe in yourself, Prove yourself, Be yourself”

Latest News

• iHumEnTech 2024
• Experience as reviewer (Year 2024)
• Experience as reviewer (Year 2023)
• Post Viva Thesis’ Correction
• Research Method and Research Design
• Research Gap
• WoS or Scopus?
• Professional Certification Received
• Experiences as Coach of Certification and Workshop
• Experiences as Panel of Competition/Booth
• As Coach/Trainer
• As Conference Committee
• As Moderator/speaker
• As Reviewer
• As Viva Chair/Co-chair/Examiner (main/co)
• Certification
• News and Knowledge
• RG VicubeLab
• Teaching Courses (Current Semester)
• Teaching Courses (Previous Semesters)
• Course Materials
• Research Grants
• Current Research
• Completed research

Publication

• Journal Papers
• Conference Proceedings
• Books and Book Chapters
• Technical Reports and Other Publications

Supervision

• Undergraduate Supervision
• Main Supervisor (Master/PhD)
• Co-supervisor (Master/PhD)

Useful Links

The Guide to Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• The Purpose of Literature Reviews
• Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review
• How to Organize a Literature Review?
• Software for Literature Reviews
• Using Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews
• How to Conduct a Literature Review?
• Common Mistakes and Pitfalls in a Literature Review
• Methods for Literature Reviews
• What is a Systematic Literature Review?
• What is a Narrative Literature Review?
• What is a Descriptive Literature Review?
• What is a Scoping Literature Review?
• What is a Realist Literature Review?
• What is a Critical Literature Review?
• Meta Analysis vs. Literature Review
• What is an Umbrella Literature Review?
• Differences Between Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews
• Literature Review vs. Theoretical Framework
• How to Write a Literature Review?
• How to Structure a Literature Review?
• How to Make a Cover Page for a Literature Review?
• How to Write an Abstract for a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Introduction?
• How to Write the Body of a Literature Review?
• How to Write a Literature Review Conclusion?
• How to Make a Literature Review Bibliography?
• How to Format a Literature Review?

Introduction

What determines the length of a literature review, structure and organization, lengths in different kinds of literature reviews.

• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to Present a Literature Review?
• How to Publish a Literature Review?

How Long Should a Literature Review Be?

A literature review is an essential part of many academic papers and research projects. It provides a comprehensive overview of existing research on a particular topic, allowing the researcher to identify gaps, build on previous work, and position their study within the broader academic context. The length of a literature review can vary significantly depending on the context, purpose, and research scope . In this article, we will explore the factors that influence the length of a literature review and provide guidelines to help you determine the appropriate length for your work.

The length of a literature review is influenced by multiple factors, including the type of review, the research aims, the scope of the topic, and institutional guidelines. Writing a literature review involves synthesizing existing research and providing a critical analysis, which varies depending on the depth and breadth of the subject. Additionally, a literature review involves evaluating and summarizing scholarly sources to support the research objectives. Understanding these factors is crucial for researchers to effectively plan and structure their reviews, ensuring they meet academic standards and adequately cover the relevant literature.

Context and purpose

In most literature reviews, the length largely depends on the context and purpose of your research. Here are some common scenarios to consider:

Undergraduate research papers : Typically concise, these reviews range from 1,000 to 3,000 words (4-12 pages) and provide a basic overview of the existing literature. They are usually integrated into the introduction or background section of the paper.

Master's theses : More detailed and comprehensive, literature reviews for master's theses usually span 3,000 to 10,000 words (10-40 pages). They demonstrate the student's understanding of the field and justify the research question.

Doctoral dissertations : The literature review can be extensive for postgraduate dissertations, often ranging from 8,000 to 20,000 words (30-80 pages). These reviews need to cover a wide range of studies and theories, providing a thorough background for the research and highlighting gaps the dissertation aims to address.

Journal articles : Concise and focused, literature reviews in journal articles typically range from 2,000 to 5,000 words (8-20 pages), depending on the journal's guidelines. They concentrate on recent and relevant studies that directly inform the research question.

Grant proposals : Brief and focused, literature reviews in grant proposals are usually around 1,000 to 2,000 words (4-8 pages). Their purpose is to provide a quick overview of the current state of research and justify the need for the proposed study.

Research scope

The breadth and depth of the literature you need to cover will also affect the length of your review. If your research focuses on a specific niche or well-defined topic, your literature review might be shorter, around 1,000 to 3,000 words. This is because there may be fewer studies to review, allowing you to focus on the most relevant ones. For topics that span multiple disciplines or have a vast body of literature, the review will be longer, potentially exceeding 10,000 words. A broader scope requires a more extensive review to ensure all relevant research is covered.

Guidelines and requirements

Always check the guidelines provided by your institution, advisor, or the journal to which you are submitting. These guidelines often specify the expected length and format for the literature review. Adhering to these requirements is crucial for ensuring your review meets academic standards and is accepted for publication or evaluation.

Quality literature reviews start with ATLAS.ti

From research objective to conclusion, ATLAS.ti is there for you at every step. See how with a free trial.

A well-structured literature review typically includes the following sections, which can influence its length:

Provides an overview of the topic and the review's purpose. This section usually accounts for 5-10% of the total word count. In a 3,000-word review, the introduction might be around 150-300 words.

Discusses key themes, theories, and findings in the literature. This section is the core of the review and can be divided into sub-sections based on themes, methodologies, or chronological order. It usually makes up 70-80% of the total word count. For example, in a 3,000-word review, the main body might be around 2,100-2,400 words.

Summarizes the key findings and highlights gaps or areas for future research. This section usually accounts for 10-15% of the total word count. In a 3,000-word review, the conclusion might be around 300-450 words.

Different methods of conducting literature reviews affect the length. The length of a literature review depends on several factors, including the chosen approach, institutional guidelines, and the specific requirements of the research project. Systematic reviews are usually the most extensive due to their rigorous and comprehensive nature, while narrative reviews are more flexible and shorter. Scoping reviews provide a broad overview without the detailed synthesis required by systematic reviews, placing them in the middle range of length. Umbrella reviews and realist reviews vary in length but generally provide a comprehensive synthesis of existing reviews or focus on the mechanisms of interventions.

Understanding these differences helps researchers select the appropriate approach and determine the optimal length for their literature review, ensuring it meets academic standards and contributes meaningfully to the field of study.

The length of a literature review is influenced by several factors, including the type of review, the scope of the research topic, and institutional guidelines. Most literature reviews vary in length depending on the specific requirements of the research project. The process of literature review writing is crucial for determining length, as it involves synthesizing research articles, current research, and existing scholarship to adequately cover the topic. For instance, a thesis literature review tends to be more extensive compared to a literature review for a research paper or journal article.

When determining how long a literature review should be, it's essential to consider the need to address current theories and provide a critical analysis of scholarly sources. Systematic reviews are typically more detailed and extensive, often requiring a substantial number of pages, while narrative reviews may only span a few pages. The length is also shaped by the research aims and the depth of coverage needed for the original research. Creating an annotated bibliography also affects the length of the review. Adhering to institutional guidelines is crucial, as they often provide specific directions on the expected length and structure of the review.

Ultimately, the length of a literature review is dictated by the comprehensive coverage required to support the research aims and the specific nature of the research project. Whether it's a thesis literature review, a journal article, or part of a larger research paper, the goal is to ensure the review is thorough, insightful, and aligned with the objectives of the current project. By understanding these factors, researchers can determine the optimal length for their literature review, ensuring it meets academic standards and effectively contributes to the field of study.

Develop powerful literature reviews with ATLAS.ti

Use our intuitive data analysis platform to make the most of your literature review.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 7
• False claims of equivalence in the neurosurgical trauma literature: prevalence and associated factors—a systematic review protocol
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7816-3051 André Luiz Freitas Oliveira Júnior 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2001-6793 João Vitor Miranda Porto Oliveira 1 ,
• Angelos G Kolias 2 ,
• Wellingson S Paiva 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5092-6595 Davi Jorge Fontoura Solla 4
• 1 Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health , Salvador , Brazil
• 2 Division of Neurosurgery , University of Cambridge , Cambridge , UK
• 3 Division of Neurosurgery , University of São Paulo , São Paulo , Brazil
• 4 Department of Neurosciences and Behaviour Sciences , University of São Paulo , Ribeirao Preto , Brazil
• Correspondence to Dr André Luiz Freitas Oliveira Júnior; Andreluizfojr{at}gmail.com

Introduction Research quality within the neurosurgical field remains suboptimal. Therefore, many studies published in the neurosurgical literature lack enough statistical power to establish the presence or absence of clinically important differences between treatment arms. The field of neurotrauma deals with additional challenges, with fewer financial incentives and restricted resources in low-income and middle-income countries with the highest burden of neurotrauma diseases. In this systematic review, we aim to estimate the prevalence of false claims of equivalence in the neurosurgical trauma literature and identify its predictive factors.

Methods and analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses recommendations were followed. Randomised clinical trials that enrolled only traumatic brain injury patients and investigated any type of intervention (surgical or non-surgical) will be eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE/PubMed database will be searched for articles in English published from January 1960 to July 2020 in 15 top-ranked journals. A false claim of equivalence will be identified by insufficient power to detect a clinically meaningful effect: for categorical outcomes, a difference of at least 25% and 50%, and for continuous outcomes, a Cohen’s d of at least 0.5 and 0.8. Using the number of patients in each treatment arm and the minimum effect sizes to be detected, the power of each study will be calculated with the assumption of a two-tailed alpha that equals 0.05. Standardised differences between the groups with and without a false claim of equivalence will be calculated, and the variables with a standardised difference equal or above 0.2 and 0.5 will be considered weakly and strongly associated with false claims of equivalence, respectively. The data analysis will be blinded to the authors and institutions of the studies.

Ethics and dissemination This study will not involve primary data collection. Therefore, formal ethical approval will not be required. The final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences.

• NEUROSURGERY
• TRAUMA MANAGEMENT
• Neurosurgery
• Neurological injury
• NEUROPATHOLOGY
• Clinical trials

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044794

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This is the first systematic review to evaluate the prevalence of false claims of equivalence in the neurosurgical trauma literature and its associated factors.

The knowledge generated from this study may inform recommendations to enhance the neurosurgical research quality.

Due to the exclusion of non-randomised clinical trials and observational studies, as well as other journals that are not top ranked within the field, the results of this study may not be fully generalisable.

But considering that randomised clinical trials, compared with other study designs, usually are better planned and conducted, besides being published in journals with more rigorous peer review, our results may be conservative and thus strengthened.

Introduction

Reviews have shown that the quantity and the quality of clinical trials in neurosurgery remain suboptimal. 1–4 Among the main limitations, the following are highlighted: absence of sample size calculation, limited sample size, single-centre recruitment and incomplete subject follow-up. 2 3 Therefore, many studies published in the neurosurgical literature lack enough statistical power to establish the presence or absence of clinically important differences between treatment arms. 1 2 5–9

The field of neurotrauma deals with additional challenges. Compared with other neurosurgical subspecialties, there is less financial incentive for neurotrauma research development, in part due to its disproportionately higher incidence in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with high-income countries (HICs). The highest burden of neurotrauma diseases lies in LMIC with about 90% of global injury-related deaths, but these countries tend to lack adequate resources for qualified scientific production. 10 Paradoxically, most of the high-quality studies looking at traumatic brain injury (TBI) are funded and conducted by HIC institutions, and less than 5% of 6708 published reports had a LMIC affiliation. 11 12 Few initiatives are in progress to improve global neurotrauma care and research, such as the Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, funded by the National Institute for Health Research. 11

More than 50% of neurotrauma clinical trials have recruited less than 100 subjects, and the median total sample size is around 70 subjects. 3–5 Besides a higher odd of false discoveries, insufficient statistical power is associated with false claims of equivalence. 3 In this systematic review, we aim to estimate the prevalence of false claims of equivalence in the neurosurgical trauma literature and identify its predictive factors.

Methods and analysis

Protocol and registration.

This systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Eligibility criteria

Published randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled only TBI patients and investigated any type of intervention (surgical or non-surgical) will be eligible for inclusion. The following journals were selected for screening based on the impact factor and importance to the neurosurgical trauma literature: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM); Lancet ; Lancet Neurology ; Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA); JAMA Neurology ; Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (JNNP); Neurosurgery ; Journal of Neurosurgery ; Neurosurgical Focus ; World Neurosurgery ; Acta Neurochirurgica ; Journal of Neurotrauma ; Intensive Care Medicine ; Critical Care ; and Neurocritical Care . For RCT with multiple publications, only the reporting of the primary outcome was considered. Considering that randomised clinical trials, compared with other study designs, usually are better planned and conducted, besides being published in journals with more rigorous peer review, we believe these criteria will strengthen our results.

Information sources and search strategy

The MEDLINE/PubMed database will be searched for articles in English published from January 1960 to July 2020. The descriptors (((((Traumatic brain injury[Title/Abstract]) OR (TBI[Title/Abstract])) OR (Brain trauma[Title/Abstract])) OR (Brain concussion[Title/Abstract])) OR (Brain contusion[Title/Abstract])) OR (head trauma[Title/Abstract]) OR (head injury[Title/Abstract]) OR (brain injury[Title/Abstract]) will be used. The filter ‘Randomised clinical trials’ will be applied.

Study selection

The search strategy aims to achieve a sample of RCTs published in the neurosurgical trauma literature from which negative trials could be selected. Negative trials will be defined as those that concluded equivalent outcomes (either dichotomous or continuous) in the treatment arms by explicitly stating it (eg, ‘there was no statistically significant difference between the groups’). Otherwise, positive trials will be used as controls. Only the primary outcome intention to treat analysis will be considered, identified by a clear statement of the authors in the methods section or a clear primary focus of the article. If no clear primary outcome can be identified, the neurological/functional outcome or death, hierarchically, will be considered the outcome of interest. All articles’ titles and abstracts were screened by two authors (ALFOJR and JVMPO) for eligibility. The selected articles will be adjudicated by a third author (DJFS), and disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Additional studies identified in the reference section of the selected articles can be included if the eligibility criteria are fulfilled. No RCT studies, as well as no TBI works, will be excluded.

Data collection and analysis

Data will be abstracted and recorded on a standardised form regarding the following: journal, year of publication, study country (high income or low and middle income), first and last author affiliations (neurosurgery or other), the presence of a statistician among the authors, single-centre or multicentre trial, type of trial design (superiority, non-inferiority or equivalence), the presence of a priori sample size and power calculation, type of TBI (mild, moderate and severe), setting (prehospital or intrahospital), intervention (surgical, drug or other), allocation concealment and blinding, number of patients, follow-up period, the event rates in the two treatment arms, the presence of a post hoc power calculation, the discussion of lack of power as a limitation, funding (industry, independent or none) and conflict of interest (when explicitly stated). The full text of the included articles will be systematically reviewed by two authors (ALFOJR and JVMPO). The interobserver agreement and the κ- statistic will be calculated. Disagreements will be resolved by a third author (DJFS). The data analysis will be blinded to the authors and institutions of the study.

The primary outcome will be the prevalence of false claim of equivalence in neurosurgical literature. A false claim of equivalence will be identified by insufficient power to detect a clinically meaningful effect, which will be defined under two scenarios for each type of outcome as follows: for categorical outcomes, a difference of at least 25% and 50% between the two groups given the control group baseline event rate, and for continuous outcomes, a Cohen’s d of at least 0.5 and 0.8 (between groups) given the control group outcome values. Using the number of patients in each treatment arm and the minimum effect sizes to be detected, the power of each study will be calculated with the assumption of a two-tailed alpha that equals 0.05.

Traditional descriptive statistics will be used to present the included RCT characteristics. Standardised differences between the groups with and without a false claim of equivalence will be calculated as proposed by Yang and Dalton. 13 The variables with a standardised difference equal or above 0.2 and 0.5 will be considered weakly and strongly associated with false claims of equivalence, respectively. All analyses will be conducted with the SPSS software (IBM Corp. SPSS Statistics for Windows, V.24.0. Armonk, NY).

Risk of bias in individual studies

The entire text of each included paper will be evaluated in a structured fashion for prespecified attributes. The second version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) for randomised trials will be used. 14 RoB 2 is structured into a fixed set of domains of bias, focusing on different aspects of trial design, conduct and reporting. Within each domain, a series of questions (signalling questions) aim to elicit information about features of the trial that are relevant to risk of bias. A proposed judgement about the risk of bias arising from each domain is generated by an algorithm, based on answers to the signalling questions. Judgement can be ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk of bias or can express ‘some concerns’.

Ethics and dissemination

This study will not involve primary data collection. Therefore, formal ethical approval will not be required. The final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences. This protocol may be adapted for the analysis of other innovative surgical and invasive procedures.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

• Kiehna EN ,
• Starke RM ,
• Pouratian N , et al
• Tatsioni A ,
• Polyzoidis K , et al
• Mansouri A ,
• Shin SM , et al
• Schöller K ,
• Tonn JC , et al
• Coburn M , et al
• Dimick JB ,
• Diener-West M ,
• Sundaresan N ,
• Voorhies R ,
• Kwok KL , et al
• Kreiter KT ,
• Howard G , et al
• Rattani A ,
• Gupta S , et al
• Kolias AG ,
• Rubiano AM ,
• Figaji A , et al
• Servadei F ,
• Tropeano MP ,
• Spaggiari R , et al
• Sterne JAC ,
• Savović J ,
• Page MJ , et al

X @davisolla

Contributors DJFS conceived the research idea. DJFS, ALFOJR and JVPMO designed and drafted the study protocol. AGK and WSP made critical review of the study protocol and edited the final manuscript.

Funding Drs Solla, Kolias, and Paiva are supported by the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, which was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government (project 16/137/105). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Angelos Kolias is supported by a Clinical Lectureship, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2024

Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung)

• Fabrizio Citarella 1 , 2 ,
• Kazuki Takada 3 ,
• Priscilla Cascetta 4 ,
• Pierfilippo Crucitti 2 , 5 ,
• Roberta Petti 5 , 6 ,
• Bruno Vincenzi 1 , 2 ,
• Giuseppe Tonini 1 , 2 ,
• Francesco M. Venanzi 7 , 8 ,
• Alessandra Bulotta 7 , 8 ,
• Sara Oresti 7 , 8 ,
• Carlo Greco 2 , 9 ,
• Sara Ramella 2 , 9 ,
• Lucio Crinò 10 ,
• Angelo Delmonte 10 ,
• Roberto Ferrara 7 , 8 ,
• Massimo Di Maio 11 ,
• Fiorella Gurrieri 2 , 6 &
• Alessio Cortellini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1209-5735 1 , 2 , 12  

Journal of Translational Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  714 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

21 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Compared to other malignancies, few studies have investigated the role of family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with lung cancer, yielding largely heterogeneous results. We performed a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching the PubMed and Scopus databases from their inception to November 25, 2023, to identify studies reporting on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer. A total of 53 articles were included, most with a retrospective design and encompassing a variety of geographical areas and ethnicities.

Thirty studies (56.6%) assessed patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while 17 studies (32.1%) assessed patients with mixed histologies. Overall, the rates of FHC ranged from 8.3 to 68.9%, and the rates of family history of lung cancer ranged from 2 to 46.8%. Twenty-seven studies investigated FHC as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, with more than half reporting an increased risk for subjects with FHC. Five studies reported on the potential role of FHC in determining clinical outcomes, and twelve studies examined the relationship between FHC and germline mutations. Notably, only one study reported a significantly increased rate of germline mutations, including ATM , BRCA2 , and TP53 , for patients with a family history of lung cancer compared to those without, but both groups had a low prevalence of mutations (< 1%).

The FAHIC—Lung (NCT06196424) is the first cross-sectional/prospective study specifically developed to identify FHC patterns and within-family clusters of other risk factors, including smoking, to guide patients with NSCLC to systematic genetic counseling. Acknowledging the largely heterogeneous results of our systematic review and considering the clinical implications of detecting pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), the FAHIC-lung study aims to identify patients potentially enriched with PGVs/likely PGVs to direct them to germline screening outside of the research setting.

Introduction

Familial aggregation and inherited predisposition have been increasingly investigated in multiple cancer types. In breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal malignancies, international guidelines recommend genetic counselling in patients showing risk criteria for syndromes of inherited susceptibility to cancer, as aggregations with other malignancies have been widely described within families of these patient populations [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

With a predicted number of death of about 160 000 cases in 2023 in Europe and 127 070 in US [ 4 , 5 ], Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) still remains a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. A positive smoking history represents the main risk factor [ 6 ], while environmental factors such as exposure to radon, asbestosis and air pollution have been linked to lung cancer among never smokers [ 7 , 8 , 9 ].

Few studies have investigated the impact of a positive family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with NSCLC, describing the malignancies that can occur among relatives of patients with NSCLC, while only few and rare genetic syndromes associated with inherited germline genetic mutations, such as the Li-Fraumeni, have been directly linked to lung cancer risk [ 10 ]. Most of the studies did not provide information on the potential within-family clusters of other risk factors, including exposure to tobacco smoking, environmental carcinogens, and other geographical/epidemiological factors. Additionally, retrospective approaches to this topic are heavily impacted by recall bias and misclassification [ 11 , 12 ].

To underline the importance and potential clinical implications of investigating family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a recent retrospective study conducted in a cohort of 7.788 patients with NSCLC, who underwent commercially available germline genetic testing and reported an FHC of 71%, found that pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) or likely PGVs were present in 14.9% of the cases. Additionally, 2.9% of the cases carried a single PGV in a gene associated with autosomal recessive inheritance. Among positive patients, 61.3% carried a PGV/likely PGV in DNA damage and response (DDR) genes, and 95.1% of them harbored a PGV in genes with potential clinical implications, including BRCA2 (2.8%), CHEK2 (2.1%), ATM (1.9%), TP53 (1.3%), BRCA1 (1.2%), and EGFR (1.0%) [ 13 ].

In this manuscript, we present the results of a systematic review of the available evidence on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer, and the design of the FAHIC-lung study (NCT06196424), a cross-sectional study that aims to prospectively describe the FHC and the potential within-family distribution of smoking and other risk factors, to identify patients more likely to be carriers of PGVs or likely PGVs.

Systematic review—methods

Literature search strategy and study selection criteria.

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases from their inception date to November 25, 2023, to identify potentially relevant articles. The search terms were “non-small cell lung cancer or NSCLC,” “family history,” “lung cancer,” and “risk.”

The inclusion criteria for the study selection were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with NSCLC of any stage; (2) available information on the family history of cancer for the included population (e.g., prevalence and type of family history). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) lack of information on the family history of cancer; (2) studies not published in English; and (3) case reports.

As this study was a systematic review, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), with the registration code CRD4202450742 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024507422 ).

Data extraction and data synthesis

Two authors (F.C. and K.T.) performed the literature search and evaluated the eligibility of studies using the PICO (patients, interventions, comparison, and outcome) framework following the PRISMA criteria. Assuming a certain heterogeneity in the results, we adopted a textual narrative synthesis approach to summarize the included publications [ 14 ]. In view of that, we did not establish specific criteria for data synthesis (e.g., the minimum number of studies or level of consistency required for synthesis).

F.C. and T.K. independently reviewed and extracted data from the published papers, including first author, journal name, and year of publication. The prevalence (as a rate) of family history of cancer was summarized in a master table, along with the type of family history collected (e.g., lung-cancer specific vs. family history of any malignancy), study design, study population characteristics, smoking status of study participants and screened relatives (if available), primary tumor type (e.g., NSCLC, small cell lung cancer [SCLC], or others), number of patients included, and disease stage (e.g., early stage vs. advanced stage, if available). Study characteristics, context, and findings were summarized, and similarities/differences across studies were described in detail. Disagreements between the two authors (F.C. and K.T.) were discussed and resolved with a third independent author (A.C.).

Systematic review—results

We identified a total of 198 potentially relevant articles from the PubMed and Scopus online databases through an initial search strategy. After excluding 41 duplicate articles, we screened and reviewed the titles and abstracts of 157 articles, resulting in 54 being assessed for eligibility. Finally, a total of 53 articles were included in this systematic review. The flow diagram of the study selection process is shown in Fig.  1 while the whole search strategy with publications assessed at each step (identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion) is available as supplementary material (search strategy).

Flow diagram of the studies selection process according to the PRISMA guidelines

Overall, the vast majority of the studies had a retrospective design, with most of them being case–control or observational retrospective studies, with only one cross-sectional study [ 15 ] and one prospective study [ 16 ]. Study populations encompassed a variety of geographical areas/ethnicities, with 23 studies (43.4%) enrolling Asian patients, 13 studies (24.5%) enrolling patients with multiple ethnicities (all with a majority of white patients), 11 studies (20.7%) including non-specified ethnicities, and six studies (11.3%) including other populations. Even the included histology types showed heterogeneity, with 30 studies (56.6%) assessing patients with NSCLC, 17 studies (32.1%) assessing patients with a mixed type of lung cancer including small cell lung cancer (SCLC), four studies (7.5%) assessing other/unspecified types of lung cancer, one study (1.9%) assessing patients with adenocarcinoma, and one study (1.9%) assessing patients with EGFR -positive adenocarcinoma only.

FHC was collected through questionnaires in only three studies [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], while none of them used ad-hoc questionnaires specifically developed to collect FHC and the within-family distribution of other risk factors, including smoking. Twenty-five studies (47.2%) assessed family history (FH) by collecting all malignancies reported among relatives, 21 studies (39.6%) assessed FH of lung cancer, three studies (5.7%) assessed FHC and FH of lung cancer separately, three studies (5.7%) assessed FH of smoking-related and smoking-unrelated cancers, and two studies (3.8%) assessed FH of pre-specified types of cancer. The degree of relatedness ranged from first to second degree, although it was not reported for the majority of the included studies. One study reported on the smoking status among the relatives of study participants [ 20 ] and one study included the assessment of environmental factors (coal exposure) among the risk factors for lung cancer [ 21 ].

Overall, the rate of FHC in patients with lung cancer ranged from 8.3 [ 22 ] to 68.9% [ 20 ], while the rates of FH of lung cancer from 2 [ 23 ] to 46.8% [ 21 ]. Some studies enrolled cohorts of patients potentially enriched for FHC, such as 11 studies which assessed female patients only reporting FHC ranging from 7.7 [ 24 ] to 59.4% [ 25 ] and FH of lung cancer ranging from 6.2 [ 26 ] to 28% [ 27 ], four studies which specifically assessed never/light smoker patients only, reporting FHC ranging from 29.1 [ 28 ] to 68.9 [ 20 ], two studies assessing patients with small aggressive NSCLC, one study assessing male patients only, one study assessing smokers specifically, and one study assessing patients aged ≤ 45 years. A synoptic table with organization of results is available as supplementary file 1.

Studies investigating FHC as a risk factor for lung cancer

Overall, 27 studies investigated FHC as a potential risk factor for lung cancer (Table  1 ) [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Six out of 11 studies (54.5%) that investigated the role of FHC as a whole or in pre-specified type of cancers reported an increased risk of developing lung cancer for patients with FHC, while 11 out of 16 studies (68.7%) that investigated the role of FH of lung cancer reported a significant association.

One study reported a more pronounced increased risk for women aged ≤ 45 years and a synergistic effect of smoking and FHC in increasing the risk of lung cancer [ 29 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was specifically associated with an increased risk of early on set lung cancer (< 55 years old) [ 17 ]. One study that failed to demonstrate an association between FHC and lung cancer diagnosis, reported a significant effect for patients in whom at least one relative with cancer was diagnosed < 50 years of age [ 20 ], while one study that failed to demonstrate an association between FH of lung cancer and lung cancer risk, reported a significant effect for female patients only [ 42 ].

One study confirmed that FH of lung cancer was associated with risk of lung cancer in both the whole study population and among smokers [ 37 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was more strongly associated with lung cancer risk in case of first/second degree of relatedness compared to collateral relatives [ 40 ].

Studies investigating the potential impact of FHC on clinical outcomes.

Five studies reported on the potential role of FHC in determining clinical outcomes (Table  2 ) [ 19 , 28 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. One study reported no association between FH of lung cancer and outcomes [ 48 ], two studies reported a differential effect for FHC and FH of lung cancer [ 28 , 49 ] and one study reported a decreased risk of death for patients with FHC [ 50 ]. Similarly, one study reported improving outcomes from PD-1 immunotherapy with increasing burden of FHC [ 52 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and germline mutations.

Overall, 12 studies reported on the potential relationship between FHC and germline mutations (Table  3 ) [ 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Two studies did not show an enrichment of the germline mutations/polymorphisms of interest in patients with FHC [ 53 , 55 ], while three studies suggested a potential enrichment [ 46 , 54 , 57 ], with only one of them specifically reporting an increased rate of germline mutations including ATM, BRCA2 and TP53 for patients with family history of lung cancer compared to those with no FH [ 46 ]. Two studies reported a significant effect of the germline status in increasing the risk of lung cancer among patients with no FHC [ 33 , 36 ], while in three other studies the effect was independent of FHC [ 39 , 44 , 46 ]. One study showed a synergistic effect in increasing the risk of lung cancer of XRCC3/XRCC4 variants and FHC [ 37 ]. Two studies investigated the potential impact of germline polymorphisms on clinical outcomes, one showing an association between hOGG1 single nucleotide polymorphisms and worse survival specifically in patients without FHC [ 51 ], the other showing multifaceted effects of germline NOTCH4 polymorphisms depending on the FHC status [ 56 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and lung cancer somatic features.

Seven studies reported on the potential association between FHC and lung cancer somatic features (Table  4 ) [ 15 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Three studies did not confirm significant associations between FHC and somatic microsatellite instability status [ 58 ], somatic DDR genes status [ 52 ], or KRAS mutational status [ 59 ], while 2 studies reported a significant association between FHC and EGFR mutation [ 60 , 61 ]. In addition, another study reported an association between FHC and the occurrence of multiple somatic mutations in patients tested for multiple genes [ 62 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and other lung cancer features.

Nine studies included in this subgroup reported on associations between FHC and other lung cancer features (Table  5 ) [ 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. One study reported a link between younger age at diagnosis female gender and FHC [ 63 ], one study reported an increased prevalence of FH of breast cancer among female patients with lung cancer [ 64 ], while another study reported a 10-years increasing trend over time for the prevalence of FHC [ 22 ]. Importantly, one study reported a significant association between FHC and smoking [ 19 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was more frequent among young women, with synergistic effect with smoking and coil exposure in determining the younger age at diagnosis [ 21 ].

FAHIC lung—methods/design

Study design and objectives.

The FAHIC—Lung study (observational, prospective, multicenter study to investigate the family history of cancer in patients with non-small cell lung cancer) is a cross-sectional/prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients with histologically diagnosed NSCLC will be enrolled, regardless of their age, TNM stage, smoking status, and other clinicopathologic characteristics. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06196424.

The primary objective of the study is the identification of FHC patterns and within-family clusters of other risk factors to address patients with NSCLC for systematic genetic counseling for germline next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing to identify PGVs and likely PGVs. Secondary objectives include the description of clinicopathological and oncological characteristics of patients with NSCLC according to FHC patterns.

Patients’ family history will be carefully collected by investigators through a dedicated self-reported study questionnaire, which has been developed for the purpose of this study and validated by the genetic expert of the steering committee (F.G.) (Supplementary file 2). Study questionnaire will focus on: (1) family history of cancer; (2) type of tumors/primary tumor sites among relatives with history of cancer; (3) age at diagnosis among relatives with history of cancer; (4) biological sex of relatives with history of cancer; (5) exposure to tobacco smoking and smoking habits among relatives with history of cancer; (6) geographical origin of participants and relatives with history of cancer; (7) personal history of multiple malignancies; (8) potential professional and environmental exposure to carcinogens of participants and relatives with history of cancer; (9) ethnicity of both participants and relatives with history of cancer.

To minimize risks of recalling bias, patients will be followed up for four weeks through two study visits: the first study visit at enrolment and the follow-up study visit. During the first study visit all patient’s clinic-pathologic will be collected and study participants will be given the ad-hoc questionnaire, which will be returned to the study personnel at the follow-up study visit (Fig.  2 ).

FAHIC-lung study design diagram

The following clinic-pathologic characteristics will be collected: (1) smoking status (active/passive, package/year, total years of smoking); (2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS); (3) age at diagnosis; (4) tumor histology; (5) tumor stage at diagnosis according to the 8th edition of TNM staging system; (6) ethnicity; (7) professional and environmental exposure to carcinogens; (8) programmed death ligand-1 tumor proportion score (PD—L1 TPS); (9) any available oncogenic drivers including EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, c-MET , mutations and ALK, ROS-1, RET, NTRK translocation/gene fusions; (10) personal history of other synchronous/metachronous primary malignancies.

The study plan includes an observational phase and an analytical phase:

Observational phase : after collecting participants’ questionnaires, we will first reconstruct patients’ family trees with additional information on how other potential risk factors, such as smoking history and exposure to professional/environmental carcinogens, segregate within the families with a history of cancer.

Analytical phase : once we have identified family clusters of malignancies and risk factors potentially associated with the highest risk of being carriers of germline PGVs or likely PGVs, we will proceed with the collection of blood samples for germline testing in a subgroup of patients. This will enable us to assess and compare the prevalence of PGVs/likely PGVs between patients more likely to be carriers and the control cohort. This approach aims to achieve a robust comparison, minimize systematic referrals to genetic counseling for all NSCLC patients, and optimize NGS testing requests outside the research setting. Considering the validity and comprehensiveness of high-throughput techniques in identifying PGVs/likely PGVs [ 68 ], we will assess the germline status of the groups of interest through whole exome sequencing (WES) after DNA extraction from blood samples in a two step analysis.

In the first step, the raw sequencing data (FASTQ files) will undergo bioinformatic processing. Mapping will be performed using a high-throughput aligner to ensure accurate alignment of the sequenced reads to the human genome. Variant calling will then be conducted to identify deviations from the reference genome. Filtering and annotation of these variants will focus on a pre-specified list of pre-specified genes known to be associated potentially associated with cancer (Supplementary file 3). This curated gene list will be used to prioritize PGVs/likely PGVs variants. Online tools will be utilized for variant prioritization, organizing the genes based on their correlation with lung cancer, thus enabling us to pinpoint the most relevant variants for further investigation.

In the second step, we aim to discover novel variants that may contribute to lung cancer predisposition. This phase involves a more exploratory analysis of the FASTQ data, looking beyond the known pathogenic variants. We will leverage the extensive genealogical data we have collected on the patients’ family histories to identify potential new genetic markers. The stored FASTQ files will be re-analyzed to detect previously unreported variants, incorporating bioinformatics tools and techniques for variant discovery. These include advanced algorithms for variant detection and annotation, as well as integrative approaches to assess the potential pathogenicity of novel variants. The integration of genealogical data will enhance our ability to correlate these novel variants with familial patterns of lung cancer, potentially uncovering new genetic predispositions. This comprehensive approach ensures that we maximize the utility of the sequencing data, providing a robust platform for both targeted and discovery-driven genetic analysis.

Participants selection

Inclusion Criteria include: (1) histopathological diagnosis of NSCLC (all stages); (2) age ≥ 18 years old; (3) signed written informed consent; (4) availability of familiar and/or personal anamnestic data of cancer. Exclusion Criteria include: (1) unavailability of familiar and/or personal anamnestic data of cancer; (2) patient’s refusal.

Statistical plan and sample size

The sample size of patients enrolled has been determined only for the observational phase of the study. This determination focuses on identifying patients who are more likely to be carriers of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) or likely PGVs. This approach acknowledges the lack of information on the prevalence of germline PGVs/likely PGVs in patients with NSCLC who are not selected based on family history of cancer (FHC), as well as the limited knowledge regarding the potential characteristics that will define our group of interest. We hypothesized a prevalence of 10% of participants with an especially enriched family history of cancer to be directed to systematic germline testing; assuming a confidence level of 95% with a total width for the confidence interval of 0.1 (precision of ± 5%), the minimum number of subjects needed to properly describe the group of interest, following a binomial “exact” calculation of the sample size, is 175. To account for potential dropouts, we will enroll a minimum of 180 patients.

Descriptive statistics will be used as appropriate to report FHC data, the distribution of within-family other risk factors, and baseline clinicopathologic characteristics. Analyses will be performed using R-Studio software (R Core Team, 2021), and MedCalc® Statistical Software version 20 (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org ; 2021).

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarizing the available evidence on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer, and the FAHIC-lung study (NCT06196424) is the first cross-sectional/prospective study specifically designed to identify patients with NSCLC more likely to be carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs, that should be systematically referred to genetic counselling and germline testing.

Our review shows that few studies have focused on the family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with lung cancer, resulting in overall heterogeneous results, beginning with the extremely wide range of FHC and family history of lung cancer rates. The category with the highest number of reports included studies assessing FHC as a potential risk factor for developing lung cancer. However, even in this category, the results were largely discordant, with a variety of different approaches and categorizations. Most of the included studies followed a retrospective approach, which is inherently associated with recall bias in collecting family history information, and none used questionnaires specifically designed to collect FHC. To mitigate this bias, we developed our ad-hoc study questionnaire, while the cross-sectional/prospective approach with the 4-week interval will allow study participants to gather and report FHC information as carefully as possible.

Something that set lung cancer apart from other malignancies, where the FHC has an established role in defining the probability of being a carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs, such as ovarian, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, is the role of smoking. As mentioned, smoking history represents the main risk factor for lung cancer [ 6 ], several evidence shows that passive smoking from family members can be a detrimental factor and that even the smoking habit can be “inherited”, with a sort of intergenerational transmission [ 69 , 70 ]. The FAHIC-lung questionnaire will allow us to mitigate this potential bias as well, collecting smoking habit information and environmental exposure to carcinogens among patients’ relatives with cancer.

More than a half of the studies that assessed FHC and FH of lung cancer as a potential risk factor for lung cancer concluded that FHC plays a detrimental role, with a potential synergistic effect with smoking, that seems even more pronounced among young/female patients. Our systematic review also suggests that younger patients, female, Asian, and never/light smokers may be especially enriched in FHC, although with no clear/conclusive results, while no somatic genomic feature seems to be significantly associated with FHC, except for EGFR mutations.

Recently, increasing attention has been focused on the study of germline mutations as risk factor for lung cancer, highlighting how DDR genes alterations can be found among patients with lung adenocarcinoma, even in the context of wider within-family primary tumors spectrums, including breast/pancreatic cancers or hematological malignancies [ 10 ]. Even in the context of TP53-associated genetic susceptibility, FHC is gaining a clearer role, to the point of recommending genetic counselling for patients with lung adenocarcinoma younger than 46 years old and with an especially enriched FHC or personal history of multiple primary tumors [ 71 ].

Importantly, in our systematic review only one of the studies that investigated the multifaceted role of germline mutations reported a significant enrichment among patients with FHC [ 46 ]. Rifkin and colleagues first reported a systematic review on the evidence linking germline mutations with lung cancer risk, then validated through a large case–control study of patients undergoing germline whole exome sequencing (WES) the significant association between lung cancer risk and ATM , BRCA2 and TP 53 pathogenetic/likely pathogenetic germline mutations [ 46 ]. However, despite the overall enrichment among controls, variant-based and gene-based analyses showed a low prevalence of germline PGV/likely PGV in both cases and controls [ 46 ]. In addition, they reported a higher rate of carriers among study participants with FH of lung cancer compared to those without, but with a very low overall prevalence (0.8% vs 0.7% for the combination of ATM/BRCA2/TP53 ) [ 46 ], suggesting that a simplified collection of FHC information is not enough to identify patients with the highest probability of being carriers and to properly optimize germ-line NGC access.

Among gene-specific susceptibility for lung cancer, EGFR -associated one needs a special mention. Genetic counselling is already recommended for patients with somatic EGFR positive NSCLC younger than 50 years, regardless of their family history [ 10 ], however, a proper syndromic EGFR -associated lung cancer should be suspected in the case of the novo EGFR T790M mutations, especially with a somatic variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥ 35% [ 10 , 72 ], with even more rare EGFR variants, such as V834L and V843I being increasingly recognized [ 73 , 74 ]. Lastly, we will have to consider the complexity related to the multifaceted role of multiple primary tumors. Beyond the consisting evidence linking DDR genes mutations to a personal history of multiple malignancies, recent studies reported on the potential role of pleiotropic loci in determining the risk of multiple malignancies [ 75 ].

Our study plan has, however, some limitations. First, we will have to rely on patients' ability and willingness to reconstruct their family history, therefore the recall bias will exert a certain effect despite the cross/sectional prospective approach. In addition, we have no strictly predefined definition of potential family clusters to be analyzed. However, we can anticipate that the identified group of interest will likely include young female patients with adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smokers, patients with EGFR mutations, patients with a history of multiple primary tumors, and patients with a high burden of family history. This high burden of family history is particularly expected to be enriched in non-smoking associated cancers, including lung cancer, and in the DDR-genes associated cancer spectrum, such as breast, ovarian, prostate, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers.To ensure a comprehensive analysis, we also plan to incorporate other factors collected through our detailed questionnaire. These factors include smoking habits of the patients, passive smoking exposure, working exposure to carcinogens, and smoking habits of family members. By evaluating these additional factors, we aim to identify within-family clusters of other risk factors. Specifically, we will focus on selecting patients without a history of passive smoking, identifying patients with a younger age at diagnosis among their relatives with cancer, and considering patients with low working exposure to carcinogens. Despite having these anticipations, we have deliberately chosen to adopt an unbiased approach without pre-established features to define patients for germline tests. Considering the very low prevalence of germline mutations reported so far [ 46 ], this strategy allows for a more comprehensive and inclusive analysis, ensuring that we do not overlook any potential associations or risk factors to unravel the complexity of FHC information and identify patients especially enriched in PGVs/likely PGVs. Furthermore, considering that this is an observational study, we decided to adopt a two steps approach, in order to identify patients at risk as a first step. This, to minimize the potential clinical implications for study participants and let their treating physicians refer them to genetic counseling as per their existing clinical practice. Once the group of interest will be identified, we will amend the protocol to collect blood samples and allocate fundings for germline testing. Lastly, we have to consider that the FAIHC lung study is being conducted in Italy, therefore the study population will mostly consist of white/Caucasian patients. Although this will prevent us from gathering broader information on the potential implications of different races, we will be able to focus and obtain reliable results on patients with European ancestry.

In the context of a worldwide progressive implementation of chest computed tomography based screening programs in subject with smoking history [ 76 ], and considering the initial evidence of the potential benefit of screening programs among never smokers and other subjects potentially enriched in FHC/PGVs [ 77 ], identifying patients with the highest risk of being carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs would be extremely important to develop dedicated preventing measures in non-smoker subjects. Considering the costs of commercially available germline NGS tests and the potential preventive, prognostic, and therapeutic implications of the detection of germline mutations related to familial cancers, we believe that establishing FHC patterns to identify a subgroup of patients especially enriched in PGVs to direct to germline screening outside of the research setting, would be extremely helpful in optimizing resources, spare time and eventually improve patients’ outcomes.

Data Availability

This systematic review does not involve the generation of new data. The data analyzed in this study are derived from publicly available studies and publications that are cited within the paper. All sources of data, including databases and search strategies used to identify relevant studies, are described in the Methods section. Readers interested in accessing the underlying data can refer to the referenced studies and publications for more detailed information. Due to data management regulations, individual patient-level data from the FAIHC-lung study are not available. However, inquiries from third parties can be directed to the corresponding author.

Guidelines Detail: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail .

Stjepanovic N, Moreira L, Carneiro F, et al. Hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1558–71.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Genetics of Prostate Cancer (PDQ ® )–Health Professional Version—NCI https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/hp/prostate-genetics-pdq .

Lung Cancer Statistics | How common is lung cancer? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html . Accessed 12 Mar 2023.

Malvezzi M, Santucci C, Boffetta P, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2023 with focus on lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:410–9.

Steuer CE, Jegede OA, Dahlberg SE, et al. Smoking behavior in patients with early-stage NSCLC: a report from ECOG-ACRIN 1505 trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:960–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malhotra J, Malvezzi M, Negri E, et al. Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide. Eur Respir J. 2016;48:889–902.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Riudavets M, Garcia de Herreros M, Besse B, et al. Radon and lung cancer: current trends and future perspectives. Cancers. 2022;14:3142.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

A New Pathway from Air Pollution to Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers https://dailyreporter.esmo.org/esmo-congress-2022/research-advances-in-the-last-months/a-pathway-from-air-pollution-to-lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-has-been-identified .

Benusiglio PR, Fallet V, Sanchis-Borja M, et al. Lung cancer is also a hereditary disease. Eur Respir Rev. 2021;30: 210045.

Chang ET, Smedby KE, Hjalgrim H, et al. Reliability of self-reported family history of cancer in a large case-control study of lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:61–8.

Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S. Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA. 2004;292:1480–9.

Sorscher S, LoPiccolo J, Chen E, et al. Landscape of pathogenic germline variants in patients with lung cancer. JCO. 2022;40:388570–388570.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.

Lashkarizadeh M, Lashkarizadeh M, Nikian M, et al. The expression of HER2/neu in patients with lung cancer and its associated factors. Clin Respir J. 2023;17:90–5.

Tammemagi MC, Schmidt H, Martel S, et al. Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the Pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1523–31.

Cassidy A, Balsan J, Vesin A, et al. Cancer diagnosis in first-degree relatives and non-small cell lung cancer risk: results from a multi-centre case-control study in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:3047–53.

Gaur P, Bhattacharya S, Kant S, et al. Hospital-based study on demographic, hematological, and biochemical profile of lung cancer patients. J Cancer Res Ther. 2020;16:839–42.

Isla D, Felip E, Viñolas N, et al. Lung cancer in women with a family history of cancer: the Spanish female-specific database WORLD07. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:6647–53.

Gorlova OY, Zhang Y, Schabath MB, et al. Never smokers and lung cancer risk: a case-control study of epidemiological factors. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1798–804.

Chen Y, Li G, Lei Y, et al. Lung cancer family history and exposure to occupational/domestic coal combustion contribute to variations in clinicopathologic features and gene fusion patterns in non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10:695–707.

Zang R, Shi J-F, Lerut TE, et al. Ten-year trends of clinicopathologic features and surgical treatment of lung cancer in China. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109:389–95.

Tsugane S, Watanabe S, Sugimura H, et al. Smoking, occupation and family history in lung cancer patients under fifty years of age. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1987;17:309–17.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen K-Y, Hsiao C-F, Chang G-C, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and lung cancer risk in Chinese. Cancer. 2007;110:1768–75.

Titan AL, He H, Lui N, et al. The influence of hormone replacement therapy on lung cancer incidence and mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159:1546-1556.e4.

Jin K, Hung RJ, Thomas S, et al. Hormonal factors in association with lung cancer among Asian women: a pooled analysis from the international lung cancer consortium. Int J Cancer. 2021;148:2241–54.

Pathak A, Wenzlaff AS, Hyland PL, et al. Apoptosis-related single nucleotide polymorphisms and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in women. J Cancer Ther Res. 2014;3:1.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lee Y, Jeon JH, Goh S-H, et al. The clinical impact of family history of cancer in female never-smoker lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2019;136:15–22.

Osann KE. Lung cancer in women: the importance of smoking, family history of cancer, and medical history of respiratory disease. Cancer Res. 1991;51:4893–7.

Schwartz AG, Wenzlaff AS, Prysak GM, et al. Reproductive factors, hormone use, estrogen receptor expression and risk of non small-cell lung cancer in women. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5785–92.

Tammemagi CM, Freedman MT, Church TR, et al. Factors associated with human small aggressive non small cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2082–9.

Cote ML, Yoo W, Wenzlaff AS, et al. Tobacco and estrogen metabolic polymorphisms and risk of non-small cell lung cancer in women. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:626–35.

Hong Y-S, Kang H-J, Kwak J-Y, et al. Association between microRNA196a2 rs11614913 genotypes and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in Korean population. J Prev Med Public Health. 2011;44:125–30.

Schwartz AG, Wenzlaff AS, Bock CH, et al. Admixture mapping of lung cancer in 1812 African-Americans. Carcinogenesis. 2011;32:312–7.

Sin DD, Tammemagi CM, Lam S, et al. Pro-surfactant protein B as a biomarker for lung cancer prediction. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4536–43.

Xu P, Liu L, Wang J, et al. Genetic variation in BCL2 3’-UTR was associated with lung cancer risk and prognosis in male Chinese population. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e72197.

He F, Chang S-C, Wallar GM, et al. Association of XRCC3 and XRCC4 gene polymorphisms, family history of cancer and tobacco smoking with non-small-cell lung cancer in a Chinese population: a case-control study. J Hum Genet. 2013;58:679–85.

Yilmaz M, Kacan T, Sari I, et al. Lack of association between the MTHFRC677T polymorphism and lung cancer in a Turkish population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:6333–7.

Tian G, Wang M, Xu X. The role of NQO1 polymorphisms in the susceptibility and chemotherapy response of Chinese NSCLC patients. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014;69:475–9.

Li J, Zhang M, Yang F, et al. High risk occupational exposure and family history were risk factors in young lung cancer in Chinese. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(12):23650–7.

Google Scholar  

White RW, Horvitz E. Evaluation of the feasibility of screening patients for early signs of lung carcinoma in web search logs. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:398–401.

Warkentin MT, Tammemägi MC, Freedman MT, et al. Factors associated with small aggressive non-small cell lung cancers in the national lung screening trial: a validation study. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2:pkx010.

Brown D, Zingone A, Yu Y, et al. Relationship between circulating inflammation proteins and lung cancer diagnosis in the national lung screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28:110–8.

Pineda Lancheros LE, Rojo Tolosa S, Gálvez Navas JM, et al. Effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the vitamin d metabolic pathway on susceptibility to non-small-cell lung cancer. Nutrients. 2022;14:4668.

Albano D, Dhamija A, Liao Y, et al. Lung cancer in nonsmokers—a risk factor analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;86: 102439.

Rifkin AS, Less EM, Wei J, et al. Association of reported candidate monogenic genes with lung cancer risk. Clin Lung Cancer. 2023;24:313–21.

Liu L, Yu H, Bai J, et al. Positive association of serum vitamin B6 levels with intrapulmonary lymph node and/or localized pleural metastases in non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Nutrients. 2023;15:2340.

Yang J, Li Y, Khoury T, et al. Relationships of hHpr1/p84/Thoc1 expression to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2008;38:105–12.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li N, Shao K, Chen Z, et al. The impact of positive cancer family history on the clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:331–6.

Li X, Pan X, Wang P, et al. Expression of ERCC1 mRNA in non-small cell lung cancer tissues and survival analysis of patients. Life Sci J. 2013;10(2):1926–31.

Su Y, Zhang H, Xu F, et al. DNA repair gene polymorphisms in relation to non-small cell lung cancer survival. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2015;36:1419–29.

Cortellini A, Giusti R, Filetti M, et al. High familial burden of cancer correlates with improved outcome from immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC independent of somatic DNA damage response gene status. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15:9.

Tefre T, Børresen AL, Aamdal S, et al. Studies of the L-myc DNA polymorphism and relation to metastasis in Norwegian lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1990;61:809–12.

Javid J, Mir R, Mirza M, et al. CC genotype of anti-apoptotic gene BCL-2 (-938 C/A) is an independent prognostic marker of unfavorable clinical outcome in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2015;17:289–95.

Liu Y, Kheradmand F, Davis CF, et al. Focused analysis of exome sequencing data for rare germline mutations in familial and sporadic lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:52–61.

Xu Q, Lin D, Li X, et al. Association between single nucleotide polymorphisms of NOTCH signaling pathway-related genes and the prognosis of NSCLC. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:6895–905.

Liu M, Liu X, Suo P, et al. The contribution of hereditary cancer-related germline mutations to lung cancer susceptibility. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020;9:646–58.

Suzuki K, Ogura T, Yokose T, et al. Microsatellite instability in female non-small-cell lung cancer patients with familial clustering of malignancy. Br J Cancer. 1998;77:1003–8.

Yilmaz A, Mohamed N, Patterson KA, et al. Clinical and metabolic parameters in non-small cell lung carcinoma and colorectal cancer patients with and without KRAS mutations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:8645–60.

Cheng P-C, Cheng Y-C. Correlation between familial cancer history and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in Taiwanese never smokers with non-small cell lung cancer: a case-control study. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:281–7.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hsu K-H, Tseng J-S, Wang C-L, et al. Higher frequency but random distribution of EGFR mutation subtypes in familial lung cancer patients. Oncotarget. 2016;7:53299–308.

Chang F, Zhang H, Chen C, et al. Concomitant genetic alterations are associated with plasma D-dimer level in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol. 2022;18:679–90.

Ambrosone CB, Rao U, Michalek AM, et al. Lung cancer histologic types and family history of cancer. Analysis of histologic subtypes of 872 patients with primary lung cancer. Cancer. 1993;72:1192–8.

Tsuchiya M, Iwasaki M, Otani T, et al. Breast cancer in first-degree relatives and risk of lung cancer: assessment of the existence of gene sex interactions. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:419–23.

Banik A, Schwarzer R, Pawlowska I, et al. Women with family cancer history are at risk for poorer physical quality of life and lower self-efficacy: a longitudinal study among men and women with non-small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:62.

Chen P-H, Chuang J-H, Lu T-P, et al. Non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery in patients aged 75 years and older: a propensity matching study. Front Surg. 2022;9: 880007.

Li Q, Wei X, Wang Y, et al. Pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma in the Chinese population: a clinical characteristic and prognostic analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 916906.

Parsons DW, Roy A, Yang Y, et al. Diagnostic yield of clinical tumor and germline whole-exome sequencing for children with solid tumors. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:616–24.

Dwivedi S, Pathak R, Agarwalla R, et al. The intergenerational transmission of tobacco habit: role of parents and the family. J Family Med Prim Care. 2016;5:373–7.

Saari AJ, Kentala J, Mattila KJ. The smoking habit of a close friend or family member–how deep is the impact? A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e003218.

Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman J-M, et al. Revisiting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome from TP53 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2345–52.

Oxnard GR, Chen R, Pharr JC, et al. Germline EGFR mutations and familial lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:5274–84.

van der Leest C, Wagner A, Pedrosa RM, et al: Novel EGFR V834L Germline Mutation Associated With Familial Lung Adenocarcinoma. JCO Precis Oncol 2:PO.17.00266, 2018

Ohtsuka K, Ohnishi H, Fujiwara M, et al: Predisposition to Lung Adenocarcinoma in a Family Harboring the Germline EGFR V843I Mutation. JCO Precis Oncol 3:PO.19.00104, 2019

Lu M, Zhang X, Chu Q, et al. Susceptibility genes associated with multiple primary cancers. Cancers. 2023;15:5788.

Passiglia F, Cinquini M, Bertolaccini L, et al. Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening by chest computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2574–85.

Triphuridet N, Zhang SS, Nagasaka M, et al. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening in asian female never-smokers is as efficacious in detecting lung cancer as in Asian male ever-smokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2023;18:698–717.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Operative Research Unit of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio Citarella, Bruno Vincenzi, Giuseppe Tonini & Alessio Cortellini

Department of Medicine and Surgery, Universitá Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio Citarella, Pierfilippo Crucitti, Bruno Vincenzi, Giuseppe Tonini, Carlo Greco, Sara Ramella, Fiorella Gurrieri & Alessio Cortellini

Department of Surgery, Saiseikai Fukuoka General Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

Kazuki Takada

Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France

Priscilla Cascetta

Thoracic Surgery Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Pierfilippo Crucitti & Roberta Petti

Operative Research Unit of Medical Genetics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy

Roberta Petti & Fiorella Gurrieri

Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Francesco M. Venanzi, Alessandra Bulotta, Sara Oresti & Roberto Ferrara

Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Radiation Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Carlo Greco & Sara Ramella

Thoracic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo Per Lo Studio Dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori”, Meldola, Italy

Lucio Crinò & Angelo Delmonte

Department of Oncology, Medical Oncology 1U, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, 10126, Turin, Italy

Massimo Di Maio

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK

Alessio Cortellini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the publication according to the ICMJE guidelines for the authorship (study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision). All authors read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study). Each author has agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Cortellini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All the study procedures will follow the precepts of Good Clinical Practice and the declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the local ethical committees on human experimentation (Comitato Etico Territoriale Lazio AREA 2, registro sperimentazioni 27.23 CET 2 CBM, 12 Oct 2023).

Competing interests

Alessio Cortellini declares speaker’s fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, Sanofi/REGENERON, and Roche (outside of the present work) and advisory board roles/grant for consultancies from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, OncoC4, IQVIA, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, REGENERON, Sanofi/REGENERON, Ardelis Health, AlphaSight, Access Infinity (outside of the present work). He also declares travel support from MSD and Roche. Sara Ramella declares advisory board roles and grant consultancies from Astra Zeneca, MSD (Merk) and Roche (outside of the present work). All other authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with the present study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file 1., supplementary file 2., supplementary file 3., supplementary file 4., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Citarella, F., Takada, K., Cascetta, P. et al. Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung). J Transl Med 22 , 714 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4

Download citation

Received : 02 July 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 31 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4

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

• Lung cancer
• Family history of cancer
• Germline screening

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

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

Literature Review Tips for the Introduction and Discussion Sections

A literature review is a summary of studies related to a particular area of research. It identifies and summarizes all the relevant research conducted on a particular topic. It is important that your literature review is focused . Therefore, you should choose a limited number of studies that are central to your topic rather than trying to collect a wide range of studies that might not be closely connected.

Literature reviews help you accomplish the following:

• Evaluate past research  Collecting relevant resources will help you see what research has already been done. This will also help avoid duplication.
• Identify experts It is important to identify credible researchers who have knowledge in a given field, in order to seek their help if you get stuck with certain aspects of your research.
• Identify key questions  Your ultimate aim is to bring something new to the conversation. Collecting resources will help you determine the important questions that need to be addressed.
• Determine methodologies used in past studies Knowing how others have approached a particular topic will give you the opportunity to identify problems and find new ways to research and study a topic. If the reported methodology was successful, you can use it and save time that you would otherwise be spending on optimization.

Presenting Literature Review in the Introduction and Discussion Sections

There are many benefits to presenting literature reviews in the introduction and discussion sections of your manuscripts . However, there are differences in how you can present literature reviews in each section.

What Should be Included in the Literature Review of the Introduction Section?

The literature reviewed in the introduction should:

• Introduce the topic
• Establish the significance of the study
• Provide an overview of the relevant literature
• Establish a context for the study using the literature
• Identify knowledge gaps
• Illustrate how the study will advance knowledge on the topic

As you can see, literature review plays a significant role in the introduction section. However, there are some things that you should avoid doing in this section. These include:

• Elaborating on the studies mentioned in the literature review
• Using studies from the literature review to aggressively support your research
• Directly quoting studies from the literature review

It is important to know how to integrate the literature review into the introduction in an effective way. Although you can mention other studies, they should not be the focus. Instead, focus on using the literature review to aid in setting a foundation for the manuscript.

What Goes in the Literature Review of the Discussion Section?

Literature reviews play an important role in the discussion section of a manuscript . In this section, your findings should be the focus, rather than those of other researchers. Therefore, you should only use the studies mentioned in the literature review as support and evidence for your study.

There are three ways in which you can use literature reviews in the discussion section:

• To Provide Context for Your Study Using studies from the literature review helps to set the foundation for how you will reveal your findings and develop your ideas.
• Compare your Findings to Other Studies You can use previous literature as a backdrop to compare your new findings. This helps describe and also advance your ideas.
• State the Contribution of Your Study In addition to developing your ideas, you can use literature reviews to explain how your study contributes to the field of study.

However, there are three common mistakes that researchers make when including literature reviews in the discussion section. First, they mention all sorts of studies, some of which are not even relevant to the topic under investigation. Second, instead of citing the original article, they cite a related article that mentions the original article. Lastly, some authors cite previous work solely based on the abstract, without even going through the entire paper.

We hope this article helps you effectively present your literature review in both the introduction as well as the discussion section of your manuscript. You can also mention any other tips that will add to this article in the comments section below.

References:

[1]  http://www.math.montana.edu/jobo/phdprep/documents/phd6.pdf 

[2]  https://libguides.unf.edu/c.php?g=177129&p=1163732

This Is a Very Useful Information… thank you. It helped me a lot. It is explained clearfully.

YOU ARE SO NASESESSRY

it explains everything sooo goood i thought it would be hard to understand

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Improving Research Manuscripts Using AI-Powered Insights: Enago reports for effective research communication

Language Quality Importance in Academia AI in Evaluating Language Quality Enago Language Reports Live Demo…

• Reporting Research

Beyond Spellcheck: How copyediting guarantees error-free submission

Submitting a manuscript is a complex and often an emotional experience for researchers. Whether it’s…

How to Find the Right Journal and Fix Your Manuscript Before Submission

Selection of right journal Meets journal standards Plagiarism free manuscripts Rated from reviewer's POV

• Manuscripts & Grants

Research Aims and Objectives: The dynamic duo for successful research

Picture yourself on a road trip without a destination in mind — driving aimlessly, not…

How Academic Editors Can Enhance the Quality of Your Manuscript

Avoiding desk rejection Detecting language errors Conveying your ideas clearly Following technical requirements

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

How to Effectively Structure an Opinion Article

Top 10 Questions for a Complete Literature Review

Impressive Academic Phrases for Writing Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Research on the Relationship Between Higher Education, Technological Innovation, and Green Economy—Analysis Based on Chinese Data from 2011 to 2020

• Published: 02 August 2024

Cite this article

• Jiahui Sun   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-5232 1 ,
• Hechun Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-1933-155X 2 &
• Song Shi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0560-6004 3  

Higher education (HE) and technological innovation (TI) are increasingly crucial for green economic (GE) development. The provincial panel data of China from 2011 to 2020 were sorted out to explore the relationship between higher education, technological innovation, and the green economy. The coupling coordination and PVAR models were used to empirically analyze the coupling coordination and impulse response status of higher education, technological innovation, and green economy. The current research found that, firstly, the comprehensive development level of higher education, technological innovation, and green economy in Eastern China, Inner China, and Western China is on an upward trend as time passes. Secondly, in terms of time, the coupling coordination level among higher education, technological innovation, and green economy in Eastern China, Inner China, and Western China is on an upward trend as time passes. Thirdly, regarding space, the development of coupling coordination levels among higher education, technological innovation, and green economy in Eastern China, Inner China, and Western China is uneven. Among the regions, it shows the spatial distribution of “high in Eastern China, low in Inner, and Western China.” Within the regions, there is a spatial distribution pattern centering on “Beijing-Tianjin-Guangdong,” “Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai,” and “Shaanxi-Hubei-Chongqing,” and spreading to the surrounding areas. Finally, there are interactive and dynamic effects among higher education, technological innovation, and green economy in Eastern China, Inner China, and Western China. However, the interactive effects among the three have short-term effects, and the effects are minor, and most effects are not significant.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

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

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, Jeonju University, Jeonju, 55069, Korea

Department of English Education, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, 55069, Korea

Engineering Research Center of Integration and Application of Digital Learning Technology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100081, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.H.S. collected data and drafted the paper; H.C.W. proofread paper; S.S. proofread paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jiahui Sun or Song Shi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

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

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sun, J., Wu, H. & Shi, S. Research on the Relationship Between Higher Education, Technological Innovation, and Green Economy—Analysis Based on Chinese Data from 2011 to 2020. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02226-y

Download citation

Received : 14 February 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 02 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02226-y

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

• Higher education
• Technological innovation
• Green economy
• Coupling coordination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research