literature review short note

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.

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

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

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 objectives and questions .

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

• 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

• Library Homepage

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

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

Literature Review Writing Tips

Synthesize your findings. Your findings are your evaluation of the literature reviewed: what you consider the strengths and weakness of the studies reviewed; the comparison you did between studies; research trends and gaps in the research that you found while researching your topic, etc...

Across the articles that you read, pay attention to what are the:

• Common/contested findings
• Important trends
• Influential theories

Keep this in mind when writing your literature review:

• Do not over-quote:  If you only quote from every single author you found, then you are not showing any original thinking or analysis. Use quotes judiciously. Use quotes to highlight a particular passage or thought that exemplifies the research, theory or topic you are researching.
• Instead, use paraphrasing:  Restate the main ideas of a paragraph or section to highlight, in your own words, the important points made by the author.
• Summarize findings, important sections, a whole article or book: This is different from paraphrasing since you are not re-stating the author's words but summarizing the main point of what you are reading in a concise matter for your readers.
• Citation Styles by Teaching & Learning Last Updated Jul 30, 2024 9055 views this year

Literature Reviews: Useful Sites

The majority of these sites focus on literature reviews in the social sciences unless otherwise noted. For systematic literature reviews, we recommend you to contact directly your subject librarian for help.

• How to Write a Literature Review Nice and concise handout on how to write a literature review
• Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review This blog, written by a successful Ph.D., offers good advice about reviews from the point of view of an experienced professional. This blog is written by Tanya Golash-Boza, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Merced.
• How to Write a Historiography (Literature Review for History) This is an excellent site to learn how to write this particular literature review in History.

Writing Tutorials & other Resources

• Literature Review Online Tutorial (North Carolina State University Libraries)
• Literature Review Tutorial (CQ University-Australia)
• Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words (OWL Purdue Writing Lab)
• Quoating and Paraphrasing (UW-Madison's Writing Center)
• How to Synthesize Excellent explanation about how to synthesize your findings for a Literature Review
• << Previous: Organizing for Writing
• Next: Other Academic Writings >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

How to Write a Literature Review

• What Is a Literature Review
• What Is the Literature

Writing the Review

Why Are You Writing This?

There are two primary points to remember as you are writing your literature review:

• Stand-alone review: provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question
• Research proposal: explicate the current issues and questions concerning a topic to demonstrate how your proposed research will contribute to the field
• Research report: provide the context to which your work is a contribution.
• Write as you read, and revise as you read more. Rather than wait until you have read everything you are planning to review, start writing as soon as you start reading. You will need to reorganize and revise it all later, but writing a summary of an article when you read it helps you to think more carefully about the article. Having drafts and annotations to work with will also make writing the full review easier since you will not have to rely completely on your memory or have to keep thumbing back through all the articles. Your draft does not need to be in finished, or even presentable, form. The first draft is for you, so you can tell yourself what you are thinking. Later you can rewrite it for others to tell them what you think.

General Steps for Writing a Literature Review

Here is a general outline of steps to write a thematically organized literature review. Remember, though, that there are many ways to approach a literature review, depending on its purpose.

• Stage one: annotated bibliography. As you read articles, books, etc, on your topic, write a brief critical synopsis of each. After going through your reading list, you will have an abstract or annotation of each source you read. Later annotations are likely to include more references to other works since you will have your previous readings to compare, but at this point the important goal is to get accurate critical summaries of each individual work.
• Stage two: thematic organization. Find common themes in the works you read, and organize the works into categories. Typically, each work you include in your review can fit into one category or sub-theme of your main theme, but sometimes a work can fit in more than one. (If each work you read can fit into all the categories you list, you probably need to rethink your organization.) Write some brief paragraphs outlining your categories, how in general the works in each category relate to each other, and how the categories relate to each other and to your overall theme.
• Stage three: more reading. Based on the knowledge you have gained in your reading, you should have a better understanding of the topic and of the literature related to it. Perhaps you have discovered specific researchers who are important to the field, or research methodologies you were not aware of. Look for more literature by those authors, on those methodologies, etc. Also, you may be able to set aside some less relevant areas or articles which you pursued initially. Integrate the new readings into your literature review draft. Reorganize themes and read more as appropriate.
• Stage four: write individual sections. For each thematic section,  use your draft annotations (it is a good idea to reread the articles and revise annotations, especially the ones you read initially) to write a section which discusses the articles relevant to that theme. Focus your writing on the theme of that section, showing how the articles relate to each other and to the theme, rather than focusing your writing on each individual article. Use the articles as evidence to support your critique of the theme rather than using the theme as an angle to discuss each article individually.
• Stage five: integrate sections. Now that you have the thematic sections, tie them together with an introduction, conclusion, and some additions and revisions in the sections to show how they relate to each other and to your overall theme.

Specific Points to Include

More specifically, here are some points to address when writing about specific works you are reviewing. In dealing with a paper or an argument or theory, you need to assess it (clearly understand and state the claim) and analyze it (evaluate its reliability, usefulness, validity). Look for the following points as you assess and analyze papers, arguments, etc. You do not need to state them all explicitly, but keep them in mind as you write your review:

• Be specific and be succinct. Briefly state specific findings listed in an article, specific methodologies used in a study, or other important points. Literature reviews are not the place for long quotes or in-depth analysis of each point.
• Be selective. You are trying to boil down a lot of information into a small space. Mention just the most important points (i.e. those most relevant to the review's focus) in each work you review.
• Is it a current article? How old is it? Have its claims, evidence, or arguments been superceded by more recent work? If it is not current, is it important for historical background?
• What specific claims are made? Are they stated clearly?
• What evidence, and what type (experimental, statistical, anecdotal, etc) is offered? Is the evidence relevant? sufficient?
• What arguments are given? What assumptions are made, and are they warranted?
• What is the source of the evidence or other information? The author's own experiments, surveys, etc? Historical records? Government documents? How reliable are the sources?
• Does the author take into account contrary or conflicting evidence and arguments? How does the author address disagreements with other researchers?
• What specific conclusions are drawn? Are they warranted by the evidence?
• How does this article, argument, theory, etc, relate to other work?

These, however, are just the points that should be addressed when writing about a specific work. It is not an outline of how to organize your writing. Your overall theme and categories within that theme should organize your writing, and the above points should be integrated into that organization. That is, rather than write something like:

     Smith (2019) claims that blah, and provides evidence x to support it, and says it is probably because of blip. But Smith seems to have neglected factor b.      Jones (2021) showed that blah by doing y, which, Jones claims, means it is likely because of blot. But that methodology does not exclude other possibilities.      Johnson (2022) hypothesizes blah might be because of some other cause.

list the themes and then say how each article relates to that theme. For example:

     Researchers agree that blah (Smith 2019, Jones 2021, Johnson 2022), but they do not agree on why. Smith claims it is probably due to blip, but Jones, by doing y, tries to show it is likely because of blot. Jones' methodology, however, does not exclude other possibilities. Johnson hypothesizes ...

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 12:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from Start to Finish

Writing-a-literature-review-six-steps-to-get-you-from-start-to-finish.

Tanya Golash-Boza, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California

February 03, 2022

Writing a literature review is often the most daunting part of writing an article, book, thesis, or dissertation. “The literature” seems (and often is) massive. I have found it helpful to be as systematic as possible when completing this gargantuan task.

Sonja Foss and William Walters* describe an efficient and effective way of writing a literature review. Their system provides an excellent guide for getting through the massive amounts of literature for any purpose: in a dissertation, an M.A. thesis, or preparing a research article for publication  in any field of study. Below is a  summary of the steps they outline as well as a step-by-step method for writing a literature review.

How to Write a Literature Review

Step One: Decide on your areas of research:

Before you begin to search for articles or books, decide beforehand what areas you are going to research. Make sure that you only get articles and books in those areas, even if you come across fascinating books in other areas. A literature review I am currently working on, for example, explores barriers to higher education for undocumented students.

Step Two: Search for the literature:

Conduct a comprehensive bibliographic search of books and articles in your area. Read the abstracts online and download and/or print those articles that pertain to your area of research. Find books in the library that are relevant and check them out. Set a specific time frame for how long you will search. It should not take more than two or three dedicated sessions.

Step Three: Find relevant excerpts in your books and articles:

Skim the contents of each book and article and look specifically for these five things:

1. Claims, conclusions, and findings about the constructs you are investigating

2. Definitions of terms

3. Calls for follow-up studies relevant to your project

4. Gaps you notice in the literature

5. Disagreement about the constructs you are investigating

When you find any of these five things, type the relevant excerpt directly into a Word document. Don’t summarize, as summarizing takes longer than simply typing the excerpt. Make sure to note the name of the author and the page number following each excerpt. Do this for each article and book that you have in your stack of literature. When you are done, print out your excerpts.

Step Four: Code the literature:

Get out a pair of scissors and cut each excerpt out. Now, sort the pieces of paper into similar topics. Figure out what the main themes are. Place each excerpt into a themed pile. Make sure each note goes into a pile. If there are excerpts that you can’t figure out where they belong, separate those and go over them again at the end to see if you need new categories. When you finish, place each stack of notes into an envelope labeled with the name of the theme.

Step Five: Create Your Conceptual Schema:

Type, in large font, the name of each of your coded themes. Print this out, and cut the titles into individual slips of paper. Take the slips of paper to a table or large workspace and figure out the best way to organize them. Are there ideas that go together or that are in dialogue with each other? Are there ideas that contradict each other? Move around the slips of paper until you come up with a way of organizing the codes that makes sense. Write the conceptual schema down before you forget or someone cleans up your slips of paper.

Step Six: Begin to Write Your Literature Review:

Choose any section of your conceptual schema to begin with. You can begin anywhere, because you already know the order. Find the envelope with the excerpts in them and lay them on the table in front of you. Figure out a mini-conceptual schema based on that theme by grouping together those excerpts that say the same thing. Use that mini-conceptual schema to write up your literature review based on the excerpts that you have in front of you. Don’t forget to include the citations as you write, so as not to lose track of who said what. Repeat this for each section of your literature review.

Once you complete these six steps, you will have a complete draft of your literature review. The great thing about this process is that it breaks down into manageable steps something that seems enormous: writing a literature review.

I think that Foss and Walter’s system for writing the literature review is ideal for a dissertation, because a Ph.D. candidate has already read widely in his or her field through graduate seminars and comprehensive exams.

It may be more challenging for M.A. students, unless you are already familiar with the literature. It is always hard to figure out how much you need to read for deep meaning, and how much you just need to know what others have said. That balance will depend on how much you already know.

For people writing literature reviews for articles or books, this system also could work, especially when you are writing in a field with which you are already familiar. The mere fact of having a system can make the literature review seem much less daunting, so I recommend this system for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of writing a literature review.

*Destination Dissertation: A Traveler's Guide to a Done Dissertation

Image Credit/Source: Goldmund Lukic/Getty Images

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

Leveraging user research to improve author guidelines at the Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting

How research content supports academic integrity

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for Success

Software to Improve Reliability of Research Image Data: Wiley, Lumina, and Researchers at Harvard Medical School Work Together on Solutions

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

ISBN, ISSN, DOI: what they are and how to find them

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

Related articles.

User Experience (UX) Research is the process of discovering and understanding user requirements, motivations, and behaviours 

Learn how Wiley partners with plagiarism detection services to support academic integrity around the world

Medical student Nicole Foley shares her top tips for writing and getting your work published.

Wiley and Lumina are working together to support the efforts of researchers at Harvard Medical School to develop and test new machine learning tools and artificial intelligence (AI) software that can

Learn more about our relationship with a company that helps scientists identify the right products to use in their research

What is ISBN? ISSN? DOI? Learn about some of the unique identifiers for book and journal content.

Learn how medical practitioners can easily access and search visual assets from our article portfolio

Explore free-to-use services that can help you discover new content

Watch this webinar to help you learn how to get published.

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for success

How to Easily Access the Most Relevant Research: A Q&A With the Creator of Scitrus

Atypon launches Scitrus, a personalized web app that allows users to create a customized feed of the latest research.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

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.

The second example is Deep Learning on Semi-Structured Data and its Applications to Video-Game AI, Woof, W. (Author). 31 Dec 2020, a PhD thesis completed at the University of Manchester . In Chapter 2, the author offers a comprehensive introduction to the topic in four paragraphs, with the final paragraph serving as an overview of the chapter’s structure:

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.

Literature review outline [Write a literature review with these structures]

Welcome to our comprehensive blog on crafting a perfect literature review for your research paper or dissertation.

The ability to write a literature review with a concise and structured outline is pivotal in academic writing.

You’ll get an overview of how to structure your review effectively, address your research question, and demonstrate your understanding of existing knowledge.

We’ll delve into different approaches to literature reviews, discuss the importance of a theoretical approach, and show you how to handle turning points in your narrative.

You’ll learn how to integrate key concepts from your research field and weave them into your paragraphs to highlight their importance.

Moreover, we’ll guide you through the nuances of APA citation style and how to compile a comprehensive bibliography. Lastly, we’ll walk you through the proofreading process to ensure your work is error-free.

As a bonus, this blog will provide useful tips for both seasoned researchers and first-time writers to produce a literature review that’s clear, informative, and engaging.

Enjoy the writing process with me!

Sentence starters and structure for each section of your literature review:

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review is a survey of existing literature in the field on a particular topic.

It gives researchers a good  outline of the main points and examples of literature related to their research.

By  discussing the literature , researchers can get an idea of the aspects of the topic they need to focus on.

A  literature review usually outlines your literature based on research methods and can be structured in various ways, such as a thematic literature review or methodological literature review .

If you  need help with literature review , consider using ai tools that provides a literature review outline template or examples of literature review outlines .

Structure of a Literature Review – Outline

When you write a literature review outline, you are laying the foundations of great work. Many people rush this part and struggle later on. Take your time and slowly draft the outline for a literature review.

The structure of a literature review consists of five main components:

• Introduction: Provide a brief overview of the chapter, along with the topic and research aims to set the context for the reader.
• Foundation of Theory or Theoretical Framework: Present and discuss the key theories, concepts, and models related to your research topic. Explain how they apply to your study and their significance.
• Empirical Research: Review and analyze relevant empirical related to your research question. Highlight their findings, methodologies, and any limitations they possess.
• Research Gap: Identify any gaps, inconsistencies, or ambiguities in the existing literature. This will help establish the need for your research and justify its relevance.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings from the literature review, emphasizing the importance of your research question and the identified research gap. Suggest potential avenues for future research in the field.

You can use ChatGPT to create a literature review outline for you – check out this article here .

Literature Review Examples and Types

Based on the typology of literature reviews from Paré et al. (2015), the following list outlines various types of literature reviews and examples of when you’d use each type:

1. Conceptual Review: Analyzes and synthesizes the theoretical and conceptual aspects of a topic. It focuses on understanding key concepts, models, and theories.

Example use: When aiming to clarify the conceptual foundations and explore existing theories in a field, such as investigating the dimensions of job satisfaction.

2. Methodological Review: Evaluates and synthesizes the research approaches, methods, and techniques used in existing literature. It aims to identify methodological strengths and weaknesses in a research area.

Example use: When assessing data collection methods for researching user experiences with a new software application.

3. Descriptive Review: This simplest approach provides a rationale for choosing sources in a literature review outline. Provides a broad overview of studies in a research area. It aims to describe the existing literature on a topic and document its evolution over time.

Example use: When investigating the history of research on employee motivation and documenting its progress over the years.

4. Integrative Review: Combines and synthesizes findings from different studies to produce a comprehensive understanding of a research topic. It may identify trends, patterns, or common themes among various studies.

Example use: When exploring the links between work-life balance and job satisfaction, aggregating evidence from multiple studies to develop a comprehensive understanding.

5. Theory-driven Review: Examines a research topic through the lens of a specific theoretical framework. It focuses on understanding how the chosen theory explains or predicts phenomena in the literature.

Example use: When studying the impact of leadership styles on team performance, specifically using the transformational leadership theory as a basis for the analysis.

6. Evidence-driven Review: Aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions or practices based on the available research evidence when reviewing literature. It can inform the decision-making process in practice or policy by providing evidence-based recommendations.

Example use: When assessing the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for managing chronic disease outcomes, providing recommendations for healthcare providers and policymakers.

By understanding these types of literature reviews and their appropriate usage, researchers can choose the most suitable approach for their research question and contribute valuable insights to their field.

How to Write a Good Literature Review

To write a good literature review, follow these six steps to help you create relevant and actionable content for a young researcher by reviewing literature effectively.

1. Define the review’s purpose: Before starting, establish a clear understanding of your research question or hypothesis. This helps focus the review and prevents unnecessary information from being included.

2. Set inclusion and exclusion criteria: Use predefined criteria for including or excluding sources in your review. Establish these criteria based on aspects such as publication date, language, type of study, and subject relevance. This ensures your review remains focused and meets your objectives.

3. Search for relevant literature: Conduct a comprehensive search for literature relevant to your research question. Use databases, online catalogs, and search engines that focus on academic literature, such as Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science. Consider using multiple search terms and synonyms to cover all related topics, particularly when conducting a search for literature related to your research question.

4. Organize and analyze information: Develop a system for organizing and analyzing the information you find. You can use spreadsheets, note-taking applications, or reference management tools like Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote. Categorize your sources based on themes, author’s conclusions, methodology, or other relevant criteria.

5. Write a critique of the literature: Evaluate and synthesize the information from your sources. Discuss their strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in knowledge or understanding. Point out any inconsistencies in the findings and explain any varying theories or viewpoints. Provide a balanced critique that highlights the most significant contributions, trends, or patterns.

6. Structure the review: Organize your literature review into sections that present the main themes or findings. Start with an introduction that outlines your research question, the scope of the review, and any limitations you may have encountered. Write clear, concise, and coherent summaries of your literature for each section, and end with a conclusion that synthesizes the main findings, suggests areas for further research, and reinforces your research question or hypothesis.

Incorporating these steps will assist you in crafting a well-structured, focused, and informative literature review for your research project.

If you want to know how long a literature review should be, check out this article .

Here are some examples of each step in the process. 

Top Tips on How to Write Your Literature Review

Here are the top tips on how to write your literature review:

1. Develop a rough outline or framework before you start writing your literature review. This helps you avoid creating a jumbled mess and allows you to organize your thoughts coherently and effectively.

2. Use previous literature reviews as a guide to understand the norms and expectations in your field. Look for recently published literature reviews in academic journals or online databases, such as Google Scholar, EBSCO, or ProQuest.

3. Write first and edit later. Avoid perfectionism and don’t be afraid to create messy drafts. This helps you overcome writer’s block and ensures progress in your work.

4. Insert citations as you write to avoid losing track of references. Make sure to follow the appropriate formatting style (e.g. APA or MLA) and use reference management tools like Mendeley to easily keep track of your sources.

5. Organize your literature review logically, whether it’s chronologically, thematically, or methodologically. Identify gaps in the literature and explain how your study addresses them. Keep in mind that the structure isn’t set in stone and can change as you read and write, especially during a lit review.

Remember that writing your literature review is an iterative process, so give yourself room to improve and make changes as needed. Keep these actionable tips in mind, and you’ll be well on your way to creating a compelling and well-organized literature review.

Wrapping up – Your literature review outline

As we conclude this extensive guide, we hope that you now feel equipped to craft a stellar literature review.

We’ve navigated the intricacies of an effective literature review outline, given you examples of each section, provided sentence starters to ignite your writing process, and explored the diverse types of literature reviews.

This guide has also illustrated how to structure a literature review and organize the research process, which should help you tackle any topic over time.

Emphasizing key themes, we’ve shown you how to identify gaps in existing research and underscore the relevance of your work.

Remember, writing a literature review isn’t just about summarizing existing studies; it’s about adding your own interpretations, arguing for the relevance of specific theoretical concepts, and demonstrating your grasp of the academic field.

Keep the key debates that have shaped your research area in mind, and use the strategies we’ve outlined to add depth to your paper.

So, start writing, and remember, the journey of writing is iterative and a pivotal part of your larger research process.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Not every source you found should be included in your annotated bibliography or lit review. Only include the most relevant and most important sources.

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Summarize your Sources

Summarize each source: Determine the most important and relevant information from each source, such as the findings, methodology, theories, etc.  Consider using an article summary, or study summary to help you organize and summarize your sources.

Paraphrasing

• Use your own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract
• The library's tutorials about plagiarism are excellent, and will help you with paraphasing correctly

Annotated Bibliographies

     Annotated bibliographies can help you clearly see and understand the research before diving into organizing and writing your literature review.        Although typically part of the "summarize" step of the literature review, annotations should not merely be summaries of each article - instead, they should be critical evaluations of the source, and help determine a source's usefulness for your lit review.  

Definition:

A list of citations on a particular topic followed by an evaluation of the source’s argument and other relevant material including its intended audience, sources of evidence, and methodology

• Explore your topic.
• Appraise issues or factors associated with your professional practice and research topic.
• Help you get started with the literature review.
• Think critically about your topic, and the literature.

Steps to Creating an Annotated Bibliography:

• Find Your Sources
• Read Your Sources
• Identify the Most Relevant Sources
• Cite your Sources
• Write Annotations

Annotated Bibliography Resources

• Purdue Owl Guide
• Cornell Annotated Bibliography Guide
• << Previous: Evaluate
• Next: Synthesize >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

Free Download

Literature Review Template

The fastest (and smartest) way to craft a strong literature review that lays a solid theoretical foundation and earns marks.

Available in Google Doc, Word & PDF format 4.9 star rating, 5000 + downloads

Step-by-step instructions

Tried & tested academic format

Fill-in-the-blanks simplicity

Pro tips, tricks and resources

What It Covers

This literature review template is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format and structure  for formal academic research projects. It includes the following sections:

• Before you start – essential groundwork to ensure you’re ready
• The introduction section
• The core/body section
• The conclusion /summary
• Extra free resources

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements.  We’ve also included practical examples and links to free videos to help you understand what’s required in each section.

The template can be copied to your Google Drive 0r downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), adaptable to LaTeX.

download your copy now

100% Free to use. Instant access.

I agree to receive the free template and other useful resources.

Download Now (Instant Access)

FAQs: Literature Review Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The literature review chapter template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of literature reviews can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard format for academic literature reviews, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of academic research projects (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the literature review chapter will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a literature review at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the literature review to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

Can I modify the template to suit my topic/area?

Absolutely. While the template provides a general structure, you should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review.

What structural style does this literature review template use?

The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological structure), as this is the most common approach. However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if you are adopting a different structure.

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

No, that is a separate template, which you can download for free here . This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter, whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase.

How long should the literature review chapter be?

This depends on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, literature reviews for Masters-level projects are usually 2,000 – 3,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects can reach multiples of this.

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

Yes, it’s important to acknowledge and discuss literature that presents different viewpoints or contradicts your hypothesis. So, don’t shy away from existing research that takes an opposing view to yours.

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

Always cite your sources correctly and paraphrase ideas in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your mind. 

Do you have an example of a populated template?

We provide a walkthrough of the template and review an example of a high-quality literature research chapter here .

Can I share this literature review template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other dissertation/thesis chapters?

Yes, we do. You can find our full collection of templates here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services , where we can help you work through the literature review chapter (and any other chapters).

Additional Resources

If you’re working on a literature review, you’ll also want to check these out…

Literature Review Bootcamp

1-On-1 Private Coaching

The Grad Coach YouTube Channel

The Grad Coach Podcast

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

Researching the Literature Review

• 1. Get Started
• 2. Find Articles

Tracking Your Searches

Mind mapping, note taking tables, reading tips, writing as a conversation, writing center resources, how do you take notes.

• 4. Keep Current
• 5. Manage References
• 6. Done Yet?
• 7. Get Help

One way to begin taking notes is to keep track of what you are searching for.  Many databases help you do this by allowing you to save searches and set up email alerts .  Saving searches allows you to watch the development of your search over time and to make sure you are not simply repeating the same search over and over.  Copy and paste or print out the search page to help think of ways your search could or should change over time.  This example is from the EbscoHost version of Medline, but many databases have a similar option.

Viewing the search history and saving searches

Mind mapping is a popular way to brainstorm about your topic or to take notes about an article or presentation.  Start with the main topic in the center and then think of a variety of related subtopics that you want to explore.  Mind maps allow you to be flexible and to see alternative ideas you may not initially have considered.

You can either use paper and pencil or you can use a variety of free or commercial products to create mind maps.  See some suggested options below.  (This mind map was made with the free version of XMind.)

• Wikipedia's List of Mind Mapping Software
• Note Taking Table Template

Some of us think in a more linear way and find it useful to enter notes in tables rather than in mind or concept maps.  This table is one illustration of what types of information you can gather from the articles or books that you read.  If this table is helpful, you can download the handout version linked above.

Learning how to read academic literature, both articles and books, takes practices.  Here are some tips to help you become a more focused reader:

One way to think about writing a literature review is as a dialogue between authors who have previously written about various aspects of your topic.  You will create this dialog by discussing the agreements and disagreements between those authors, and you will illustrate what they have not yet talked about or researched. 

Use this illustration not as an exact recipe for how to write, but as a guide for how to incorporate some of these writing strategies.

• OSU Graduate Writing Center

Need more writing help? Try the OSU Writing Center.  In addition to providing free help, particularly with brainstorming and organization, they also have writing assistants who are specifically trained to work with graduate students.  Plan ahead as it can often take several sessions to work through something as major as a thesis writing project.

Which of these tools do you most commonly use to take notes?

• << Previous: 2. Find Articles
• Next: 4. Keep Current >>
• Last Updated: May 1, 2024 1:18 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/literaturereview

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

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

Digital Projects

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

University of Tasmania, Australia

Literature reviews.

• What is a literature review?
• How to develop a researchable question
• How to find the literature
• Taking notes
• How to bring it all together: examples, templates, links, guides

Preview the text to check for relevance. 

• the abstract
• introduction
• look at any charts, tables, graphs, diagrams

Check the number of times the article has been cited by others. The more times cited, the more important it might be. 

Read more deeply and let this guide the development of your question.

You may find that the more you read, your question changes or you discover a bigger topic or subtopics. 

Do not waste your time using a highlighter. Annotate the page and take notes. 

There are no shortcuts in this part of the process. 

For more information on managing your reading, go to the Study Toolkit in MyLO and check out the Academic Reading  and Writing module. 

Taking Notes

Use a synthesis matrix for note taking. This table c an be as simple or as complicated as you need

Advantages of using a synthesis matrix:

• allows you to  sort the ideas and thoughts while analysing and synthesising the research.
• helps make planning the structure and paragraph order easier 
• allows for paraphrasing and summarising before actually writing
• provides a clearer view of the relationship between different sources
• aids in identifying themes and patterns in the findings and conclusions.
• gives a glance view of each area under scrutiny

  The organisation/headings will change depending on the focus of your review. 

Using a spreadsheet will also help organise your reading and matrix. 

You will find some examples of a synthesis matrix to download at the bottom of this page. 

Example 1. 

C. Hartigan University of Tasmania

Example 2: Organised by themes.

from:  The Thesis Whisperer:Using a matrix to organise your notes

Example 3: Literature Review preparation.

Watch this short clip for some more ideas.  ( APA referencing is used in this clip)

• Synthesis matrix
• Literature Review Prep: Synthesis matrix: Johns Hopkins University
• << Previous: How to find the literature
• Next: How to bring it all together: examples, templates, links, guides >>
• Last Updated: Jun 28, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://utas.libguides.com/literaturereviews

• Open access
• Published: 12 August 2024

Insights into the ANKRD11 variants and short-stature phenotype through literature review and ClinVar database search

• Dongye He   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6704-7354 1 , 2 ,
• Mei Zhang 1 , 3 ,
• Yanying Li 1 , 3 ,
• Fupeng Liu 1 , 2 &
• Bo Ban   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3950-1422 1 , 2 , 3  

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases volume  19 , Article number:  292 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

27 Accesses

Metrics details

Ankyrin repeat domain containing-protein 11 (ANKRD11), a transcriptional factor predominantly localized in the cell nucleus, plays a crucial role in the expression regulation of key genes by recruiting chromatin remodelers and interacting with specific transcriptional repressors or activators during numerous biological processes. Its pathogenic variants are strongly linked to the pathogenesis and progression of multisystem disorder known as KBG syndrome. With the widespread application of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies in clinical medicine, numerous pathogenic variants in the ANKRD11 gene have been reported. Patients with KBG syndrome usually exhibit a broad phenotypic spectrum with a variable degree of severity, even if having identical variants. In addition to distinctive dental, craniofacial and neurodevelopmental abnormalities, patients often present with skeletal anomalies, particularly postnatal short stature. The relationship between ANKRD11 variants and short stature is not well-understood, with limited knowledge regarding its occurrence rate or underlying biological mechanism involved. This review aims to provide an updated analysis of the molecular spectrum associated with ANKRD11 variants, investigate the prevalence of the short stature among patients harboring these variants, evaluate the efficacy of recombinant human growth hormone in treating children with short stature and ANKRD11 variants, and explore the biological mechanisms underlying short stature from both scientific and clinical perspectives. Our investigation indicated that frameshift and nonsense were the most frequent types in 583 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants identified in the ANKRD11 gene. Among the 245 KBGS patients with height data, approximately 50% displayed short stature. Most patients showed a positive response to rhGH therapy, although the number of patients receiving treatment was limited. ANKRD11 deficiency potentially disrupts longitudinal bone growth by affecting the orderly differentiation of growth plate chondrocytes. Our review offers crucial insights into the association between ANKRD11 variants and short stature and provides valuable guidance for precise clinical diagnosis and treatment of patients with KBG syndrome.

The ANKRD11 gene (OMIM#611192) is mapped to human chromosome 16q24.3 and encodes an ankyrin repeat domain-containing protein 11 that belongs to a member of the ankyrin repeats-containing cofactor family (ANCO). It is relatively conserved across species and ubiquitously expressed in multiple organs and tissues, particularly in the brain and ovary [ 1 , 2 ]. The ANKRD11 protein, consisting of 2,663 amino acid residues, structurally includes the ankyrin domain (ANK), transcriptional activation domain (AD), transcriptional repression domains (RD1 and RD2), and multiple putative nuclear localization signals (NLSs) [ 3 ]. The N-terminal ANK domain follows the canonical helix-loop-helix-β-hairpin/loop configuration and is comprised of five consecutive ankyrin repeat motifs. Each motif contains a 33-residue sequence and facilitates protein-protein interaction to coordinate subsequent transcriptional regulatory processes [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. The ANKRD11 protein binds to the conserved N-terminal Per-Arnt-Sim (PAS) region of p160 coactivator via its ANK domain, concurrently, recruits histone deacetylases (HDACs) through its RD1 or RD2 domain. When p160 coactivator binds to the hydrophobic cleft within the C-terminal ligand-binding domain (LBD) of nuclear receptors (NRs) through its LXXLL motifs, the assembly of p160/ANKRD11/HDACs complex suppresses NRs-mediated ligand-dependent transactivation [ 7 ]. The ANKRD11 protein also interacts with the N-terminal 84 amino acids of ADA3 (alteration/deficiency in activation 3), which is an essential part of the p300/CBP [cAMP-response-element binding protein-binding protein]-associated factor (P/CAF) complex. This complex connects coactivators to histone acetylation and basal transcription machinery, resulting in the recruitment of the P/CAF complex and the specific regulation of ADA3 coactivator in a transcription factor-dependent manner [ 8 ]. Moreover, the ANKRD11 protein is capable of amplifying p53 activity through the enhancement of P/CAF-mediated acetylation [ 6 ]. Overall, the ANKRD11 protein, through its various functional domains, collectively facilitates the formation of a molecular bridge between coactivators or corepressors and histone deacetylases (HDACs) or histone acetyltransferases (HATs), thereby precisely regulating the transcription of target genes.

Initially, ANKRD11 has been recognized as a tumor suppressor gene in breast cancer due to its location within the chromosomal region 16q24.3, which is widely acknowledged for its frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) among patients suffering from breast cancer [ 9 , 10 ]. Under normal physiological conditions, the estrogen receptor (ER)/amplified in breast cancer 1 (AIB1)/ANKRD11/HDACs or transcriptional enhanced associate domain (TEAD)/yes-associated protein (YAP)/AIB1/ANKRD11 complex functions to suppress the transcriptional activation of oncogenes in breast cancer [ 11 , 12 ]. However, aberrant DNA methylation of three CpGs within a 19-base pair region of the ANKRD11 promoter leads to its down-regulation, thereby disrupting the assembly of the complex and consequently promoting breast tumorigenesis [ 13 ]. ANKRD11 haploinsufficiency was later identified in KBG syndrome (KBGS) patient-focused clinical and molecular studies, confirming the dominant pathogenic mechanism responsible for this condition (OMIM#148050). KBGS was initially reported by Herrmann and colleagues in 1975 and characterized by macrodontia of the upper central incisors, distinctive craniofacial findings, postnatal short stature, skeletal anomalies and, neurodevelopmental disorders, sometimes with seizures and electroencephalogram (EEG) abnormalities [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Patients harboring ANKRD11 pathogenic variants exhibit overlapping features between KBGS and Cornelia de Lange syndrome or Coffin-Siris-like syndrome, particularly neurological and skeletal anomalies [ 17 , 18 ]. KBGS typically presents with a wide range of phenotypic manifestations, each varying in severity [ 19 ]. The biological function and cellular mechanism of ANKRD11 variants associated with the KBGS features have garnered significant interest and attention within the academic community. Previous study has established the pivotal role of the ANKRD11 gene in proliferation, neurogenesis and neuronal localization of cortical neural precursor cells by utilizing a Yoda mice model harboring a point mutation within the ANKRD11-HDAC interaction region, and the underlying mechanism was linked to alterations in the acetylation patterns of specific lysine residues (H3K9, H4K5, H4K8, H4K16) on the target genes regulated by ANKRD11 [ 20 ]. Further investigation has revealed that ANKRD11 regulates pyramidal neuron migration and dendritic differentiation of mouse cerebral cortex through the coordination of P/CAF to facilitate the acetylation of both p53 and Histone H3, which subsequently leads to the activation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)/tyrosine receptor kinase B (TrkB) signaling pathway [ 21 ]. Moreover, Roth and their colleagues developed a heterozygous neural crest-specific ANKRD11-mutant mice model, and revealed that multiple ossification centers in the middle facial bone of mice failed to expand or fuse properly, leading to a significant delay in bone maturation and a severe restriction in bone remodeling [ 22 ]. Recent research has uncovered that conditional knockout of the ANKRD11 gene within murine embryonic neural crest leads to severe congenital cardiac malformations and the underlying mechanism was linked to a reduction in Sema3C expression levels, coupled with diminished mTOR and BMP signaling within the cardiac neural crest cells of the outflow tract [ 23 ]. Based on the accumulating evidence from ongoing research into gene functions, the relationship between ANKRD11 pathogenic variants and the clinical features of KBGS is better understood than ever before. However, the role of ANKRD11 variants in inducing short stature has not received sufficient attention, particularly regarding its frequency of occurrence and the underlying biological mechanisms of action.

Materials and methods

We investigated publicly available online resources including published literature in Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Wanfang database by searching keywords “KBGS”, “ANKRD11”, “Short stature” and “Intellectual disability” as well as genetic testing records in ClinVar database between July 2011 and March 2024. In this review, we included a total of 78 published papers that encompassed cohort studies, case series or single-case reports, and gathered 583 ANKRD11 variants, which were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)-Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guideline (Supplemental material  1 ). Among these variants, 202 were reported in published papers and 381 were described in the ClinVar database. Certain large deletions or duplications of the ANKRD11 gene were not considered in this analysis, as the complexity of their impact on the amino acid sequence of the encoded protein posed challenges for interpretation. We have also excluded patients with 16q24.3 microdeletions, 16q24.3 microduplications and dual molecular diagnosis involving ANKRD11 and/or flanking genes, as the role of other genes in contributing to the height phenotype remains uncertain. Furthermore, hotspot variants within ANKRD11 were analyzed in 838 patients, comprising 457 derived from the literature and 381 derived from the ClinVar database (Supplemental material  2 ). ANKRD11 allele frequency below 1% in the general poulation was obtained from gnomAD ( http://gnomad-sg.org/ ). 245 patients were reported to have height data, of which 112 had a height SDS. The differences in height SDS among patients with short stature carrying various ANKRD11 variants were further analyzed (Supplemental material  3 ). Data was described as mean ± SDS, and analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. A significant difference was considered when the p -value was less than 0.05.

Molecular spectrum of ANKRD11 variants

Since ANKRD11 was identified as the causal gene for KBGS in 2011, more than 340 KBGS patients have been reported worldwide [ 24 ]. Considering the variant data documented in the ClinVar database, it is projected that the number of patients with ANKRD11 variants exceeds 800. Despite the global prevalence of KBGS worldwide remaining unknown, its prevalence is underestimated due to a limited understanding of the disease phenotype and molecular underpinning. Consequently, establishing the spectrum of genetic variation in the ANKRD11 gene holds the promise of not only enhancing our understanding of disease’s pathogenesis but also enabling clinicians to render a precise molecular diagnosis for KBGS. A total of 583 ANKRD11 variants encompassed nearly the entire sequence of amino acids [ 1 , 2 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 ] (Fig.  1 ). All identified ANKRD11 variants were present in a heterozygous state, aligning with early embryonic lethality of Yoda mice observed in homozygotes, as demonstrated by Barbaric et al. [ 3 ]. This review encapsulates the up-to-date molecular landscape of ANKRD11 variants, nevertheless, in light of the continual discovery of patients with newly identified ANKRD11 variants, it needs to be supplemented and updated in time.

Molecular spectrum of ANKRD11 variants. A total of 583 ANRKD11 (likely) pathogenic variants were collected through literature review and ClinVar database. ANKRD11 variants were shown by frameshift, nonsense, missense, splice and inframe deletion, respectively. ANK: ankyrin repeat domain, RD1: repression domain 1, AD: activation domain, RD2: repression domain 2

All ANKRD11 variants in the map were classified into five types: frameshift variants (340/583, 58.32%), nonsense variants (163/583, 27.96%), missense variants (54/583, 9.26%), splicing variants (21/583, 3.60%) and inframe deletion variants (5/583, 0.86%) (Fig.  2 ). Variants occurring in ANK, RD1, AD, RD2 and non-domain region accounted for 3.60%, 10.12%, 9.09%, 15.10% and 62.09% of the total variant pool, respectively (Fig.  2 ). Multiple putative NLSs within the interval between the RD1 and AD regions were categorized as part of the non-domain segment, primarily due to the absence of definitive and evidence-based localization data [ 3 , 5 , 15 , 48 ]. Specific variants occurring within these NLSs may impair the nuclear targeting of the ANKRD11 protein. Notably, the most common variants were frameshift and nonsense variants, which give rise to prematurely truncated forms of the ANKRD11 protein. 62.96% (34/54) of ANKRD11 missense variants were found to cluster within C-terminal RD2 region. The majority of these missense variants, particularly those impacting arginine residues, were reported to impair protein stability or transcriptional activity, however, they did not produce an obvious impact on the protein’s subcellular localization [ 61 , 66 ]. Additionally, alternative splicing events predominantly affected the C-terminal RD2 (13/21) and N-terminal region (8/21). It is not surprising that those affecting 5’ and 3’ splice sites are commonly implicated as the underlying cause of hereditary disorders [ 97 ]. Nonetheless, how these hypothesized splicing variants impact the encoded protein requires an in-depth examination of splicing patterns by cDNA analysis, and frequently involves a Mini-gene assay. Other types of ANKRD11 variants were relatively uncommon including p.Lys1347del, p.Thr2471_Gly2474del, p.Glu2524_Lys2525del, p.Q2350del, and p.R595_A2663delinsS. Interestingly, p.Lys1347del has been demonstrated to significantly disrupt the transcriptional activation of downstream p21 gene but did not influence the levels of ANKRD11 mRNA or protein [ 2 , 15 , 19 , 61 ]. Theoretically, protein-truncating variants (PTVs) cause a more detrimental effect on protein function compared to the consequences of amino acid deletions (≥ 1) and single amino acid substitution [ 98 , 99 ]. The impact of various types of genetic variants on the ANKRD11 protein function requires further investigation by a range of functional analyses.

The percentage of different types of ANKRD11 variants located in different functional domains. The pie chart indicates the percentage of variants within different domains. 10 X 10 dot plot represents the percentage of different variant types. The column shows the the proportion of five mutation types within different domains of ANKRD11. ANK: ankyrin repeat domain, RD1: repression domain 1, AD: activation domain, RD2: repression domain 2

Hotspot variants of ANKRD11 protein

Mutation rates vary significantly along nucleotide sequences such that variants often concentrate at certain positions called hotspots [ 100 ]. DNA sequences prone to variation are highly dependent of gene sequence and structure as well as its chromosomal location, such as GC-rich region, microsatellites, meiotic recombination, nonallelic homologous recombination, centromeric rearrangements, telomeres and subtelomeric regions, replication timing and common fragile sites [ 101 , 102 ]. Therefore, hotspot variants are indicative of the structural and functional properties of DNA sequence. Within the spectrum of ANKRD11 variants, over two dozen distinct variants have been identified in at least three patients. Beyond a few variants that have been vertically inherited within a single family, the majority of variants were discovered in multiple sporadic patients, underscoring the propensity for these genetic variants to arise independently in unrelated individuals. Four hotspot variants of ANKRD11 protein were observed including p.Glu461Glnfs*48, p.Lys635Glnfs*26, p.Glu800Asnfs*62 and p.Lys803Argfs*5 (Fig.  3 A). These four variants are frameshift variants generated by c.1381_1384delGAAA, c.1903_1907delAAACA, c.2395_2398delAAAG and c.2408_2412delAAAAA, respectively. Two additional prevalent frameshift variants were traced back to analogous genomic alterations including p.Asn725Lysfs*23 and p.Thr462Lysfs*47 arising from c.2175_2178delCAAA and c.1385_1388delCAAA, respectively. The propensity for short deletions within AAA-type-containing sequences may be associated with polymerase slippage events induced by tandem repeats, a well-established mechanism for indels [ 100 ]. Nonetheless, it should be highlighted that CCC-type-containing sequences exhibit a heightened vulnerability to this form of genetic variation [ 103 , 104 ]. RD2 domain located at the C-terminus of ANKRD11 seemed to be particularly vulnerable to a range of variant events in KBGS patients, with missense variants being notably prevalent (Fig.  3 A). Conversely, the missense variants occuring in RD2 domain were relatively rare in general population (Fig.  3 B). This was consistent with the results of in vitro cellular assays, which showed that missense variants occurring in the RD2 domain impaired the protein function of ANKRD11 [ 66 ]. Some frameshift and nonsense variants of ANKRD11 have been identified in general population, such as p.Glu2082Argfs*20, p.Ser2180Phefs*6, p.Glu1075* and p.Gln2507*, indicating a pattern of variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance associated with ANKRD11 variants [ 2 ]. Taken together, the presence of hotspot variants offers valuable insights into the inherent vulnerability of specific DNA sequence to abnormal DNA repair, replication, and modification or environmental exposures. These findings warrant in-depth exploration at the molecular level to unravel the underlying mechanisms and implications.

Frequency of ANKRD11 variants in a total of 838 KBGS patients ( A ) and ANKRD11 allele frequency in general population ( B ). ANKRD11 allele frequency below 1% in general poulation was obtained from gnomAD ( http://gnomad-sg.org/ ). The abscissa represents the full-length amino acid sequence of ANKRD11, and the ordinate represents the frequency

ANKRD11 variants and short stature in patients with KBGS

Frequency of occurrence of short stature in patients with ankrd11 variants.

Short stature is defined as height less than − 2 standard deviation (SD) or below the third percentile of corresponding mean height for age-, gender- and race-matched populations [ 105 , 106 ]. As widely recognized, height is a highly heritable characteristic, and is classically influenced by hundreds of common variants pinpointed by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) [ 107 , 108 ]. By comparison, the impact of rare and low-frequency monogenic variants on height is more pronounced, yielding a larger effect size compared to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [ 109 , 110 ]. Finding new genes with rare deleterious variants relating to growth is of considerable significance. Case series and individual reports serve as valuable sources of evidence for investigating the frequency of occurrence of short stature among patients harboring ANKRD11 variants. In 121 patients reported with height SDS, a significant proportion, amounting to 48.76% (59/121), exhibited a height below the − 2 SDS (Fig.  4 A). This prevalence was observed with nearly equal frequency across genders, with female patients exhibiting a rate of 46.43% (26/56) and male patients exhibiting a rate of 49.02% (25/51). The height SDS of females and males were − 1.80 ± 1.27 and − 1.85 ± 1.28 SDS, respectively. Upon incorporating additional patients recorded with height percentile values into the analysis, the proportion of patients with short stature was found to be 47.35% (116/245). Moreover, while some patients did not exhibit short stature, their adult height SDS or growth percentile might be lower than expected if their genetic potential (mid-parental height) was taken into account. However, most studies did not report patients’ genetic potential for height, making it challenging to extract this specific information from the published literature. Overall, approximately half of the patients with ANKRD11 variants exhibited short stature, consequently, this characteristic stand as an important manifestation of KBGS attributable to ANKRD11 variants. Certainly, compared to other features, the incidence of short stature was less frequent than that of craniofacial anomalies (100%), dental anomalies (80%) and intellectual disability (77%) [ 48 ]. Notably, patients with ANKRD11 variants displayed a variable height phenotype ranging from as low as -4.9 SDS to as high as + 1.5 SDS. It can be ascribed to several factors, including genetic context of the gene, modified penetrance, variant type and variant location [ 111 , 112 ]. There was no significant difference in height SDS among patients with ANKRD11 variants located in different regions or with different ANKRD11 variant types ( p  > 0.05) (Fig.  4 B&C). Previous investigation has revealed that terminations close to the C-terminus of the ANKRD11 protein tended to have less severe short stature, but the research did not yield a statistically significant difference or a clear trend in the severity of short stature among the various types of ANKRD11 variants [ 39 ]. The findings of the current study indicated that no genotype-phenotype correlation was established. Certainly, a limited number of patients with ANKRD11 variants across different domains present a significant constraint on this conclusion.

Distribution of gender and height SDS of patients having ANKRD11 variants ( A ) and comparison of height SDS of patients having ANKRD11 variants within different domain ( B ) or having different ANKRD11 variant types ( C ). ANK: ankyrin repeat domain, RD1: repression domain 1, AD: activation domain, RD2: repression domain 2

Frequency of ANKRD11 pathogenic variants in short-stature cohorts

Functional variants in the ANKRD11 gene have been identified through exome sequencing or gene panels in multiple short-stature cohorts (Table  1 ). The frequency of pathogenic variants was estimated to be between 0.35% and 0.55% [ 43 , 68 , 79 , 113 ]. These variants were identified in patients initially diagnosed as having syndromic short stature, however, subsequent molecular diagnosis facilitated a more precise diagnosis of KBG syndrome. Syndromic short stature represents a phenotypic and genetically heterogeneous disease, and it accounts for a large part of the etiology of short stature. Considering the wide range of phenotypic manifestations and variable degree of severity, certain patients with short stature suffering from KBGS may not be accurately diagnosed in clinical practice. Consequently, it is likely that these patients harbor rare pathogenic variants in the ANKRD11 gene, which may elude detection and result in their classification within the vast and enigmatic group of short stature with undetermined etiologies. Genetic testing should be factored into precise diagnosis of syndromic short stature in the future. Based on previous studies estimating the occurrence of short stature at approximately 3% [ 114 , 115 , 116 ], the prevalence of ANKRD11 variants in the general population could be roughly calculated to be in the range of 0.0105–0.0165%. Nevertheless, given the limited sample sizes and the variability among different cohorts studied for short stature, the frequency of ANKRD11 variants remains uncertain and requires a more accurate assessment. This evaluation should ideally be conducted through large-scale population screenings, employing artificial intelligence-enhanced phenotyping in conjunction with genetic testing [ 117 ]. Despite the growing awareness and attention this condition has recently garnered in the clinical and genetic research communities, there remains a significant gap in the identification and management of KBGS patients. Therefore, the development of international consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of KBGS is of paramount importance.

Recombinant human growth hormone therapy

In 1985, recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of children with severe GHD. Since then, over the past nearly forty years, the application of rhGH has been progressively expanded to enhance the height outcomes in children with a variety of growth disorders, including chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), ISS, SGA without catch-up growth, Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS), Noonan syndrome (NS), Turner syndrome (TS) and SHOX haploinsufficiency [ 118 , 119 ]. The advent of high-throughput sequencing technology has ushered in a period of rapid advancement in the field of genetics and genomics, and this progress has significantly broadened our capacity for diagnosing and treating conditions associated with short stature. We are now entering a transformative era characterized by molecular diagnosis and the tailoring of therapeutic interventions to the specific genetic makeup of individuals, including their responsiveness to rhGH therapy [ 120 ]. It has been observed that pathogenic variants in the aggrecan ( ACAN ), natriuretic peptide receptor 2 ( NPR2 ), and Indian hedgehog ( IHH ) genes, which are integral to growth plate development, have been consistently associated with a positive response to rhGH therapy [ 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 ]. In this review, we delineated the growth response observed in patients harboring ANKRD11 variants who received rhGH therapy (Table  2 ). The ages at initiation of rhGH treatment ranged from 5.2 to 14 years, and the treatment duration extended from 0.58 to 3 years. Following rhGH treatment, all patients exhibited varying levels of catch-up growth, as reflected by a range in Δ height SDS from 0.14 to 1.87. Among the nine patients, five showed a significant height improvement, reaching values above − 2 SDS ( -0.75 SDS for patient 3, − 0.7 SDS for patient 4, -1.86 SDS for patient 5, -1.8 SDS for patient 8 and − 1.91 SDS for patient 9). Most patients displayed either a good or moderate response to rhGH therapy. However, there was an exception with patient 3, a 7.9-year-old girl, whose height SDS only increased by 0.14 following a continuous treatment period of 0.58 years. Practically, a four-year-old girl form Australia with ANKRD11 variant (c.6472G > T, p.Glu2158*), showed no response to rhGH therapy [ 49 ]. The girl was not included in Table  2 due to the lack of height data. The potential existence of additional factors that may be contributing to the suboptimal response to rhGH remains uncertain.

Given the evidence suggesting that the ANKRD11 gene acts as a potential tumor suppressor due to its interaction with the p53 protein, particular attention should be paid to the safety profile of rhGH therapy, particularly oncogenic risks [ 126 ]. However, observational studies have reported no increased risk of mortality or the development of primary cancers among pediatric patients receiving rhGH treatment [ 127 , 128 , 129 ]. The implementation of cancer surveillance in patients clinically diagnosed as having KBGS due to ANKRD11 variants has been previously contemplated, and few patients were reported to develop malignant tumors [ 130 , 131 ]. Short stature is one of all KBGS phenotypes that can be effectively treated with growth-promoting drugs, but there are few patients receiving rhGH treatment. The approval and accessibility of rhGH therapy for KBGS may be limited in certain countries, which highlights the imperative for further investigation and research within this specialized domain. In alignment with the recommendations proposed by Reynaert et al. [ 58 ], we advocate for a more favorable stance towards the implementation of short-term rhGH therapy for ANKRD11 variant-induced KBGS patients with severe short stature.

Underlying mechanisms of ANKRD11 variants causing short stature

Human longitudinal bone growth is persistently driven by the process of endochondral ossification within the epiphyseal growth plate that is characterized by three histologically distinct zones (resting, proliferative, and hypertrophic zones) throughout the stages of postnatal development [ 132 ]. As the slowly-cycling reserve cells, resting chondrocytes are maintained in a wingless-related integration site (Wnt)-inhibitory environment, and it contains a certain proportion of parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP)-expressing skeletal stem-like cells producing rapidly proliferating columnar chondrocytes parallel to the direction of bone elongation [ 133 ]. Proliferative zone chondrocytes will differentiate into hypertrophic chondrocytes characterized by specific expression of type X collagen gene ( Col10a1 ), and further undergo apoptosis or osteoblasts trans-differentiation, thereby contributing to bone elongation [ 134 , 135 ]. The orchestrated differentiation of chondrocytes within the growth plate is governed by a complex interplay of numerous genes that are involved in a variety of signaling pathways, including hormonal signaling, paracrine signaling, intracellular pathways and extracellular matrix homeostasis (Fig.  5 ) [ 68 , 136 , 137 , 138 ]. Functional variants in any of these genes can disrupt the growth plate chondrogenesis and impair the subsequent bone elongation. It was hypothesized that ANKRD11 plays a direct role in the transcriptional regulation of certain critical genes via intracellular pathways in the process of growth plate development [ 68 ]. In a prior investigation, Yoda mice with an N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)-induced mutation in the ANKRD11 gene, exhibited a markedly reduced body size and presented with a phenotype reminiscent of osteoporosis compared to littermate controls [ 3 ]. However, no alterations were observed in the histological structure of the tibial growth plate and plasma IGF-1 level between six-month-old Yoda mice and wild-type mice. Given that growth plate in rodents do not undergo fusion but are instead subject to an age-related decrease following sexual maturation [ 139 ], it can be inferred that adult mice with ANKRD11 deficiency may not well accurately reflect the aberrant differentiation process of growth plate chondrocytes during rapid bone elongation. Data obtained from the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC) indicate that C57BL/6 N mice carrying a heterozygous ANKRD11 tm1b(EUCOMM)Wtsi allele exhibited a reduction in body length when compared to their littermate controls ( https://www.mousephenotype.org/data/genes/MGI:1924337 ). Additionally, mice with a conditional deletion of the ANKRD11 gene in neural crest cells dispalyed ossification centers that were either incapable of expansion or failed to fuse, demonstrating the critical regulatory role of ANKRD11 gene in intramembranous ossification [ 22 ]. In vitro studies further revealed that ANKRD11 was capable of enhancing the transactivation of the p21 gene, a key factor in the chondrogenic differentiation of ATDC5 cells induced by insulin supplements [ 61 ]. The chondrogenic differentiation of ATDC5 cells induced by insulin-transferrin-selenium is a widely recognized in vitro model mimicking endochondral ossification [ 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 ]. The potential role of the ANKRD11-p21 signaling pathway in growth plate development as a plausible mechanism to elucidate the short stature observed in KBGS patients warrants further investigation. To elucidate the functional mechanisms of the ANKRD11 gene in the physiological process of growth plate development, it is essential to conduct further study employing a mouse model with chondrocyte-specific ANKRD11 ablation, utilizing the CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre/LoxP recombination system.

Disease-causing genes associated with short stature through affecting the endochondral ossification of epiphyseal growth plate. The ANKRD11 gene may be implicated in this process as a transcription regulator. RZ: resting zone, PZ: proliferative zone, PHZ: prehypertrophic zone, HZ: hypertrophic zone

Conclusions

Frameshift and nonsense were the most common types of ANKRD11 variants. Approximately half of the KBGS patients harboring ANKRD11 variants had short stature. However, the current study has not established a clear correlation between the genotype and this phenotypic manifestation. Some patients harboring ANKRD11 variants may initially be diagnosed as syndromic short stature due to limited recognition of KBGS. While patients with ANKRD11 variants exhibit a positive response to rhGH therapy, further investigation is warranted to substantiate its efficacy and safety. Functional variants in the ANKRD11 gene can potentially disrupt the longitudinal growth of bones by influencing the orderly differentiation process of growth plate chondrocytes, which needs deeper investigation through fundamental research to elucidate its underlying mechanisms.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Abbreviations

American college of medical genetics and genomics

Activation domain

Alteration/deficiency in activation 3

Amplified in breast cancer 1

Association for molecular pathology

Ankyrin repeats-containing cofactor

Ankyrin repeat domain containing-protein 11

One-way analysis of variance

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor

[(CAMP-response-element binding protein)-binding protein]-associated factor

(CAMP-response-element binding protein)-binding protein

CAMP-response-element binding protein

Chronic renal insufficiency

Electroencephalogram

N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea

Estrogen receptor

Food and drug administration

Growth hormone

Growth hormone deficiency

Growth hormone insensitivity

Genome-wide association study

Histone acetylase

Histone deacetylase

Histone 3 lysine 9

Histone 4 lysine 5

Histone 4 lysine 8

Histone 4 lysine 16

Height standard deviation score

Hypertrophic zone

Insulin-like growth factor

Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3

Isolated growth hormone deficiency

Indian hedgehog

International mouse phenotyping onsortium

Insertion or deletion

Intelligence quotient

Idiopathic short stature

Ligand-binding domain

Multiple pituitary hormone deficiency

Magnetic resonance imaging

Nuclear localization signal

Natriuretic peptide receptor 2

Nuclear receptors

Noonan syndrome

Online mendelian inheritance in man

Per-Arnt-Sim

Parathyroid hormone-related protein

Protein-truncating variant

Prader-Willi syndrome

Proliferative zone

Repression domain

Recombinant human growth hormone

Resting zone

Standard deviation

Standard deviation score

Small for gestational age

Single nucleotide polymorphism

Secondary ossification center

Transcriptional enhanced associate domain

Tyrosine receptor kinase B

Turner syndrome

Whole exome sequencing

Wingless-related integration site

Yes-associated protein

Kang Y, He D, Li Y, Zhang Y, Shao Q, Zhang M, et al. A heterozygous point mutation of the ANKRD11 (c.2579C > T) in a Chinese patient with idiopathic short stature. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019;7(12):e988.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Parenti I, Mallozzi MB, Huning I, Gervasini C, Kuechler A, Agolini E, et al. ANKRD11 variants: KBG syndrome and beyond. Clin Genet. 2021;100(2):187–200.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barbaric I, Perry MJ, Dear TN, Rodrigues Da Costa A, Salopek D, Marusic A, et al. An ENU-induced mutation in the Ankrd11 gene results in an osteopenia-like phenotype in the mouse mutant Yoda. Physiol Genomics. 2008;32(3):311–21.

Mosavi LK, Cammett TJ, Desrosiers DC, Peng ZY. The ankyrin repeat as molecular architecture for protein recognition. Protein Sci. 2004;13(6):1435–48.

Zhang AH, Li CW, Chen JD. Characterization of transcriptional regulatory domains of ankyrin repeat cofactor-1. Biochem Bioph Res Co. 2007;358(4):1034–40.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Neilsen PM, Cheney KM, Li CW, Chen JD, Cawrse JE, Schulz RB, et al. Identification of ANKRD11 as a p53 coactivator. J Cell Sci. 2008;121(21):3541–52.

Zhang AH, Yeung PL, Li CW, Tsai SC, Dinh GK, Wu XY, et al. Identification of a novel family of ankyrin repeats containing cofactors for p160 nuclear receptor coactivators. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(32):33799–805.

Li CW, Dinh GK, Zhang AH, Chen JD. Ankyrin repeats-containing cofactors interact with ADA3 and modulate its co-activator function. Biochem J. 2008;413:349–57.

Whitmore SA, Crawford J, Apostolou S, Eyre H, Baker E, Lower KM, et al. Construction of a high-resolution physical and transcription map of chromosome 16q24.3: a region of frequent loss of heterozygosity in sporadic breast cancer. Genomics. 1998;50(1):1–8.

Powell JA, Gardner AE, Bais AJ, Hinze SJ, Baker E, Whitmore S, et al. Sequencing, transcript identification, and quantitative gene expression profiling in the breast cancer loss of heterozygosity region 16q24.3 reveal three potential tumor-suppressor genes. Genomics. 2002;80(3):303–10.

Garee JP, Chien CD, Li JV, Wellstein A, Riegel AT. Regulation of HER2 oncogene transcription by a multifunctional coactivator/corepressor complex. Mol Endocrinol. 2014;28(6):846–59.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kushner MH, Ory V, Graham GT, Sharif GM, Kietzman WB, Thevissen S, et al. Loss of ANCO1 repression at AIB1/YAP targets drives breast cancer progression. Embo Rep. 2020;21(1):e48741.

Lim SP, Wong NC, Suetani RJ, Ho K, Ng JL, Neilsen PM, et al. Specific-site methylation of tumor suppressor ANKRD11 in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(17):3300–9.

Herrmann J, Pallister PD, Tiddy W, Opitz JM. The KBG syndrome-a syndrome of short stature, characteristic facies, mental retardation, macrodontia and skeletal anomalies. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1975;11(5):7–18.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sirmaci A, Spiliopoulos M, Brancati F, Powell E, Duman D, Abrams A, et al. Mutations in ANKRD11 cause KBG syndrome, characterized by intellectual disability, skeletal malformations, and macrodontia. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;89(2):289–94.

Morel Swols D, Foster IIJ, Tekin M. KBG syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):183.

Cucco F, Sarogni P, Rossato S, Alpa M, Patimo A, Latorre A, et al. Pathogenic variants in EP300 and ANKRD11 in patients with phenotypes overlapping Cornelia De Lange syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182(7):1690–6.

Miyatake S, Okamoto N, Stark Z, Nabetani M, Tsurusaki Y, Nakashima M, et al. ANKRD11 variants cause variable clinical features associated with KBG syndrome and coffin-siris-like syndrome. J Hum Genet. 2017;62(8):741–6.

Walz K, Cohen D, Neilsen PM, Foster IIJ, Brancati F, Demir K, et al. Characterization of ANKRD11 mutations in humans and mice related to KBG syndrome. Hum Genet. 2015;134(2):181–90.

Gallagher D, Voronova A, Zander MA, Cancino GI, Bramall A, Krause MP, et al. Ankrd11 is a chromatin Regulator involved in Autism that is essential for neural development. Dev Cell. 2015;32(1):31–42.

Ka MH, Kim WY. ANKRD11 associated with intellectual disability and autism regulates dendrite differentiation via the BDNF/TrkB signaling pathway. Neurobiol Dis. 2018;111:138–52.

Roth DM, Baddam P, Lin HM, Vidal-Garcia M, Aponte JD, De Souza ST, et al. The chromatin regulator Ankrd11 controls palate and cranial bone development. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:645836.

Article   Google Scholar  

Yana K, Elia A, Ronan N, Adrianne W, Irina P, Nicole D, et al. The chromatin regulator Ankrd11 controls cardiac neural crest cell-mediated outflow tract remodeling and heart function. Nat Commun. 2024;15:4632.

Elena MC, Fiona BK, Fermina LG, Saoud TS, Rosario LR, Rebeca LDP, Ignacio MF, Beatriz M, et al. Clinical description, molecular delineation and genotype-phenotype correlation in 340 patients with KBG syndrome: addition of 67 new patients. J Med Genet. 2023;60:644–54.

Xu MZ, Zhou HL, Yong J, Cong PK, Li CJ, Yu YS, et al. A Chinese patient with KBG syndrome and a 9q31.2-33.1 microdeletion. Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56(5):245–50.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Benson KA, White M, Allen NM, Byrne S, Carton R, Comerford E, et al. A comparison of genomic diagnostics in adults and children with epilepsy and comorbid intellectual disability. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28(8):1066–77.

Chen J, Xia ZM, Zhou YL, Ma XM, Wang XD, Guo QW. A de novo frameshift variant of ANKRD11 (c.1366_1367dup) in a Chinese patient with KBG syndrome. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14(1):68.

Kim HJ, Cho E, Park JB, Im WY, Kim HJ. A Korean family with KBG syndrome identified by ANKRD11 mutation, and phenotypic comparison of ANKRD11 mutation and 16q24.3 microdeletion. Eur J Med Genet. 2015;58(2):86–94.

Low K, Hills A, Williams M, Duff-Farrier C, McKee S, Smithson SF. A splice-site variant in ANKRD11 associated with classical KBG syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173(10):2844–6.

Tanaka Y, Morisada N, Suzuki T, Ohashi Y, Ye MJ, Nozu K, et al. A woman with a dual genetic diagnosis of autosomal dominant tubulointerstitial kidney disease and KBG syndrome. CEN Case Rep. 2021;10(2):184–8.

de la Jimenez M, Fernandez-Mayoralas DM, Lopez-Martin S, Albert J, Calleja-Perez B, Fernandez-Perrone AL, et al. Abnormal frontal gyrification pattern and uncinate development in patients with KBG syndrome caused by ANKRD11 aberrations. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2021;35:8–15.

Cianci P, Pezzoli L, Maitz S, Agosti M, Iascone M, Selicorni A. Dual genetic diagnoses: neurofibromatosis type 1 and KBG syndrome. Clin Dysmorphol. 2020;29(2):101–3.

Li Q, Yang L, Wu J, Lu W, Zhang M, Luo F. A case of KBG syndrome caused by mutation of ANKRD11 gene and literature review. Chin J Evid Based Pediatr. 2018;13(6):452–8.

Google Scholar  

Bianchi PM, Bianchi A, Digilio MC, Tucci FM, Sitzia E, De Vincentiis GC. Audiological findings in a de novo mutation of ANKRD11 gene in KBG syndrome: report of a case and review of the literature. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;103:109–12.

Parenti I, Gervasini C, Pozojevic J, Graul-Neumann L, Azzollini J, Braunholz D, et al. Broadening of cohesinopathies: exome sequencing identifies mutations in ANKRD11 in two patients with Cornelia De Lange-overlapping phenotype. Clin Genet. 2016;89(1):74–81.

Wojciechowska K, Nurzynska-Flak J, Styka B, Kacprzak M, Lejman M. Case report: two newly diagnosed patients with KBG syndrome-two different molecular changes. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:649043.

Low K, Ashraf T, Canham N, Clayton-Smith J, Deshpande C, Donaldson A, et al. Clinical and genetic aspects of KBG syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(11):2835–46.

Goldenberg A, Riccardi F, Tessier A, Pfundt R, Busa T, Cacciagli P, et al. Clinical and molecular findings in 39 patients with KBG syndrome caused by deletion or mutation of ANKRD11. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(11):2847–59.

Li Q, Sun C, Yang L, Lu W, Luo F. Comprehensive analysis of clinical spectrum and genotype associations in Chinese and literature reported KBG syndrome. Transl Pediatr. 2021;10(4):834–42.

Aoi H, Mizuguchi T, Ceroni JR, Kim VEH, Furquim I, Honjo RS, et al. Comprehensive genetic analysis of 57 families with clinically suspected Cornelia De Lange syndrome. J Hum Genet. 2019;64(10):967–78.

Mattei D, Cavarzere P, Gaudino R, Antoniazzi F, Piacentini G. DYSMORPHIC features and adult short stature: possible clinical markers of KBG syndrome. Ital J Pediatr. 2021;47(1):15.

Ockeloen CW, Willemsen MH, de Munnik S, van Bon BWM, de Leeuw N, Verrips A, et al. Further delineation of the KBG syndrome phenotype caused by ANKRD11 aberrations. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(9):1176–85.

Homma TK, Freire BL, Kawahira RSH, Dauber A, Funari MFD, Lerario AM, et al. Genetic disorders in prenatal onset syndromic short stature identified by exome sequencing. J Pediatr. 2019;215:192–8.

Ansari M, Poke G, Ferry Q, Williamson K, Aldridge R, Meynert AM, et al. Genetic heterogeneity in Cornelia De Lange syndrome (CdLS) and CdLS-like phenotypes with observed and predicted levels of mosaicism. J Med Genet. 2014;51(10):659–68.

Wong JKL, Campbell D, Ngo ND, Yeung F, Cheng G, Tang CSM, et al. Genetic study of congenital bile-duct dilatation identifies de novo and inherited variants in functionally related genes. BMC Med Genomics. 2016;9:75.

Ge XY, Ge L, Hu WW, Li XL, Hu YY. Growth hormone therapy for children with KBG syndrome: a case report and review of literature. World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(6):1172–9.

Alfieri P, Caciolo C, Lazzaro G, Menghini D, Cumbo F, Dentici ML, et al. Cognitive and adaptive characterization of children and adolescents with KBG syndrome: an explorative study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(7):1523.

Gao F, Zhao X, Cao B, Fan X, Li X, Li L, et al. Genetic and phenotypic spectrum of KBG syndrome: a report of 13 new Chinese cases and a review of the literature. J Pers Med. 2022;12(3):407.

Murray N, Burgess B, Hay R, Colley A, Rajagopalan S, McGaughran J, et al. KBG syndrome: an Australian experience. Am J Med Genet A. 2017;173(7):1866–77.

Gnazzo M, Lepri FR, Dentici ML, Capolino R, Pisaneschi E, Agolini E, et al. KBG syndrome: common and uncommon clinical features based on 31 new patients. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182(5):1073–83.

Sayed ISM, Abdel-Hamid MS, Abdel-Salam GMH. KBG syndrome in two patients from Egypt. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182(6):1309–12.

Kleyner R, Malcolmson J, Tegay D, Ward K, Maughan A, Maughan G, et al. KBG syndrome involving a single-nucleotide duplication in ANKRD11. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2016;2(6):a001131.

Libianto R, Wu KH, Devery S, Eisman JA, Center JR. KBG syndrome presenting with brachydactyly type E. Bone. 2019;123:18–22.

Alves RM, Uva P, Veiga MF, Oppo M, Zschaber FCR, Porcu G, et al. Novel ANKRD11 gene mutation in an individual with a mild phenotype of KBG syndrome associated to a GEFS + phenotypic spectrum: a case report. BMC Med Genet. 2019;20(1):16.

Scarano E, Tassone M, Graziano C, Gibertoni D, Tamburrino F, Perri A, et al. Novel mutations and unreported clinical features in KBG syndrome. Mol Syndromol. 2019;10(3):130–8.

Alfieri P, Demaria F, Licchelli S, Santonastaso O, Caciolo C, Digilio MC et al. Obsessive compulsive symptoms and psychopathological profile in children and adolescents with KBG syndrome. Brain Sci. 2019;9(11).

De Bernardi ML, Ivanovski I, Caraffi SG, Maini I, Street ME, Bayat A, et al. Prominent and elongated coccyx, a new manifestation of KBG syndrome associated with novel mutation in ANKRD11. Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176(9):1991–5.

Reynaert N, Ockeloen CW, Savendahl L, Beckers D, Devriendt K, Kleefstra T, et al. Short stature in KBG syndrome: first responses to growth hormone treatment. Horm Res Paediatr. 2015;83(5):361–4.

Bayat A, Møller LB, Hjortshøj TD. Første Danske patient med et genkendeligt genetisk KBG-syndrom. Ugeskr Læger. 2018;180:V11170848.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Latorre-Pellicer A, Ascaso Á, Lucia-Campos C, Gil-Salvador M, Arnedo M, Antoñanzas R, et al. Things are not always what they seem: from Cornelia De Lange to KBG phenotype in a girl with genetic variants in NIPBL and ANKRD11. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2021;9(11):e1826.

Zhang TT, Yang Y, Yin XL, Wang XQ, Ni JH, Dong ZY, et al. Two loss-of-function ANKRD11 variants in Chinese patients with short stature and a possible molecular pathway. Am J Med Genet A. 2021;185(3):710–8.

Kim SJ, Yang A, Park JS, Kwon DG, Lee JS, Kwon YS, et al. Two novel mutations of ANKRD11 gene and wide clinical spectrum in KBG syndrome: case reports and literature review. Front Genet. 2020;11:579805.

Butler MG, Rafi SK, Hossain W, Stephan DA, Manzardo AM. Whole exome sequencing in females with autism implicates novel and candidate genes. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(1):1312–35.

Abe-Hatano C, Iida A, Kosugi S, Momozawa Y, Terao C, Ishikawa K, et al. Whole genome sequencing of 45 Japanese patients with intellectual disability. Am J Med Genet A. 2021;185(5):1468–80.

Kutkowska-Kazmierczak A, Boczar M, Kalka E, Castaneda J, Klapecki J, Pietrzyk A, et al. Wide fontanels, delayed speech development and hoarse voice as useful signs in the diagnosis of KBG syndrome: a clinical description of 23 cases with pathogenic variants involving the ANKRD11 gene or submicroscopic chromosomal rearrangements of 16q24.3. Genes-Basel. 2021;12(8):1257.

de Boer E, Ockeloen CW, Kampen RA, Hampstead JE, Dingemans AJM, Rots D, et al. Missense variants in ANKRD11 cause KBG syndrome by impairment of stability or transcriptional activity of the encoded protein. Genet Med. 2022;24(10):2051–64.

Hong JH, Kim SH, Lee ST, Choi JR, Kang HC, Lee JS, et al. Early diagnosis of KBG syndrome using diagnostic exome sequencing. J Korean Child Neurol Soc. 2018;26(4):272–75.

Li X, Yao R, Chang GY, Li Q, Song C, Li N, et al. Clinical profiles and genetic spectra of 814 Chinese children with short stature. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2022;107(4):972–85.

Nardello R, Mangano GD, Antona V, Fontana A, Striano P, Giorgio E, et al. Electroclinical features and outcome of ANKRD11-related KBG syndrome: a novel report and literature review. Seizure. 2021;85:151–4.

Samanta D, Willis E. Electroencephalographic findings in KBG syndrome: a child with novel mutation in ANKRD11 gene. Acta Neurol Belg. 2015;115(4):779–82.

Popp B, Ekici AB, Thiel CT, Hoyer J, Wiesener A, Kraus C, et al. Exome Pool-Seq in neurodevelopmental disorders. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25(12):1364–76.

Aitken S, Firth HV, McRae J, Halachev M, Kini U, Parker MJ, et al. Finding diagnostically useful patterns in quantitative phenotypic data. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;105(5):933–46.

Miao P, Feng JH, Guo YF, Wang JD, Xu XX, Wang Y, et al. Genotype and phenotype analysis using an epilepsy-associated gene panel in Chinese pediatric epilepsy patients. Clin Genet. 2018;94(6):512–20.

Meyer R, Soellner L, Begemann M, Dicks S, Fekete G, Rahner N, et al. Targeted next generation sequencing approach in patients referred for silver-Russell syndrome testing increases the mutation detection rate and provides decisive information for clinical management. J Pediatr. 2017;187:206–12.

Reuter MS, Chaturvedi RR, Liston E, Manshaei R, Aul RB, Bowdin S, et al. The cardiac genome clinic: implementing genome sequencing in pediatric heart disease. Genet Med. 2020;22(6):1015–24.

Cao YH, Zhang LY, Cao KF, Zhang GY. KBG syndrome: a case report and literature review. J Clin Pediatr. 2020;38(5):335–38.

Yang YY, Wen PQ, Su Z, Wang L, Zhao X. Gender difference in clinical manifestations of KBG syndrome due to variants of ANKRD11 gene. Chin J Med Genet. 2021;7:663–66.

Wang DY, Lai PJ, Li XB. Analysis of ANKRD11 gene variant in a family affected with KBG syndrome. Chin J Med Genet. 2020;37(9):1029–31.

Hauer NN, Popp B, Schoeller E, Schuhmann S, Heath KE, Hisado-Oliva A, et al. Clinical relevance of systematic phenotyping and exome sequencing in patients with short stature. Genet Med. 2018;20(6):630–8.

Bestetti I, Crippa M, Sironi A, Tumiatti F, Masciadri M, Smeland MF, et al. Expanding the molecular spectrum of ANKRD11 gene defects in 33 patients with a clinical presentation of KBG syndrome. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(11):5912.

Wei SS, Li YY, Yang WL, Chen SX, Liu FP, Zhang M, et al. Functional investigation of a novel ANKRD11 frameshift variant identified in a Chinese family with KBG syndrome. Heliyon. 2024;10(6):e28082.

Luca M, Elena C, Fjorilda C, Alice S, Roberto C, Sandra D, et al. A case of early-onset Parkinson’s disease in a patient with KBG syndrome. Neurol Sci. 2023;44:4537–39.

Shangguan HK, Wang J, Lin JD, Huang XZ, Zeng Y, Chen RM. A study on genotypes and phenotypes of short stature caused by epigenetic modification gene variants. Eur J Pediatr. 2024;183(3):1403–14.

Zain A, Sanaa C, Cheryl C, Fowzan A, Stephen S, Sofia F, et al. ANKRD11 pathogenic variants and 16q24.3 microdeletions share an altered DNA methylation signature in patients with KBG syndrome. Hum Mol Genet. 2023;32(9):1429–38.

Adelaide C, Camilla M, Ludovica P, Davide P, Fulvio DA, Veronica CB, et al. Cerebellar heterotopia: broadening the neuroradiological spectrum of KBG syndrome. Cerebellum. 2024;23:1736–40.

Zhang HZ, Guo XN, Yang C, Zhang KH, Wang D, Wang J, et al. Clinical feature and genetic mutation of KBG syndrome diagnosed in neonatal period: a case report. Medicine. 2023;102(40):e35449.

Francesca P, Stefano GC, Gianluca C, Lara V, Manuela N, Giorgia C, et al. Deep phenotyping of the neuroimaging and skeletal features in KBG syndrome: a study of 53 patients and review of the literature. J Med Genet. 2023;60(12):1224–34.

Ola K, Kathleen S, Drake C, Lily G, Elaine M, Anastassia V, et al. Documentation and prevalence of prenatal and neonatal outcomes in a cohort of individuals with KBG syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2023;191(9):2364–75.

Robyn W, Madeline K, Sangeetha Y, Gregory C, Puneet J. Epilepsy in KBG Syndrome: report of additional cases. Pediatr Neurol. 2024;151:138–42.

Auconi M, Serino D, Digilio MC, Gnazzo M, Conti M, Vigevano F, et al. Epilepsy in KBG syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2023;65(5):712–20.

Eoin PD, Kathleen MG, Amre S, Nicholas MA, et al. Epileptic dyskinetic encephalopathy in KBG syndrome: expansion of the phenotype. Epilepsy Behav Rep. 2024;25:100647.

Anna A, Lior G, Shahar St, Gundula P, Ayan M, Zhong R, et al. Genetic insights into childhood-onset schizophrenia: the yield of clinical exome sequencing. Schizophr Res. 2023;252:138–45.

Nada A, Siham CE, Maria Z, Amal C, Lamia A, Amal TI, et al. Identification of two novel ANKRD11 mutations: highlighting incomplete penetrance in KBG syndrome. Ann Lab Med. 2024;44(1):110–7.

Choi YH, Choi JM, Do HS, Hwang SJ, Seo GH, Choi IH, et al. KBG syndrome: clinical features and molecular findings in seven unrelated Korean families with a review of the literature. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2023;11(4):e2127.

Miyake N, Tsurusaki Y, Fukai R, Kushima I, Okamoto N, Ohashi K, et al. Molecular diagnosis of 405 individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01335-7 .

Wang L, Li J, Xu J, Xu Y, Wang J, Feng Y, et al. Clinical and genetic analysis of three children with KBG syndrome due to novel variants of ANKRD11 gene. Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi. 2023;40(1):1–6.

Caceres JF, Kornblihtt AR. Alternative splicing: multiple control mechanisms and involvement in human disease. Trends Genet. 2002;18(4):186–93.

Sevim Bayrak C, Stein D, Jain A, Chaudhary K, Nadkarni GN, Van Vleck TT, et al. Identification of discriminative gene-level and protein-level features associated with pathogenic gain-of-function and loss-of-function variants. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(12):2301–18.

Fu JM, Satterstrom FK, Peng MS, Brand H, Collins RL, Dong S, et al. Rare coding variation provides insight into the genetic architecture and phenotypic context of autism. Nat Genet. 2022;54(9):1320–31.

Rogozin IB, Pavlov YI. Theoretical analysis of mutation hotspots and their DNA sequence context specificity. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat. 2003;544(1):65–85.

Nesta AV, Tafur D, Beck CR. Hotspots of human mutation. Trends Genet. 2021;37(8):717–29.

Seplyarskiy VB, Sunyaev S. The origin of human mutation in light of genomic data. Nat Rev Genet. 2021;22(10):672–86.

Taylor MS, Ponting CP, Copley RR. Occurrence and consequences of coding sequence insertions and deletions in mammalian genomes. Genome Res. 2004;14(4):555–66.

Montgomery SB, Goode DL, Kvikstad E, Albers CA, Zhang ZDD, Mu XJ, et al. The origin, evolution, and functional impact of short insertion-deletion variants identified in 179 human genomes. Genome Res. 2013;23(5):749–61.

Wang PP, Ji BL, Shao Q, Zhang M, Ban B. Association between insulin-like growth factor-1 and uric acid in Chinese children and adolescents with idiopathic short stature: a cross-sectional study. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:4259098.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhao Q, Zhang M, Chu Y, Sun H, Pan H, Ban B. A retrospective analysis of patients with short stature in Eastern China between 2013 and 2019. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:6640026.

Yang J, Benyamin B, McEvoy BP, Gordon S, Henders AK, Nyholt DR, et al. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat Genet. 2010;42(7):565–9.

Durand C, Rappold GA. Height matters-from monogenic disorders to normal variation. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013;9(3):171–7.

Marouli E, Graff M, Medina-Gomez C, Lo KS, Wood AR, Kjaer TR, et al. Rare and low-frequency coding variants alter human adult height. Nature. 2017;542(7640):186–90.

Dauber A, Rosenfeld RG, Hirschhorn JN. Genetic evaluation of short stature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(9):3080–92.

Vu V, Verster AJ, Schertzberg M, Chuluunbaatar T, Spensley M, Pajkic D, et al. Natural variation in gene expression modulates the severity of mutant phenotypes. Cell. 2015;162(2):391–402.

Castel SE, Cervera A, Mohammadi P, Aguet F, Reverter F, Wolman A, et al. Modified penetrance of coding variants by cis-regulatory variation contributes to disease risk. Nat Genet. 2018;50(9):1327–34.

Fan X, Zhao S, Yu C, Wu D, Yan Z, Fan L, et al. Exome sequencing reveals genetic architecture in patients with isolated or syndromic short stature. J Genet Genomics. 2021;48(5):396–402.

Rappold GA, Fukami M, Niesler B, Schiller S, Z-umkeller W, Bettendorf M, et al. Deletions of the homeobox gene SHOX (short stature homeobox) are an important cause of growth failure in children with short stature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87(3):1402–6.

Argente J. Challenges in the management of short stature. Horm Res Paediatr. 2016;85(1):2–10.

Grunauer M, Jorge AAL. Genetic short stature. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2018;38:29–33.

Guo L, Park J, Yi E, Marchi E, Hsieh T, Kibalnyk Y et al. KBG syndrome: videoconferencing and use of artificial intelligence driven facial phenotyping in 25 new patients. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;1–11.

Ranke MB, Wit JM. Growth hormone-past, present and future. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(5):285–300.

Collett-Solberg PF, Jorge AAL, Boguszewski MCS, Miller BS, Choong CSY, Cohen P, et al. Growth hormone therapy in children; research and practice-a review. Growth Horm Igf Res. 2019;44:20–32.

Dauber A. Genetic testing for the child with short stature-has the time come to change our diagnostic paradigm? J Clin Endocr Metab. 2019;104(7):2766–9.

Muthuvel G, Dauber A, Alexandrou E, Tyzinski L, Andrew M, Hwa V, et al. Treatment of short stature in aggrecan-deficient patients with recombinant human growth hormone: 1-year response. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2022;107(5):E2103–9.

van der Steen M, Pfundt R, Maas SJWH, Waarde WMBV, Odink RJ, Hokken-Koelega ACS. ACAN gene mutations in short children born SGA and response to growth hormone treatment. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2017;102(5):1458–67.

Ke XA, Liang HT, Miao H, Yang HB, Wang LJ, Gong FY, et al. Clinical characteristics of short-stature patients with an NPR2 mutation and the therapeutic response to rhGH. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2021;106(2):431–41.

Plachy L, Dusatkova P, Maratova K, Petruzelkova L, Zemkova D, Elblova L, et al. NPR2 variants are frequent among children with familiar short stature and respond well to growth hormone therapy. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2020;105(3):E746–52.

Vasques GA, Funari MFA, Ferreira FM, Aza-Carmona M, Sentchordi-Montane L, Barraza-Garcia J, et al. IHH gene mutations causing short stature with nonspecific skeletal abnormalities and response to growth hormone therapy. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2018;103(2):604–14.

Noll JE, Jeffery J, Al-Ejeh F, Kumar R, Khanna KK, Callen DF, et al. Mutant p53 drives multinucleation and invasion through a process that is suppressed by ANKRD11. Oncogene. 2012;31(23):2836–48.

Child CJ, Zimmermann AG, Chrousos GP, Cummings E, Deal CL, Hasegawa T, et al. Safety outcomes during pediatric GH therapy: final results from the prospective GeNeSIS observational program. J Clin Endocr Metab. 2019;104(2):379–89.

Child CJ, Zimmermann AG, Jia N, Robison LL, Bramswig JH, Blum WF. Assessment of primary cancer incidence in growth hormone-treated children: comparison of a multinational prospective observational study with population databases. Horm Res Paediat. 2016;85(3):198–206.

Wilton P, Mattsson AF, Darendeliler F. Growth hormone treatment in children is not associated with an increase in the incidence of cancer: experience from KIGS (Pfizer International Growth Database). J Pediatr. 2010;157(2):265–70.

Behnert A, Auber B, Steinemann D, Frühwald MC, Huisinga C, Hussein K, et al. KBG syndrome patient due to 16q24. 3 microdeletion presenting with a paratesticular rhabdoid tumor: coincidence or cancer predisposition? Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176(6):1449–54.

Isrie M, Hendriks Y, Gielissen N, Sistermans EA, Willemsen MH, Peeters H, et al. Haploinsufficiency of ANKRD11 causes mild cognitive impairment, short stature and minor dysmorphisms. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20(2):131–3.

Lui JC. Home for a rest: stem cell niche of the postnatal growth plate. J Endocrinol. 2020;246(1):R1–11.

Hallett SA, Matsushita Y, Ono W, Sakagami N, Mizuhashi K, Tokavanich N, et al. Chondrocytes in the resting zone of the growth plate are maintained in a wnt-inhibitory environment. Elife. 2021;10:e64513.

Morris SA. Single-cell RNA-seq steps up to the growth plate. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34(7):525–27.

Hallett SA, Ono W, Ono N. Growth plate chondrocytes: skeletal development, growth and beyond. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(23):6009.

Wit JM, Oostdijk W, Losekoot M, van Duyvenvoorde HA, Ruivenkamp CA, Kant SG. MECHANISMS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY: novel genetic causes of short stature. Eur J Endocrinol. 2016;174(4):R145–73.

Baron J, Savendahl L, De Luca F, Dauber A, Phillip M, Wit JM, et al. Short and tall stature: a new paradigm emerges. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2015;11(12):735–46.

Faienza MF, Chiarito M, Brunetti G, D’Amato G. Growth plate gene involment and isolated short stature. Endocrine. 2021;71(1):28–34.

Borjesson AE, Lagerquist MK, Windahl SH, Ohlsson C. The role of estrogen receptor alpha in the regulation of bone and growth plate cartilage. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2013;70(21):4023–37.

Negishi Y, Ui N, Nakajima M, Kawashima K, Maruyama K, Takizawa T, et al. p21Cip-1/SDI-1/WAF-1 gene is involved in chondrogenic differentiation of ATDC5 cells in vitro. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(35):33249–56.

Yao Y, Wang Y. ATDC5: an excellent in vitro model cell line for skeletal development. J Cell Biochem. 2013;114(6):1223–9.

Cheng X, Li P, Wang G, Yan Y, Li K. Microbiota-derived lipopolysaccharide retards chondrocyte hypertrophy in the growth plate through elevating Sox9 expression. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(3):2593–605.

Dong X, Xu X, Yang C, Luo Y, Wu Y, Wang J. USP7 regulates the proliferation and differentiation of ATDC5 cells through the Sox9-PTHrP-PTH1R axis. Bone. 2021;143:115714.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was supported by Research Fund for Academician Lin He New Medicine (JYHL2019FZD01) and the PhD Research Foundation of Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University (2018-BS-007), and was partly supported by Shandong Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Development Plans Project (2019 − 0486).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Endocrinology, Genetics and Metabolism, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, 272029, China

Dongye He, Mei Zhang, Yanying Li, Fupeng Liu & Bo Ban

Medical Research Center, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, China

Dongye He, Fupeng Liu & Bo Ban

Chinese Research Center for Behavior Medicine in Growth and Development, Jining, China

Mei Zhang, Yanying Li & Bo Ban

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DYH performed the literature search and wrote the manuscript. MZ, YYL and FPL performed the literature search and collected ANKRD11 variants from ClinVar database. BB provided guidance on the data collection and critically revised the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dongye He or Bo Ban .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The autors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

He, D., Zhang, M., Li, Y. et al. Insights into the ANKRD11 variants and short-stature phenotype through literature review and ClinVar database search. Orphanet J Rare Dis 19 , 292 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03301-y

Download citation

Received : 03 April 2023

Accepted : 05 August 2024

Published : 12 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03301-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

• ANKRD11 gene
• KBG syndrome
• Hotspot variants
• Short stature
• Growth hormone treatment
• Growth plate development

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

ISSN: 1750-1172

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