what are the stages of a literature review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Oct 23, 2024 11:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Oct 18, 2024 11:42 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

• Knowledge Base
• Get started

How to Write a Literature Review: Comprehensive Strategies and AI Tools

Discover how to craft an effective literature review using comprehensive strategies and AI tools. This guide offers step-by-step advice on organizing sources, synthesizing information, and leveraging AI to streamline the literature review process.

How to Write a Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide

A literature review is an essential part of academic research that involves summarizing, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. It serves as a critical component of the research process, helping you to build a solid foundation for your study by demonstrating your understanding of the current state of knowledge. Whether you are writing a thesis, dissertation, or research paper, a strong literature review not only establishes the foundation of your work but also helps to articulate the significance of your research by highlighting existing gaps, showcasing what has been done, and creating a clear context for your own research to fit into. This means that you are not just summarizing existing literature; you are actively engaging with it to justify the importance of your study and show where your research contributes to advancing the field.

A well-crafted literature review enables you to identify patterns, contradictions, and trends in the research, which ultimately helps you position your own work within the larger academic conversation. It showcases your ability to critically engage with the literature, assess the quality of existing studies, and synthesize information from a wide array of sources to present a cohesive overview. This process of summarizing, analyzing, and synthesizing is essential not just for understanding what has already been discovered, but for demonstrating to your readers and reviewers that you have a thorough grasp of the topic and are aware of the ongoing debates in the field.

In addition to identifying gaps and shaping the framework of your research, a literature review also plays an important role in avoiding redundancy. By thoroughly exploring existing studies, you can ensure that your research addresses new or underexplored areas, thereby making a unique contribution to the field. Whether you are conducting a systematic review to support a hypothesis or providing an overview to set the stage for new questions, an effective literature review is an invaluable tool that guides your entire research process.

In this guide, we will take you through the key steps to writing a comprehensive and well-structured literature review, from formulating a research question to evaluating sources, organizing themes, and writing up your findings. Our aim is to help you approach the task methodically and confidently, ensuring that your literature review not only meets academic standards but also adds significant value to your research project.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical examination of the body of literature related to a particular research topic. It is not merely a summary of past research but a careful and deliberate selection of sources that collectively help shape the narrative of your research. The literature review goes beyond simply presenting what has been said on the topic; it contextualizes your research within the existing body of knowledge, showing how your work builds on, challenges, or fills gaps in the current understanding.

The purpose of a literature review is multifaceted. First and foremost, it demonstrates that you understand the key debates, discussions, and the broader landscape of scholarship in your field. This means critically engaging with the theories, findings, and methodologies of other researchers. By doing so, you establish the relevance of your own research, showing that you are informed about the topic and aware of the ongoing conversations that your study contributes to. Additionally, a literature review identifies gaps that your study aims to fill, helping to justify the need for your research.

A well-conceived literature review involves a careful balance of summarizing, analyzing, and synthesizing the information gathered from different sources. You need to present what each source says, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, and relate it to the overall themes and direction of your study. This requires not only a clear understanding of each individual source but also an ability to draw connections between them, identify common threads, and highlight areas of disagreement or contention. By identifying patterns and drawing comparisons, you create a coherent picture of the existing research and set the stage for your own contributions.

Moreover, a good literature review should guide the reader through the evolution of thought on a topic, showcasing how ideas have developed over time and what questions remain unanswered. You can highlight how different scholars approach the same problem in various ways, thus adding nuance to your discussion. This is especially important for showing that you can critically assess the quality and credibility of existing studies. For example, you might point out methodological strengths in certain works and limitations in others, helping to make a case for the robustness of your approach.

Furthermore, the literature review isn't static—it's part of an ongoing process. New studies and data can emerge even as you conduct your research, which might influence the direction of your study. Therefore, a literature review also requires staying up-to-date with the latest developments, indicating that your research is relevant and responsive to the newest findings in the field. Engaging with the most current literature showcases that your work is informed and that it pushes the boundaries of what is already known.

In addition to these functions, a literature review can also help highlight diverse viewpoints. In some fields, debates and differing opinions are prevalent, and a strong literature review will not shy away from acknowledging these controversies. Instead, it will provide a balanced overview of varying perspectives, indicating the richness and complexity of the research landscape. By addressing these differing viewpoints, you add credibility to your own research, as it shows that you are not ignoring dissenting voices but rather are critically engaging with them to arrive at a well-supported conclusion.

A successful literature review is, therefore, a roadmap for your entire research project. It tells the reader where your research fits in, what it aims to address, and how it plans to do so. It is the bridge between what is already known and what your study aims to discover, and it sets up the foundation upon which your research is built.

Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Literature Review

1. define your research question or topic.

The first step in creating a literature review is to clearly define your research question or topic. Knowing exactly what you are trying to explore will help you focus on finding the right sources. Your topic should be specific enough to limit the scope but broad enough to encompass significant research. Spend some time refining your research question, making sure it is neither too narrow nor too vague. A well-defined topic will serve as the guiding light throughout your literature review process, allowing you to determine what is relevant and what is not.

Consider breaking down your research question into smaller, manageable components. For instance, if your topic is broad, think of sub-questions that can help give your review a more detailed focus. Ask yourself questions like: What are the main concepts or variables involved? Are there specific populations or settings that you want to focus on? Defining these parameters early on will save you time later and will make your literature review more targeted and effective.

It is also helpful to frame your research question in a way that allows for a critical approach. Instead of simply asking "What is the impact of X on Y?" try asking questions that allow for exploration, comparison, or evaluation, such as "How does X compare to Y in terms of impact?" or "What factors influence the relationship between X and Y?" This type of question provides more scope for discussion and synthesis of multiple sources, which is essential for a robust literature review.

Furthermore, take time to review preliminary literature to ensure that your research question is feasible. If you find that there is too much information available, you may need to narrow your focus. Conversely, if there is too little information, you might need to broaden the scope or choose a different angle. The goal is to find a balance where your topic is sufficiently covered in existing literature, but still offers room for your unique contributions. This preparation step will make it much easier to navigate the subsequent phases of your literature review and will help ensure that your efforts are well-directed from the outset.

2. Search for Relevant Literature

The next step is to conduct a thorough search for relevant literature. Start by consulting academic databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to find credible sources. These platforms provide access to a wide variety of academic journals, books, and conference papers that are crucial for a well-rounded review. Make sure to use a combination of keywords, including synonyms and related concepts, to ensure you cover a broad range of research. Experiment with Boolean operators like AND, OR, and NOT to refine your searches effectively and obtain more precise results.

In addition to these databases, consider looking at specialized repositories that are specific to your field of study. For example, PsycINFO is an excellent resource for psychology-related research, while IEEE Xplore is perfect for those focusing on engineering and technology topics. Exploring multiple databases will ensure that your literature search is comprehensive and not restricted to a limited range of sources.

It's also helpful to set aside dedicated time to perform iterative searches. Often, initial searches may not yield all the information needed, and it's necessary to refine your keywords or try new combinations to discover more relevant literature. Keep an organized list of your search terms and the databases you have already explored, as this will help you avoid redundant work and ensure a systematic approach.

Consider keeping an organized list of your sources, including key information like the author, publication year, key arguments, and relevance to your topic. Tools like reference managers (e.g., Zotero, Mendeley) can be invaluable for this task. These tools allow you to store references, take notes, and easily format your bibliography, saving you considerable time in the long run. You may also want to create an annotated bibliography at this stage, summarizing the key points of each source and its relevance. This will help you stay organized and make it easier to integrate these sources into your literature review later.

Don't forget to check the reference lists of the articles you find particularly relevant. This technique, known as 'backward searching,' can lead you to other important studies that you might have missed during your initial search. Similarly, consider 'forward searching,' where you look at newer papers that have cited the article you're reading. This can help you find recent developments and ensure your literature review is up-to-date with the latest research in the field.

3. Evaluate and Select Sources

Not every source is worth including in your literature review. It is important to evaluate the credibility and relevance of the literature you find carefully. Look at several factors, including the methodology used, the reliability of data presented, the author's background and qualifications, and whether the research has been peer-reviewed. Understanding the research design, data collection, and analysis methods will help you determine whether the source is reliable and applicable to your work. Sources with rigorous methodologies are generally more trustworthy and contribute more valuable insights to your review.

Another critical aspect to consider is the publication date. Focus on sources that are up-to-date, particularly in rapidly evolving fields such as technology or medicine. However, older, foundational sources may still be valuable for providing historical context or explaining the evolution of theories over time. Balancing newer sources with seminal works can help provide a well-rounded understanding of your topic, demonstrating both breadth and depth in your literature review.

Additionally, consider the relevance of each source to your specific research question. Not all sources that mention your topic are equally valuable; prioritize those that directly contribute to the argument or context you are building. Ask yourself: Does this source address the specific aspects of my research question? Does it add new insights, support my thesis, or offer a contrasting viewpoint that is worth discussing? Being selective is key, as including too many irrelevant sources can dilute the impact of your literature review.

Evaluate the impact of the research within the field as well. Some studies have a greater influence and are frequently cited by other researchers. These high-impact sources are often critical to understanding the state of research on a topic. Tools like Google Scholar can help you determine how often a source has been cited, which can serve as an indicator of its significance. Including these well-cited sources in your literature review can strengthen the credibility of your arguments.

Don't forget to assess the author's background and potential biases. Knowing the author's credentials, institutional affiliations, and other publications can help you gauge the perspective from which the research is conducted. Authors affiliated with reputable academic institutions or organizations are generally more reliable, but it's still important to be aware of any potential biases that might affect the research. For example, industry-funded studies might be more likely to support outcomes favorable to the sponsor, which is something you should note in your evaluation.

Discard sources that do not meet these criteria. Sources with unclear methodologies, outdated information, questionable reliability, or that lack relevance to your specific research question should be excluded from your review. The goal is to include sources that provide robust, high-quality, and relevant information that helps build a solid foundation for your own research. By being diligent in this evaluation process, you ensure that your literature review is both comprehensive and trustworthy, ultimately supporting the credibility and value of your research project.

4. Identify Key Themes and Gaps

Once you have gathered your literature, start identifying common themes, areas of agreement, and areas of debate. Look closely at the different aspects of your topic that have been explored and note how various studies relate to one another. Are there consistent findings that point to a general consensus? Conversely, are there areas where researchers disagree, presenting conflicting evidence or different interpretations of the data? Recognizing these points of agreement and contention will help you create a balanced and nuanced literature review.

Are there patterns emerging across different studies? For instance, you might find that many researchers have focused on a particular population or context, which can indicate a trend or bias in the field. Highlighting these patterns can help you identify where the majority of research effort has been concentrated and where there may be gaps that need to be addressed. Also, pay attention to methodological similarities or differences—do researchers tend to use the same approaches, or are there contrasting methods that yield different results? Understanding these methodological patterns will give you insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the existing body of research.

Are there gaps or inconsistencies in the research? Identifying gaps in the literature is crucial, as it shows where further exploration is needed. Look for areas that have been overlooked or not sufficiently explored, and think about how your research could fill these voids. Gaps can include under-researched populations, overlooked variables, or even questions that have not been answered satisfactorily. Additionally, inconsistencies in findings are another important aspect to consider—are there studies that contradict one another? If so, why might these discrepancies exist? Could they be due to different methodologies, sample sizes, or interpretations? Highlighting these inconsistencies will not only help you position your work but also indicate the complexity of the topic.

Identifying these aspects will help you organize your review effectively and determine where your own research fits in. By clearly defining the key themes and gaps, you can create a literature review that does more than summarize existing research—it actively critiques and synthesizes the body of work, providing a meaningful context for your own study. This comprehensive approach will help demonstrate the value of your research and show that you are contributing to an ongoing scholarly conversation rather than simply reiterating what has already been done.

5. Structure Your Literature Review

A well-structured literature review typically follows a clear organizational pattern. There are several approaches you can choose from, depending on the nature of your research question and the body of literature available. One common method is the chronological approach , which organizes sources by publication date. This approach is particularly useful when you want to demonstrate how research has evolved over time or when there has been a significant shift in perspectives within your field. For example, you can show how early studies laid the groundwork for later research, or how advancements in technology influenced newer studies and methodologies.

Alternatively, a thematic approach groups sources by major topics, themes, or concepts rather than by time. This is especially useful when multiple studies address similar topics but from different angles or methodologies. By grouping sources thematically, you can highlight the different facets of your topic, such as recurring themes, points of agreement, and areas of debate. This approach can help you provide a more cohesive understanding of the literature, demonstrating how various aspects of the topic connect and interact with one another.

Another option is to use a methodological approach , which organizes sources based on the research methods used. This is particularly effective if you want to highlight how different research methods have contributed to the understanding of a topic. By categorizing studies based on qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, you can analyze the strengths and limitations of each approach and show how different methodologies offer complementary insights. This type of structure can help underscore the robustness of your research question and position your study as filling a methodological gap in the literature.

You may also opt for a theoretical framework approach , where you organize your literature review based on the theoretical perspectives that guide the research. This approach is beneficial when discussing different theoretical lenses, such as social constructivism, positivism, or feminist theory, and how these theories shape the interpretation of findings. By using a theoretical approach, you can give your reader a better understanding of the various frameworks that inform the current body of literature and how your research contributes to or challenges these perspectives.

Make sure your structure makes it easy for readers to understand the evolution of research on your topic. Begin with broader concepts and foundational studies before narrowing down to more specific issues directly related to your research question. Providing a logical flow from general to specific allows your reader to grasp the bigger picture before delving into the finer details, thereby enhancing overall comprehension. Additionally, using subheadings for each section within your chosen structure can improve readability and help your readers navigate the review more effectively.

Regardless of the approach you choose, clarity and logical progression are key. The structure should guide your reader smoothly from one point to the next, helping them understand not only what has been studied but also why each piece of research is important. A well-structured literature review will naturally lead your reader to see the gaps that your research aims to fill, setting up a strong foundation for your research objectives and questions.

6. Write Your Review

Once you have an organized structure, start writing your literature review. Begin with an introduction that explains the scope of your review and outlines the main themes. The introduction should also include the reasons why this literature is relevant to your research, highlighting the gaps that your study will address. Establishing a clear rationale helps orient the reader and sets expectations for what is to come. Mention briefly the methodologies and key concepts that will be explored in your literature review to give the reader a roadmap of the discussion ahead.

In the body , summarize each source and discuss its contributions to the field, providing critical analysis where necessary. Each section of the body should cover a different theme or sub-topic, depending on the organizational approach you have chosen. For each source, consider summarizing the main arguments, but also add your own critical perspective on how the research contributes to the field and how it relates to other studies. Highlight the strengths of each study, such as innovative methodologies or significant findings, as well as the weaknesses, such as limited sample sizes or potential biases. This critical engagement not only adds depth to your literature review but also demonstrates your ability to think analytically about the literature.

Use subheadings to organize themes and make it easier for readers to follow. Subheadings also help to create a logical flow, making it clear how different areas of research link together. When transitioning between sections, use transitional sentences that help the reader understand how the literature evolves from one theme to the next. For instance, after discussing one theme, you could introduce the next by showing how it builds on or contrasts with the previous findings. This approach ensures that the reader is not only absorbing information but also understanding the connections between different pieces of research.

Be sure to include direct quotes where they add value, but use them sparingly and ensure that they are well-integrated into your own writing. Paraphrasing and summarizing are usually more effective because they demonstrate your understanding of the material. When you do use direct quotes, follow them up with a critical interpretation to explain why that particular point is important for your research.

Finish your literature review with a conclusion that ties everything together. Recap the main themes, highlight gaps, and explain how your research will address those gaps. A strong conclusion will reinforce the importance of your research and show that you have laid the foundation for your own work. In addition, the conclusion should reiterate how your findings contribute to the broader field of study and why addressing the identified gaps is essential. This not only establishes the value of your work but also helps the reader see the path forward for future research. If applicable, propose areas for further investigation that arise from your review, which will demonstrate a forward-thinking approach and highlight potential contributions beyond your immediate research.

7. Cite Your Sources Properly

Proper citation is crucial in a literature review. Using the correct citation style required by your institution or publication (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) ensures that your work adheres to academic standards and makes it easy for readers to locate the original sources. The choice of citation style is often based on the discipline—for example, APA is commonly used in social sciences, while MLA is favored in the humanities. Familiarizing yourself with the nuances of your required style will help ensure that your citations are formatted correctly, which reflects positively on your attention to detail.

Correct citation not only adds credibility to your literature review but also helps you avoid plagiarism, which is a serious offense in academic work. Properly acknowledging the contributions of other researchers shows that you have engaged with the existing body of literature and gives credit where it is due. It also allows your readers to verify your sources, which strengthens the reliability of your arguments and demonstrates transparency in your research process. To maintain accuracy, make sure to cite not just direct quotes but also paraphrased ideas and any data or insights that are not your own.

To make this process more manageable, consider using reference managers like Zotero, EndNote, or Mendeley. These tools can help you organize your citations efficiently, allowing you to easily store, organize, and retrieve references. They also enable you to create bibliographies in the required style automatically, saving considerable time when finalizing your literature review. In addition, reference managers can be used to add notes to each reference, helping you keep track of why each source is relevant and how it contributes to your overall review.

Another important consideration is consistency. Ensure that all in-text citations and references in your bibliography follow the same format and meet the guidelines of the chosen citation style. Even minor inconsistencies, such as misplaced commas or incorrect italics, can detract from the professionalism of your work. Taking the time to double-check each citation for consistency will enhance the quality of your literature review.

It may also be beneficial to familiarize yourself with tools like citation guides or online resources (e.g., Purdue OWL) that provide examples and rules for specific citation styles. These resources can be particularly useful when you are unsure about how to cite unusual sources, such as government documents, personal interviews, or multimedia sources. Remember that accurate citation not only validates your work but also contributes to the academic community by making it easier for others to follow the research trail.

Tips for a Successful Literature Review

• Be selective : Don’t try to include everything you find. Focus on high-quality, relevant sources. Prioritize peer-reviewed journal articles, well-regarded books, and foundational texts that provide significant insights into your topic. Selectivity ensures that your literature review remains focused and directly contributes to your research goals.
• Stay organized : Keep a detailed record of your searches and sources. Annotated bibliographies are a useful tool. Tools like Mendeley, EndNote, or Zotero can help you keep your sources organized and allow you to easily insert citations as you write. Creating a system to tag or categorize your sources can make it easier to retrieve information when needed.
• Balance summary with critical analysis : Your literature review should not be a mere collection of summaries. Aim to synthesize and analyze, showing the relationships between different studies. Make connections between sources by highlighting how they build on, support, or contradict each other. This approach will help to provide depth to your review and illustrate the broader conversations happening within your research field.
• Revise and refine : Writing a literature review is an iterative process. Revise your draft to ensure it flows logically and effectively communicates your points. Revisiting and refining the organization of your review can help ensure that your argument builds logically and that your findings are presented in a compelling manner.
• Use mind maps or charts : Visual tools such as mind maps or thematic charts can help you organize ideas and see relationships among various studies more clearly. These tools are particularly useful for identifying themes, gaps, and patterns across multiple sources, and they can make the writing process smoother by providing a visual roadmap of your arguments.
• Keep track of evolving research : Stay updated on new publications even as you are working on your literature review. Use alerts on academic databases to receive notifications of new studies related to your topic. Incorporating the most recent research shows that your review is current and relevant, which can be especially important in rapidly changing fields.
• Consult with peers or advisors : Don’t hesitate to seek feedback on your literature review from peers, advisors, or mentors. They may provide insights or identify gaps that you’ve missed, helping to strengthen the quality of your work. Peer feedback is also helpful for identifying areas where the flow or clarity of your review could be improved.
• Define and refine your scope : Clearly define the scope of your literature review at the outset. Are you focusing on a specific time period, demographic, methodology, or geographic area? Being explicit about your scope will make it easier to decide which sources to include and which to exclude, ensuring that your review remains focused and relevant.
• Develop a critical voice : Don’t simply report what other studies have said; evaluate their contributions. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies used? Are the conclusions justified by the data? Developing a critical voice means that you are actively engaging with the literature and providing your own interpretation rather than passively summarizing.
• Be mindful of biases : Evaluate potential biases in the literature, such as funding sources, publication bias, or the author's background. Addressing these biases in your literature review adds depth and shows your ability to critically engage with the literature, enhancing the credibility of your work.
• Link to your research question : Throughout your review, continually link back to your own research question. Explicitly state how each study relates to or informs your research. This makes your literature review more cohesive and ensures that every source you include serves a purpose in building the foundation for your study.

Final Thoughts

Writing a literature review can feel overwhelming, especially if you’re new to academic research. However, by breaking it down into manageable steps and staying organized, you can create a literature review that provides a solid foundation for your research. Remember, the goal is not just to summarize existing studies but to synthesize the information and create a compelling narrative that supports your research question.

It's important to remember that a literature review is not a one-time task but rather an iterative process. You may need to revisit your review multiple times as new studies emerge or as your research takes on a clearer direction. Each iteration allows you to refine your synthesis, making your arguments stronger and your narrative more compelling. Flexibility is key—be open to changing your perspective if new evidence suggests a better approach or reveals a different gap in the literature.

Another valuable approach is to continuously question the relevance of the literature you include. Ask yourself: Does this source add real value to my argument? Does it strengthen the rationale behind my research question? By being selective and ensuring that each source is directly relevant to your objectives, you can create a focused and impactful literature review. This level of discernment is what differentiates a well-crafted literature review from one that simply lists sources without a cohesive purpose.

Don't underestimate the power of collaboration during the literature review process. Discussing your findings, interpretations, and gaps with peers or mentors can provide new insights that you may not have considered. Feedback from colleagues can help pinpoint areas that need more depth or clarify arguments that are not as strong. Collaboration is particularly helpful when synthesizing diverse viewpoints, as it allows you to gain a different perspective on the same body of literature, adding richness to your review.

Additionally, managing your time effectively is crucial. Set milestones for each stage of your literature review—from identifying your research question to finalizing your written review. Breaking the task into smaller, time-bound goals will not only make it more manageable but will also ensure that you stay on track and do not become overwhelmed by the volume of information. Time management also allows you to allocate periods for revising and refining, which are critical to producing a polished final product.

Finally, remember that a well-written literature review does more than serve as a backdrop for your research; it sets the stage for everything that follows. By establishing a clear context, identifying gaps, and linking existing knowledge to your research objectives, your literature review becomes the foundation that justifies your study. The more effort you put into crafting a cohesive and thorough review, the more effectively it will support your research, helping to establish your credibility as a scholar and making a meaningful contribution to your field.

With practice and careful planning, your literature review can become a powerful part of your academic writing, adding depth and context to your work.

Sourcely weekly newsletters

Cut through the AI noise with a focus on Students! Subscribe for 3 Student AI tools every week to accelerate your academic career.

Join Sourcely weekly newsletters

Ready to get started.

Start today and explore all features with up to 300 characters included. No commitment needed — experience the full potential risk-free!

Check out our other products

Discover cutting-edge research with arXivPulse: Your AI-powered gateway to scientific papers

Don't stress about deadlines. Write better with Yomu and simplify your academic life.

Welcome to Sourcely! Our AI-powered source finding tool is built by students for students, and this approach allows us to create a tool that truly understands the needs of the academic community. Our student perspective also enables us to stay up-to-date with the latest research and trends, and our collaborative approach ensures that our tool is continually improving and evolving.

• Refund Policy
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Friends of Sourcely
• ArXiv Pulse
• Semantic Reader
• AI Tools Inc

© 2024 Sourcely

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review
• Finding Articles
• Try A Citation Manager
• Avoiding Plagiarism

Selecting a Research Topic 

The first step in the process involves exploring and selecting a topic. You may revise the topic/scope of your research as you learn more from the literature. Be sure to select a topic that you are willing to work with for a considerable amount of time.

When thinking about a topic, it is important to consider the following: 

Does the topic interest you?

Working on something that doesn’t excite you will make the process tedious. The research content should reflect your passion for research so it is essential to research in your area of interest rather than choosing a topic that interests someone else. While developing your research topic, broaden your thinking and creativity to determine what works best for you. Consider an area of high importance to your profession, or identify a gap in the research. It may take some time to narrow down on a topic and get started, but it’s worth the effort.

Is the Topic Relevant?

Be sure your subject meets the assignment/research requirements. When in doubt, review the guidelines and seek clarification from your professor. 

What is the Scope and Purpose?

Sometimes your chosen topic may be too broad. To find direction, try limiting the scope and purpose of the research by identifying the concepts you wish to explore. Once this is accomplished, you can fine-tune your topic by experimenting with keyword searches our  A-Z Databases  until you are satisfied with your retrieval results.

Are there Enough Resources to Support Your Research? 

If the topic is too narrow, you may not be able to provide the depth of results needed. When selecting a topic make sure you have adequate material to help with the research. Explore a variety of resources: journals, books, and online information. 

Adapted from https://jgateplus.com/home/2018/10/11/the-dos-of-choosing-a-research-topic-part-1/

Why use keywords to search? 

• Library databases work differently than Google. Library databases work best when you search for concepts and keywords.
• For your research, you will want to brainstorm keywords related to your research question. These keywords can lead you to relevant sources that you can use to start your research project.
• Identify those terms relevant to your research and add 2-3 in the search box. 

Now its time to decide whether or not to incorporate what you have found into your literature review.  E valuate  your resources to make sure they contain information that is authoritative, reliable, relevant and the most useful in supporting your research.

Remember to be:

• Objective : keep an open mind
• Unbiased : Consider all viewpoints, and include all sides of an argument,  even ones that don't support your own

Criteria for Evaluating Research Publications

Significance and Contribution to the Field

• What is the author’s aim?

• To what extent has this aim been achieved?

• What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (theory, data and/or practical application)

• What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?

• What is missing/not stated?

• Is this a problem?

Methodology or Approach (Formal, research-based texts)

• What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc…)

• How objective/biased is the approach?

• Are the results valid and reliable?

• What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?

Argument and Use of Evidence

• Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?

• What claims are made?

• Is the argument consistent?

• What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?

• How valid and reliable is the evidence?

• How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?

• What conclusions are drawn?

• Are these conclusions justified?

Writing Style and Text Structure

• Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non- academic)

• What is the organizing principle of the text?

• Could it be better organized?

Prepared by Pam Mort, Lyn Hallion and Tracey Lee Downey, The Learning Centre © April 2005 The University of New South Wales. 

Analysis: the Starting Point for Further Analysis & Inquiry

After evaluating your retrieved sources you will be ready to explore both what has been  found  and what is  missing . Analysis involves breaking the study into parts,  understanding  each part, assessing the  strength  of evidence, and drawing  conclusions  about its relationship to your topic. 

Read through the information sources you have selected and try to analyze, understand and critique what you read.  Critically  review each source's methods, procedures, data validity/reliability, and other themes of interest.  Consider  how each source approaches your topic in addition to their collective points of  intersection  and  separation .  Offer an appraisal of past and current thinking, ideas, policies, and practices, identify gaps within the research, and place your current work and research within this wider discussion by considering how your research supports, contradicts, or departs from other scholars’ research and offer recommendations for future research.

Top 10 Tips for Analyzing the Research

• Define key terms
• Note key statistics 
• Determine emphasis, strengths & weaknesses
• Critique research methodologies used in the studies
• Distinguish between author opinion and actual results
• Identify major trends, patterns, categories, relationships, and inconsistencies
• Recognize specific aspects in the study that relate to your topic
• Disclose any gaps in the literature
• Stay focused on your topic
• Excluding landmark studies, use current, up-to-date sources

Prepared by the fine librarians at California State University Sacramento. 

Synthesis vs Summary

Your literature review should not simply be a summary of the articles, books, and other scholarly writings you find on your topic. It should synthesize the various ideas from your sources with your own observations to create a map of the scholarly conversation taking place about your research topics along with gaps or areas for further research.

Bringing together your review results is called synthesis. Synthesis relies heavily on pattern recognition and relationships or similarities between different phenomena. Recognizing these patterns and relatedness helps you make  creative connections  between previously unrelated research and identify any gaps.

As you read, you'll encounter various ideas, disagreements, methods, and perspectives which can be hard to organize in a meaningful way.  A  synthesis matrix  also known as a Literature Review Matrix is an effective and efficient method to organize your literature by recording the main points of each source and documenting how sources relate to each other. If you know how to make an Excel spreadsheet, you can create your own synthesis matrix, or use one of the templates below. 

Because a literature review is NOT a summary of these different sources, it can be very difficult to keep your research organized. It is especially difficult to organize the information in a way that makes the writing process simpler. One way that seems particularly helpful in organizing literature reviews is the synthesis matrix. Click on the link below for a short tutorial and synthesis matrix spreadsheet.

• Literature Review and Synthesis
• Lit Review Synthesis Matrix
• Synthesis Matrix Example

A literature review must include a thesis statement, which is your perception of the information found in the literature. 

A literature review: 

• Demonstrates your thorough  investigation  of and acquaintance with sources related to your topic
• Is not a simple listing, but a  critical discussion
• Must  compare  and  contrast  opinions
• Must  relate  your study to previous studies
• Must show  gaps  in research
• Can  focus  on a research question or a thesis
• Includes a  compilation  of the primary questions and subject areas involved
• Identifies  sources

https://custom-writing.org/blog/best-literature-review

Organizing Your Literature Review

The structure of the review is divided into three main parts—an introduction, body, and the conclusion.

Introduction

Discuss what is already known about your topic and what readers need to know in order to understand your literature review. 

• Scope, Method, Framework: ​ Explain your selection criteria and similarities between your sources. Be sure to mention any consistent methods, theoretical frameworks, or approaches.  
• Research Question or Problem Statement:  State the problem you are addressing and why it is important. Try to write your research question as a statement. 
• Thesis : Address the connections between your sources, current state of knowledge in the field, and consistent approaches to your topic. 
• Format:  Describe your literature review’s organization and adhere to it throughout.   

​ Body 

The discussion of your research and its importance to the literature should be presented in a logical structure.

• Chronological: Structure your discussion by the literature’s publication date moving from the oldest to the newest research. Discuss how your research relates to the literature and highlight any breakthroughs and any gaps in the research.
• Historical: Similar to the chronological structure, the historical structure allows for a discussion of concepts or themes and how they have evolved over time.
• Thematic: Identify and discuss the different themes present within the research. Make sure that you relate the themes to each other and to your research.
• Methodological: This type of structure is used to discuss not so much what is found but how. For example, an methodological approach could provide an analysis of research approaches, data collection or and analysis techniques.

Provide a concise summary of your review and provide suggestions for future research.

Writing for Your Audience 

Writing within your discipline means learning:

• the  specialized vocabulary  your discipline uses
• the rhetorical conventions and  discourse  of your discipline
• the research  methodologies  which are employed

Learn how to write in your discipline by  familiarizing  yourself with the journals and trade publications professionals, researchers, and scholars use. 

Use our Databases by Title  to access:

• The best journals
• The most widely circulated trade publications
• The additional ways professionals and researchers communicate, such as conferences, newsletters, or symposiums.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Finding Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://niagara.libguides.com/litreview

Literature Reviews

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

Business & Econ Librarian

Click to Chat with a Librarian

Text: (571) 248-7542

What is a literature review?

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

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

A literature review is NOT:

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

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

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

How do I write a literature review?

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

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

What is the purpose of writing a literature review?

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

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

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

University Library

Write a literature review.

• Examples and Further Information

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• 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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

• Next: Examples and Further Information >>

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License except where otherwise noted.

Land Acknowledgement

The land on which we gather is the unceded territory of the Awaswas-speaking Uypi Tribe. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, comprised of the descendants of indigenous people taken to missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista during Spanish colonization of the Central Coast, is today working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands and heal from historical trauma.

The land acknowledgement used at UC Santa Cruz was developed in partnership with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Chairman and the Amah Mutsun Relearning Program at the UCSC Arboretum .

• Learn How to Use the Library
• Providers & Employees
• Research Help
• All Research Guides

Conducting Literature Reviews

• About Literature Reviews

Process Overview

Step 1: the research question, step 2: search the literature, step 3: manage results, step 4: synthesize information, step 5: write the review.

• Additional Resources
• APA Style (7th ed.) This link opens in a new window

Like research, writing a literature review is an iterative process. Here is a very broad example of the process:

• Frame the research question and determine the scope of the literature review
• Search relevant bodies of literature
• Manage and organize search results
• Synthesize the literature
• Write an assessment of the literature

The initial steps should already be familiar to you, as they parallel steps of the research process you have used before.

Research questions, like topics, must be specific and focused so that you can 1) search for materials to address the question, and 2) write a literature review that is manageable in scope and purpose.

Developing a research question is the next logical step after selecting and then narrowing a topic. It is important to have a research question because it focuses your next step in the literature review process: searching. As Booth (2008) explains in  The Craft of Research : "If a writer asks no specific  question  worth asking, he can offer no specific  answer  worth supporting. And without an answer to support, he cannot select from all the data he  could  find on a topic to just those relevant to his answer" (p. 41).

Once you have selected and narrowed your topic, ask yourself questions about the topic's:

• History (Is is part of a large context? What is its own internal history? How has it changed over time?)
• Structure and composition (Is it part of a larger system/structure? How do its parts fit together?)
• Categorization (Can you compare/contrast it with similar topics? Does it belong to a group of similar kinds?)

You can also:

• Turn positive questions into negative ones by focusing on "nots" (why didn't this happen? why isn't this significant in context?) or by contrasting differences
• Ask "what if" speculative questions (what if your topic disappeared? Was put in a different context?)
• Ask questions suggested by your initial background research, such as those that build on agreement (Author X made a persuasive point...) or reflect disagreement (Author Y's conclusion doesn't account for this contextual element...)

You may find that you need to reframe or revise your question as you continue through the literature process. That's ok! Remember, the literature review process is iterative.

For more detailed information on forming and evaluating research questions, see these books available to order through ILL from OhioLINK.

• OhioLINK Library Catalog This link opens in a new window Catalog of books and other materials held in Ohio college and university libraries.

More Resources

• The Research Process Get help with selecting and narrowing a topic.

General guidance on where to search for sources:

• Where to Find Sources

Subject-specific guidance on where to search for sources:

• Evidence-Based Practice by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 26, 2023 26 views this year
• Finding Legislation, Data, & Statistics by Mike Jundi Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 23 views this year
• Nursing Research by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 84 views this year
• RAD 112 - Introduction to Radiography by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 26 views this year
• Social Work Resources by Mike Jundi Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 17 views this year

How to search for sources by developing a search strategy:

• How to Search for Sources

General guidance on using catalogs and databases:

• Basic Library Tutorials by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 637 views this year

Research management involves collecting, organizing, and citing.

Research management is also based largely on personal preference. Do you have a system that works for you? Great! If you aren't used to research management and/or don't have an effective system in place, you have options.

• Do-it-yourself: maintain your resources on your computer's hard drive or on the cloud (Microsoft OneDrive, Google Drive, DropBox)
• Use a free research management software (Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote)

Regardless of what system you use, it is necessary to keep track of the these elements:

• The literature you found (Did you find full text in a PDF? Save it. Did you find a record in a database, but need to request the article? Save the permalink to the record.)
• The full APA citation for the literature
• An easy way to track results you've found in databases is to create folders

Finally, you will need a note-taking system that will help you record the key concepts from the literature when you read and synthesize it. If you already have one, great! If you struggle with note-taking, see the links below.

What is synthesis?

Synthesizing information is much the opposite of analyzing information. When you read an article or book, you have to pull out specific concepts from the larger document in order to understand it. This is analyzing.

When you synthesize information, you take specific concepts and consider them together to understand how they compare/contrast and how they relate to one another. In other terms, synthesis involves combining multiple elements to create a whole. In regard to literature reviews, the  elements  refer to the findings from the literature you've gathered. The  whole  then becomes your conclusion(s) about those findings.

How do I synthesize information?

Note: This stage in the literature review process is as iterative and personal as any other. These steps offer a guideline, but do what works for you best.

• This is where you really decide if you want to read specific materials
• If you have gathered a substantial amount of literature and reading all of it would prove overwhelming, read the abstracts to get a better idea of the content, then select the materials that would best support your review
• Describe and analyze the findings (What were the results? How did the authors get these results? What are the impacts? Etc.)
• Identify the key concepts
• Compare and contrast findings, concepts, conclusions, methods, etc.
• Evaluate the quality and significance of findings, concepts, conclusions, methods, etc.
• Interpret the findings, concepts, conclusions, methods, etc. in the context of your research question
• This is the step where your synthesis of the information will lead to logical conclusions about that information
• These conclusions should speak directly to your research question (i.e. your question should have an answer)

Visit the link below for helpful resources on note-taking: 

• Other Helpful Tips: Note-Taking & Proofreading

Writing style

You are expected to follow APA Style in your writing. Visit this guide for an introduction, tips, and tutorials:

• APA Style Resources (7th ed.) by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 13, 2023 348 views this year

The structure and flow of your literature review should be logical and should reflect the synthesis you have done.

A common pitfall for students is using an  author-driven structure , which might look something like this:

• Introduction
• Author 1 says x
• Author 2 says y
• Author ∞ says...

Why doesn't the author-driven structure work?

• Leans toward listing or summarizing information
• Doesn't illustrate synthesis of information (all of the findings are listed based on where they came from, not their meaning, impact, or significance)

What structures do work? The APA suggests three structures for literature reviews:

• Theme-based (group studies based on common themes or concepts present)
• Methodology-based (group studies based on the methodologies used)
• Chronological (group studies based on the historical developments in the field)

Theme-based structure 

The theme-based structure is applicable to most bodies of literature you might gather. It may look like this:

• Concept x from author 1
• Concept a from author 5
• Concept y from author 2
• Concepts…

Why does the them-based structure work better?

• It avoids listing information
• It clearly shows the synthesis that occurred
• It illustrates the connections between concepts and the significance of particular concepts
• << Previous: About Literature Reviews
• Next: Additional Resources >>
• Last Updated: Oct 13, 2022 3:08 PM
• URL: https://aultman.libguides.com/literaturereviews

Aultman Health Sciences Library

Aultman Education Center, C2-230, 2600 Sixth St SW, Canton, OH 44710  |  330-363-5000   |  [email protected]

• Franklin University |
• Help & Support |
• Locations & Maps |

• | Research Guides

To access Safari eBooks,

• Select not listed in the Select Your Institution drop down menu.
• Enter your Franklin email address and click Go
• click "Already a user? Click here" link
• Enter your Franklin email and the password you used to create your Safari account.

Continue Close

Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Framing the Literature Review

Literature Review Process

• Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

• 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 of 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value  -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

Development of the Literature Review

Four stages:.

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study and the research questions or hypotheses to follow.
• Places the problem into a particular context  that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provides the framework for reporting the results  and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.
• Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored.
• Evaluation of resources  -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic.
• Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:

Sources and expectations.  if your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:.

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

Find Models.   When reviewing the current literature, examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have organized their literature reviews. Read not only for information, but also to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research review.

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., consider whether your sources are current and applicable.  s ome disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. this is very common in the sciences where research conducted only two years ago could be obsolete. however, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed because what is important is how perspectives have changed over the years or within a certain time period. try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. you can also use this method to consider what is consider by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not., follow the bread crumb trail.  the bibliography or reference section of sources you read are excellent entry points for further exploration. you might find resourced listed in a bibliography that points you in the direction you wish to take your own research., ways to organize your literature review, chronologically:  .

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published or the time period they cover.

By Publication:  

Order your sources chronologically by publication date, 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.

Conceptual Categories:

The literature review is organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For 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 will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most.

Methodological:  

A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher.  A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Sections of Your Literature Review:  

Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy.

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History : the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : the 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 articles and journals.
• Standards : 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?

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 in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be Selective:  

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use Quotes Sparingly:  

Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute your own summary and interpretation of the literature.

Summarize and Synthesize:  

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each 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 their own work.

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.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help >>
• Last Updated: Nov 6, 2024 2:21 PM
• URL: https://guides.franklin.edu/LITREVIEW

Literature Reviews: Getting Started: The 5 Steps

• Introduction
• Getting Started: The 5 Steps
• Searching for Literature
• Advanced Searching Tips This link opens in a new window
• Organising Your Research
• Writing the Literature Review
• Example Reviews & Useful Books
• Research Tools
• Library 101 This link opens in a new window

These are the steps which you should follow to complete your literature review. 

Evaluating sources

It is important to make sure that the sources you're using are good quality, academic-appropriate sources.  You need to read critically when searching for literature. 

Evaluate the sources for their credibility. How have they arrived at their conclusions? Are there any conflicting theories or findings? Is the publisher reputable? Reading at this critical level will help you decide whether a publication should or should not be included in your literature review.

Author credentials

Examine how the contributors are affiliated. Are the researchers connected to a university, a research lab or a pharmaceutical company? Are the authors considered credible in their field? Are they promoting special interests?

Relevance and scope

Make sure the publications you include in your literature review are relevant and within the scope of your topic, in terms of theoretical argument, research methodology, timeframe and currency.

Reliability

How well is the study designed? Do you see any room for improvement? Do similar studies come to the same conclusion? Have the authors explored the topic from different points of view, or do they rely on a more one-sided argument?

Click HERE to see our help guide on evaluating information you find online. 

Feedback Poll

We would love feedback if this page was useful to you! If you have additional questions please reach out to us and we can try our best to help.

Step 1: Decide on your research question

The very first step in a literature review is deciding what it is you will be researching. Your research question defines the entirety of your final piece of work, including the literature review. It should focus on something from the research field that needs to be explored, where there are gaps in the information. This will ensure that your contribution is valuable and that you are providing readers with a different angle or perspective on an issue or problem.

Remember, a literature review is not a collection of vaguely related studies, but instead it represents background and research developments related to your specific research question - analysed, interpreted, and synthesised by you.  

For this reason it is important to hit on the right research question. 

Ask yourself: 

• Is it too broad? Is it too narrow? For example, a research question like “why are social networking sites harmful?” is too broad; there will be too much information to write a concise literature review. Change it to “how are online users experiencing or addressing privacy issues on Twitter and Facebook?" and it is more specific. It gives you a niche within the research field to focus on and explore.
• Has it been used as a research question by someone else before?
• Have you discussed it with your lecturer? They can guide you if your question isn't quite right yet. 

Step 2: Decide how broad or narrow your scope will be

You need to decide how broadly or narrowly you are going to search for literature. This will depend on a few factors: what your research question or topic is, what your lecturer says, and how well written on the topic is. 

Remember, the goal is not to examine everything that's ever been written on  your topic. To avoid your search results being too numerous, you should narrow down your scope by thinking of the following factors:

• How many years should your search cover?
• How comprehensive should it be? Will it cover every facet of a topic or focus on one area?
• Are there criteria by which you can narrow down the topic? For example, by age, by gender, by location, by methodology (e.g qualitative or quantitative research, case studies), by theoretical framework, etc.?

Here are some examples of topics and searches that are too braod, and more narrow approaches you could take: 

You can also narrow the scope of your search by utilising advanced search techniques, and using filters to eliminate irrelevant search results. You can find more information on both of these  HERE

Step 3: Decide where you will search

It is important to select the right databases in which to conduct your search. Rather than searching generally across all the library databases, some of which may not have anything to do with your topic, it would be more efficient to go to databases which are more closely aligned with your topic.

You can see IADT Library's list of databases  here . 

Ask your lecturer which databases they think you should search.

For information on how to use our databases, click HERE .

Step 4: Conduct your search

Searching for the literature is one of the steps which can take the most time. Take your time to be thorough and methodical. One of the best things you can do is keep track of your searches. The software we recommend to do this is Zotero . Zotero is a tool which allows you to save sources and citations, including taking notes about them as you read them, which will save you lots of time down the road when you come to analysing these sources. You can read all about Zotero here .

Tips to finding relevant literature

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. An abstract is a comprehensive summary of what the article is about. This will save you time because you can quickly see if the article is relevant to you or not. 
• Document the searches you conduct in each database so that you can duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.  You can also use citation tracking to see who has used a piece of work in their own research and how they've built on this.
• Note what key words are used by authors, usually in their abstracts and search for those. Sometimes having the right vocabulary for the topic can help you find many more sources you might have missed otherwise.
• Ask your lecturer if you are missing any key works in the field.

What about searching Google? Googling your topic can bring up hundreds of thousands of hits, but rarely will the sources from a Google search be appropriate to use in an academic assignment like a literature review. For a literature review, the sources need to be academically authoritative - for example, academic books, journals, research reports, government publications. Using non-scholarly or non-authoritative sources in your literature review will likely result in a poor grade. 

Step 5: Review the literature

This step is the output that you will be graded on in the end. 

Here are some questions to help you analyse the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover or argue?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyse its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analysed by others?
• Has your topic been written about very rarely? If so, why do you think that is? What  has  been written that's close to the topic?

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

IADT LibGuides are licenced under a  Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License  (CC-BY-NC 4.0) 

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Searching for Literature >>
• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2024 10:03 AM
• URL: https://iadt.libguides.com/litreview

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. 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.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

Doing a literature review: an 8-step process

Overview of my presentation in the Middlesex University PhD coursework - with embedded videos of the 8 steps

Anne-Wil Harzing - Mon 1 Jan 2024 09:31 (updated Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14)

Copyright 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing. All rights reserved. First version, 2 January 2024

Step 1: Information management strategies

Step 2: situating the literature review, step 3: sources of literature, step 4: keeping current, step 5: how much is enough, step 6: different types of papers.

• Step 7a: Seven criteria to evaluate coverage
• Step 7b: Twelve guidelines to evaluate references

Step 8: The literature review in your thesis

Your challenge is very different from what mine was during my PhD. I completed my PhD before the internet was available. So my challenge was to get access to information and find the time and money to do so. Oftentimes, this involved traveling to various libraries across the country.

Your challenge is to manage the wealth of information you have easy access to, but not to waste too much time on completely irrelevant information. This step provides you with some tips on how to approach this.

In this step, you learn why a literature review is important in no less than six of the nine stages of the research process. Before watching it, try and list the stages where you think it might be important.

In this step, we review the various sources you can use for literature reviews: books, journal articles, government and industry resources, working papers, and conference papers. I show you the relative merits of each of these.

Here I share my top tips on how to keep up to date with new publications. You can find more information about this here: How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload? .

Note that my tips focus on the "old-fashioned" tried-and-tested approaches. This process has now been facilitated by many dedicated tools, often using artificial intelligence. I can't say I like working with these as they do not facilitate the deep engagement that I think is needed for academic research, but they might well work for you.

The next step is deciding when to stop. How do you know you have "enough"? When can you stop? Well obviously, you never completely stop reviewing the literature, as it is important in so many stages of the review process (see step 2).

But in deciding when you can start writing up, I do suggest the use of a relevance tree in this video. I also show how you can use tables to effectively summarise literature. Further tips on how many references to use in writing up can be found here: How many references is enough?

In this step, I review three types of papers to look out for to maximise the effectiveness of your literature review: review papers, star papers, model papers.

Step 7a: 7 criteria to evaluate coverage

How do you evaluate whether all the literature you have collected is actually useful for your thesis or article?

In this step I go through seven criteria you can use to evaluate coverage of the collected literature: relevance, currency, reliability, audience, accuracy, scope, and objectivity.

Step 7b: 12 guidelines to evaluate references

If you are going to use the literature to reference arguments in your thesis, this step covers twelve guidelines you can use to evaluate other academics' referencing practices as well as to make sure you do this right. They are also described in detail in this blogpost: Are referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility?

My twelve guidelines are based on research in my own PhD, written up as a paper that turned out to be very hard to publish. If you are interested, you can read the full story here: How to publish an unusual paper? Referencing errors, scholarship & credibility .

This last step reveals what criteria are used to evaluate the literature review in your own thesis: synthesis, critical appraisal, and application to the research question. I also explain what your literature should not look like and why a good literature review helps you to get papers published.

Related blogposts

• Want to publish a literature review? Think of it as an empirical paper
• Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students
• How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload?
• Is a literature review publication a low-cost project?
• Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review
• How to conduct a longitudinal literature review?
• New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts
• A framework for your literature review article: where to find one?

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or supporting the Publish or Perish software .

Copyright © 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14

Anne-Wil Harzing's profile and contact details >>

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor.

2. Decide on the scope of your review.

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

Tip: This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

• Look at the Library's research guides in your discipline to select discipline-specific databases.  Don't forget to look at books!
• Make an appointment with or contact your   subject librarian to make sure you aren't missing major databases.

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

5. Review the literature.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analyzed?
• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

Composing your literature review

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

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

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review's focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil's. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

• "Literature review" defined
• Research Communication Graphic
• Literature Review Steps
• Search techniques
• Finding Additional "Items
• Evaluating information
• Citing Styles
• Ethical Use of Information
• Research Databases This link opens in a new window
• Get Full Text
• Reading a Scholarly Article
• Author Rights
• Selecting a publisher

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

When seeking information for a literature review or for any purpose, it helps to understand information-seeking as a process that you can follow. 5 Each of the six (6) steps has its own section in this web page with more detail. Do (and re-do) the following six steps:

1. Define your topic. The first step is defining your task -- choosing a topic and noting the questions you have about the topic. This will provide a focus that guides your strategy in step II and will provide potential words to use in searches in step III.

2. Develop a strategy. Strategy involves figuring out where the information might be and identifying the best tools for finding those types of sources. The strategy section identifies specific types of research databases to use for specific purposes.

3. Locate the information . In this step, you implement the strategy developed in II in order to actually locate specific articles, books, technical reports, etc.

4. Use and Evaluate the information. Having located relevant and useful material, in step IV you read and analyze the items to determine whether they have value for your project and credibility as sources.

5. Synthesize. In step V, you will make sense of what you've learned and demonstrate your knowledge. You will thoroughly understand, organize and integrate the information --become knowledgeable-- so that you are able to use your own words to support and explain your research project and its relationship to existing research by others.

6. Evaluate your work. At every step along the way, you should evaluate your work. However, this final step is a last check to make sure your work is complete and of high quality.

Continue below to begin working through the process.

5. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information Problem-Solving: the Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

1. Define your topic.

I. Define your topic

A.  Many students have difficulty selecting a topic. You want to find a topic you find interesting and will enjoy learning more about.

B.   Students often select a topic that is too broad.  You may have a broad topic in mind initially and will need to narrow it.

1. To help narrow a broad topic :

a. Brainstorm.  

1). Try this technique for brainstorming to narrow your focus.   

a) Step 1.  Write down your broad topic.

b) Step 2. Write down a "specific kind" or "specific aspect" of the topic you identified in step 1.  

c) Step 3. Write down an aspect  --such as an attribute or behavior-- of the "specific kind" you identified in step 2.  

d) Step 4.  Continue to add  levels of specificity as needed to get to a focus that is manageable. However, you may want to begin researching the literature before narrowing further to give yourself the opportunity to explore what others are doing and how that might impact the direction that you take for your own research.                     

2) Three examples of using the narrowing technique. These examples start with very, very broad topics, so the topic at step 3 or 4 in these examples would be used for a preliminary search in the literature in order to identify a more specific focus.  Greater specificity than level 3 or 4 will ultimately be necessary for developing a specific research question. And we may discover in our preliminary research that we need to alter the direction that we originally were taking.

a) Example 1.      

             Step 1. information security

                      Step  2. protocols

                              Step 3.  handshake protocol

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on the handshake protocol.

b) Example 2.  

            Step 1. information security

                     Step 2. single sign-on authentication

                              Step 3.  analyzing

                                       Step 4. methods

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on methods for analyzing the security of single sign-on authentication

c) Example 3.  The diagram below is an example using the broad topic of "software" to show two potential ways to begin to narrow the topic. 

C. Once you have completed the brainstorming process and your topic is more focused, you can do preliminary research to help you identify a specific research question . 

1) Examine overview sources such as subject-specific encyclopedias and textbooks that are likely to break down your specific topic into sub-topics and to highlight core issues that could serve as possible research questions. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find these encyclopedias]

2). Search the broad topic in a research database that includes scholarly journals and professional magazines (to find technical and scholarly articles) and scan recent article titles for ideas. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find trade and scholarly journal articles]

D. Once you have identified a research question or questions, ask yourself what you need to know to answer the questions. For example,

1. What new knowledge do I need to gain?

2. What has already been answered by prior research of other scholars?

E.  Use the answers to the questions in C. to identify what words  to use to describe the topic when you are doing searches.

1. Identify key words

a.  For example , if you are investigating "security audits in banking", key terms to combine in your searches would be: security, audits, banking.

2.  Create a list of alternative ways of referring to a key word or phrase

a.For example , "information assurance" may be referred to in various ways such as: "information assurance," "information security," and "computer security."

b. Use these alternatives when doing searches.

3. As you are searching, pay attention to how others are writing about the topic and add new words or phrases to your searches if appropriate.

2. Develop a strategy.

II. Develop a strategy for finding the information. 

A. Start by considering what types of source might contain the information you need .  Do you need a dictionary for definitions? a directory for an address? the history of a concept or technique that might be in a book or specialized encyclopedia? today's tech news in an online tech magazine or newspaper?  current research in a journal article? background information that might be in a specialized encyclopedia? data or statistics from a specific organization or website?  Note that you will typically have online access to these source types.

B. This section provides a description of some of the common types of information needed for research.  

1. For technical and business analysis , look for articles in technical and trade magazines . These articles are written by information technology professionals to help other IT professionals do their jobs better. Content might include news on new developments in hardware or software, techniques, tools, and practical advice. Technical journals are also likely to have product ads relevant to information technology workers and to have job ads. Examples iof technical magazines include Network Computing and IEEE Spectrum .

2. To read original research studies , look for articles in scholarly journals and conference proceedings . They will provide articles written by  information technology professionals who are reporting original research; that is, research that has been done by the authors and is being reported for the first time. The audience for original research articles is other information technology scholars and professionals. Examples of scholarly journals include Journal of Applied Security Research , Journal of Management Information Systems , IEEE Transactions on Computers , and ACM Transactions on Information and System Security .

3. For original research being reported to funding agencies , look for technical reports on agency websites. Technical reports are researcher reports to funding agencies about progress on or completion of research funded by the agency.

4. For in-depth, comprehensive information on a topic , look for book-length volumes . All chapters in the book might be written by the same author(s) or might be a collection of separate papers written by different authors.

5. To learn about an unfamiliar topic , use textbooks ,  specialized encyclopedias and handbooks to get get overviews of topics, history/background, and key issues explained.

6. For instructions for hardware, software, networking, etc., look for manuals  that provide step-by-step instructions.

7. For technical details about inventions (devices, instruments, machines), look for patent documents .

C.   NOTE -  In order to search for and find original research studies,  it will help if you  understand  how information is produced, packaged  and  communicated  within your profession. This is explained in the tab  "Research Communication: Graphic."

3. Locate the information.

III. Locate the information

A. Use search tools designed to find the sources you want.  Types of sources were described in section II. above. 

Always feel free to Ask a librarian for assistance when you have questions about where and how locate the information you need.

B. Evaluate the search results (no matter where you find the information)

1. Evaluate the items you find using at least these 5 criteria:

a. accuracy -- is the information reliable and error free?

1) Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?

2) Is there adequate documentation: bibliography, footnotes, credits?

3) Are the conclusions justified by the information presented?

b. authority -- is the source of the information reputable?

1) How did you find the source of information: an index to edited/peer-reviewed material, in a bibliography from a published article, etc.?

2) What type of source is it: sensationalistic, popular, scholarly?

c. objectivity -- does the information show bias?

1) What is the purpose of the information: to inform, persuade, explain, sway opinion, advertise?

2) Does the source show political or cultural biases?

d. currency -- is the information current? does it cover the time period you need?

e. coverage -- does it provide the evidence or information you need?

2. Is the search producing the material you need? -- the right content? the right quality? right time period? right geographical location? etc. If not, are you using

a. the right sources?

b. the right tools to get to the sources?

c. are you using the right words to describe the topic?

3. Have you discovered additional terms that should be searched? If so, search those terms.

4. Have you discovered additional questions you need to answer? If so, return to section A above to begin to answer new questions.

4. Use and evaluate the information.

IV. Use the information.

A. Read, hear or view the source

1. Evaluate: Does the material answer your question(s)? -- right content? If not, return to B.

2. Evaluate: Is the material appropriate? -- right quality? If not, return to B.

B. Extract the information from the source : copy/download information, take notes, record citation, keep track of items using a citation manager.

1. Note taking (these steps will help you when you begin to write your thesis and/or document your project.):

a. Write the keywords you use in your searches to avoid duplicating previous searches if you return to search a research database again. Keeping track of keywords used will also save you time if your search is interrupted or you need return and do the search again for some other reason. It will help you remember which search terms worked successfully in which databases

b. Write the citations or record the information needed to cite each article/document you plan to read and use, or make sure that any saved a copy of the article includes all the information needed to cite it. Some article pdf files may not include all of the information needed to cite, and it's a waste of your valuable time to have to go back to search and find the items again in order to be able to cite them. Using citation management software such as EndNote will help keep track of citations and help create bibliographies for your research papers.

c. Write a summary of each article you read and/or why you want to use it.

5. Synthesize.

V. Synthesize.

A. Organize and integrate information from multiple sources

B. Present the information (create report, speech, etc. that communicates)

C. Cite material using the style required by your professor or by the venue (conference, publication, etc.). For help with citation styles, see  Guide to Citing Sources .  A link to the citing guide is also available in the "Get Help" section on the left side of the Library home page

6. Evaluate your work.

VI. Evaluate the paper, speech, or whatever you are using to communicate your research.

A. Is it effective?

B. Does it meet the requirements?

C. Ask another student or colleague to provide constructive criticism of your paper/project.

• << Previous: Research Communication Graphic
• Next: Search techniques >>
• Last Updated: Sep 11, 2024 3:08 PM
• URL: https://library.dsu.edu/graduate-research

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 05 November 2024

Safety and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with pre-treated advanced stage malignant mesothelioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Amjad Zafar 1 ,
• Asma Abdul Rashid 2 ,
• Abdul Moeed 2 ,
• Muhammad Junaid Tahir 3 ,
• Ahmad Jamal Khan 4 ,
• Oadi N. Shrateh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7532-1544 5 &
• Ali Ahmed 6  

BMC Cancer volume  24 , Article number:  1353 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

78 Accesses

Metrics details

Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with poor prognosis. Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and its ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently presented as a viable option in some first line but primarily as a second-line treatment of advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM). Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of PD-1/L-1 ICIs in advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma.

PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for all studies assessing the safety and efficacy of anti PD-1/PD-L1 agents. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Secondary outcomes were median progression free (mPFS) and overall survival (mOS). Safety outcomes were treatment- (TRAEs) and immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool medians and to derive event rates.

A total of 15 studies were included with total of 1064 asMM patients. ORR and DCR were 16% and 57%, respectively. A pooled mPFS was 4.53 (CI: 3.40–5.65) and mOS was 10.51 (CI: 9.03-12.00). Overall TRAEs had an event rate of 0.69 (0.50–0.83) whereas IRAEs had an event rate of 0.28 (0.15–0.46). There were no significant differences between pembrolizumab, nivolumab primarily, and avelumab subgroups for all the outcomes. Additionally, meta-regression found no covariate to be a significant factor in ORR and DCR.

In this meta-analysis we found that anti-PD1/PD-L1 treatment could be useful in pretreated asMM as they had at least comparable or greater mPFS, mOS, ORR, and DCR than other second-line agents currently being used.

Registration number

This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO prior to the literature search, CRD42023442350.

Peer Review reports

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis that typically results from being exposed to asbestos fibres [ 1 ]. It commonly develops in the outer lining of the chest cavity or, less often, in the lining of the abdominal cavity, the sac around the heart, or the testes. There are three main histological subtypes of mesothelioma, each with decreasing levels of survival rates: epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid [ 2 , 3 ]. Palliative chemotherapy is often recommended for many individuals diagnosed with MM who are not eligible for surgery due to factors such as advanced stage, advanced age, underlying health conditions, or limited physical well-being. The combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed is a standard first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma which was approved in 2004 [ 4 ]. From 1990 to 2017, global mesothelioma deaths varied between 18,200 and 32,400 [ 5 ]. However, one study by Driscoll et al. [ 6 ] showed an estimate of 43,000 deaths. Currently, the burden of global mesothelioma deaths is shouldered by high-income countries [ 7 ]. However, a group of studies led by Takahashi found that a rise in global mesothelioma deaths is inevitable, especially in the developing countries [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. To date, there have been no randomized phase 3 clinical trials that have demonstrated any improvement in the overall survival of patients with malignant mesothelioma after the progression of the disease, regardless of the use of new drugs or drug combinations [ 11 , 12 ].

Recently, modest improvements in progression-free and overall survival were observed with bevacizumab as compared to chemotherapy alone [ 13 ]. Over the past few years, the treatment landscape of numerous solid tumors has been significantly transformed by the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Although cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) directed agents did not show any benefit in advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM) [ 12 ], programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antagonists have shown benefit in increasing survival [ 14 ]. Studies such as those by Sahin et al. [ 15 ]and Guven et al. [ 16 ] demonstrate that novel combinatorial strategies have led to incremental improvements in patient survival in other solid tumors, and these findings are shaping the framework for treatment in malignant mesothelioma. Studies have emphasized the role of molecular biomarkers in guiding immune-oncology (IO) therapy for advanced cancers, including MM [ 17 ]. However, the heterogeneity and low mutation burden in MM present challenges in pinpointing reliable predictors of response. Additionally, Rizzo et al. [ 18 ] identified potential markers beyond PD-L1 that may influence the efficacy of IO therapies, suggesting an expanding research focus for this cancer.

The findings from various clinical phase I or III trials have shown varying effectiveness of different second line and onward ICI monotherapies in treating MM. Nivolumab demonstrated median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) durations ranging from 2.6 to 5.9 months and 9.2 to 17.3 months, respectively [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Similarly, Pembrolizumab achieved comparable outcomes with mPFS and mOS durations of 2.1 to 5.4 months and 10 to 11.5 months, respectively [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Avelumab, on the other hand, resulted in mPFS and mOS durations of 4.1 and 10.7 months, respectively [ 26 ]. However, it is essential to note that these outcomes were observed in carefully selected patients, and their reproducibility in a broader population of non-selected patients in routine therapeutic settings remains uncertain.

Due to the inconsistent efficacy outcomes of PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs across various trials, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize existing evidence on the safety and efficacy of second-line PD-1 and PD-L1 ICI monotherapies in patients with advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM) who have already undergone treatment. By compiling data from multiple studies, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these therapies’ potential benefits and risks, ultimately offering valuable insights to guide clinical decisions and support the development of more effective treatment strategies for asMM.

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) [ 27 ] and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines [ 28 ]. A protocol was registered at PROSPERO prior to the literature search, CRD42023442350.

Data sources and search strategy

Two independent (AZ and AM) investigators conducted a systematic literature search using electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central, from inception to July 2023. Online databases such as www.clinicaltrials.gov , medRxiv.org, and conference proceedings and presentations were also searched to identify grey literature. The following keywords were used: pleural neoplasms, mesothelioma, avelumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, and pembrolizumab. A detailed search strategy used for each database is shown in the supplementary material (Table S1 ).

Screening of studies

All articles initially retrieved from the systematic search of the electronic databases were transferred to Endnote Reference Library (Version X7.5; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) software, where duplicates were identified and removed. Two researchers (AM and AAR) independently shortlisted the remaining articles based on the titles and abstracts and subsequently screened the full texts of the articles to assess relevance. Any discrepancy was settled by consulting a third reviewer (AZ) until a consensus was reached. The reference list of included articles was also sifted manually to identify relevant articles. All discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved by discussion.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Articles were shortlisted based on the following eligibility criteria (a) PD-1 or PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) monotherapy in patients with advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM), (b) studies with at least one outcome of interest, (c) retrospective and prospective cohorts, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes included efficacy outcomes which were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression free survival (mPFS), PFS at 6- and 12-month interval, median overall survival (mOS), and OS at 6- and 12-month interval The safety outcomes secondary outcomes which were treatment- and immune-related adverse events divided in two cohorts: (a) adverse event grade 1–5 and (b) adverse event grade 3–5. Articles in languages other than English were excluded. Review articles, editorials, and commentaries were also excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two independent reviewers (AZ and AM) conducted data extraction of the relevant articles shortlisted. In each study following data was extracted: (a) study name and year, (b) study design, (c) the number of patients in each group, (d) general patient characteristics (age and gender), (e) tumor histology, (f) all the outcomes of interest. Two independent reviewers performed a quality assessment to gauge the validity and reliability of the included studies. The risk of bias in the included non-randomized studies was evaluated independently by two investigators (AA and AB) using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool [ 29 ]. Further, the score assigned to each study was categorized into ratings. The risk of bias-2 tool (RoB-2) of the Cochrane collaboration [ 30 ] was used to evaluate quality of the included randomized controlled trials. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus.

Statistical analysis

This meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program] Version 5.4 Cochrane Collaboration, Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.3.070, and OpenMetaAnalyst. A random-effects model was used to calculate event rates for dichotomous variables, whereas the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method was used to pool medians and 95% CI for median PFS and median OS. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant in all cases. The Higgins I 2 index was utilized to examine heterogeneity among the included studies. The I 2 values of 0–25% were labeled as low, 25–50% as mild, 50–75% as moderate, and 75% above as critical. For each clinical outcome, forest plots were generated to show the relative effect sizes of the comparison groups. Publication bias assessment was carried out by performing Egger’s regression test. A subgroup analysis was performed for all outcomes based on the type of immune checkpoint inhibitor to evaluate their individual impact on the overall effect size. Additionally, meta-regression was performed for primary outcomes and various covariates.

A total of 1170 potentially relevant citations were identified and screened from the initial search. After the removal of duplicated studies, we retrieved 195 full-text articles for evaluation of which 15 studies fulfilled the set selection criteria. The PRISMA flow chart of the study selection is shown in Fig.  1 . From the 15 studies, two were RCTs [ 20 , 23 ], four were phase 2 trials [ 21 , 24 , 31 , 32 ], two were phase 1b trials [ 26 , 33 ], and seven were retrospective cohorts [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Of the 14, six assessed efficacies of pembrolizumab, seven evaluated nivolumab, and one tested avelumab. A total of 1133 patients with advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma were identified. The mean age of the patients was 66.8 (10.2) years and 74.5% were males. Study characteristics are shown in Table  1 and detailed patient characteristics are shown in Table  2 . All the included studies had a low risk of bias. Detailed quality assessment is shown in Figures S1 and S2.

PRISMA flowchart

Primary outcomes

A total of 13 studies were included in the outcome objective response rate (ORR). A pooled overall event rate of 0.16 ([0.13–0.20]; p  < 0.05, I 2  = 48%) ( Fig.  2 ). For nivolumab, the ORR was 0.15 [0.11–0.20] and 0.17 [0.13–0.23] for pembrolizumab. Thirteen studies evaluating disease control rate (DCR) found an overall event rate of 0.57 ([0.49–0.65]; p  = 0.07 I 2  = 46%) ( Fig.  3 ). No difference was seen in DCRs of nivolumab (0.57 [0.46–0.68]), pembrolizumab (0.57 [0.44–0.69]), and avelumab (0.58 [0.32–0.81]).

Forest plot of objective response rate

Forest plot of disease control rate

Secondary outcomes

Median progression free survival (mPFS) was assessed in 13 studies. An aggregate mPFS was found to be 4.53 ([3.40–5.65]; p  < 0.00001, I 2  = 88%) ( Fig.  4 ). No difference was found between the pembrolizumab (5.32 [2.92–7.71]), nivolumab (3.46 [2.51–4.42]), and avelumab (4.10 [1.40–6.80]) subgroups. 6- and 12-month progression free survival was found to be (event rate 0.41 95% CI [0.25–0.59]) (Figure S3) and (event rate 0.18 95% CI [0.11–0.28]) (Figure S4). Similarly, median overall survival (mOS) was found in 14 studies. Pooled mOS was 10.51 ([9.03-12.00]; p  < 0.00001, I 2  = 58%) across the studies ( Fig.  5 ). No significant difference was observed between pembrolizumab (10.25 [7.94–12.56]), nivolumab (11.62 [8.97–14.27]), avelumab (10.70 [6.40–15.00]), and durvalumab (7.3 [4.00-10.60) subgroups. 6- and 12-month overall survival was found to be (event rate 0.70 95% CI [0.60–0.79]) (Figure S5) and (event rate 0.44 95% CI [0.37–0.51]) (Figure S6).

Forest plot of median progression free survival

Forest plot of median overall survival

Safety outcomes

Treatment-related adverse events grade 1–5 were found to be nine studies ( Table  3 ). An overall event rate of 0.69 (0.50–0.83) was found (Figure S7). In grades 3–5, the event rate was 0.15 (0.10–0.23) (Figure S8). An overall event rate of immune-related adverse events grade 1–5 was found to be 0.28 (0.15–0.46) (Figure S9) and 0.05 (0.03–0.11) in grades 3–5 (Figure S10).

Meta-regression and publication bias

Meta-regression was performed for the primary outcomes against the following covariates: mean age, mean male sex percentage, percentage of PD-1 positive patients, and percentage of ECOG status 0 patients. For ORR and DCR, none of the covariates were found to be a significant predictor. Bubble plots are added to the supplementary material Figures S11-12. There was no significant publication bias detected in all the outcomes. Results of Egger’s regression test is shown in supplementary Table S2 .

This meta-analysis was performed by pooling all the data of relevant studies todate evaluating safety and efficacy of anti PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors as a monotherapy in patients with pre-treated advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma (asMM). In this meta-analysis, we found an objective response rate of 0.16 (0.13–0.20) and a disease control rate of 0.57 (0.49–0.65). Additionally, we observed a median progression free survival of 4.53 (3.40–5.65) and a median overall survival of 10.80 (9.26–12.35). For the safety outcomes, treatment- and immune-related adverse events grade 1–5 had an event rate of 0.69 (0.50–0.83) and 0.28 (0.15–0.46), respectively.

In this meta-analysis, the majority of studies lacked in reporting asbestos exposure in patients with asMM as greater efficacy of anti PD-1/PD-L1 is noted in tumors with an etiology related to carcinogens exposure [ 41 , 42 ]. Additionally, MM is inherently resistant to cytotoxic chemotherapy [ 43 ] and second line treatments have not exclusively shown an increase in overall or progression free survival. The choice of second line agents is based on various factors: choice of patient, response with first-line therapy, and performance status.

The Third Italian Consensus Conference on MM highlighted the need for new treatment options in the second-line setting, as there is currently a lack of approved agents. This situation presents an excellent opportunity to evaluate and test novel drugs. In cases where patients are unable to participate in a clinical trial, single-agent chemotherapy can be considered as a treatment option for those who are medically suitable, although best supportive care remains a valid choice [ 44 ]. Vinorelbine and gemcitabine monotherapy are most commonly used in practice for second-line treatment of MM as stated by international guidelines reporting an ORR of 7–16% [ 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Moreover, the ESMO clinical practice guidelines suggested the role of platinum-premetrexed or premetrexed alone as a second-line agent as a meta-analysis reported a median overall survival of 7.93 and 7.78 months, respectively [ 48 , 49 ].

As a second-line agent, our study found anti-PD1/PD-L1 agents to have an ORR of 16% and a DCR of 57% which is consistent with previous meta-analysis [ 50 ]. These findings are also found in the PROMISE-meso phase III trial which found pembrolizumab to have a greater ORR than chemotherapy (22% vs. 6%). Our findings were found to be superior to that of gemcitabine and vinorelbine monotherapy in MM patients [ 46 , 47 ].

Additionally, we found a median PFS of 4.53 months and a median OS of 10.80 months with no significant difference between pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab. Previous meta-analysis did not pool these parameters however, they found a similar range of mPFS (2.1 to 5.9 months) and mOS (6.7 to 20.9 months) [ 50 ]. These findings are consistent with a recent study by Marmarelis et al. reporting an mPFS and mOS of 4.9 and 20.9 months, respectively. Median PFS was comparable to studies evaluating vinorelbine monotherapy for MM (4.2 months) [ 47 ] however, mOS was significantly better in our study as compared to gemcitabine (13.8 months) and vinorelbine monotherapy (9.3 months) [ 47 , 51 ].

We also measured progression free and overall survival at 6- and 12-month intervals. The PFS decreased from an event rate of 0.41 to 0.18 and OS decreased from 0.70 to 0.44. This decline in survival rate could be attributed to various factors. With increasing age, there is decreasing patient survival rate with approximately 6% survival in patients between ages 65 to 74 years. Since pleural mesothelioma is more difficult to remove during surgery as they attack chest linings, they have shorter survival rates as compared to peritoneal mesothelioma. This could explain the decrease in survival rates since the majority of our studies had patients with pleural mesothelioma [ 52 , 53 ].

In our study, we found a 69% occurrence of grade 1–5 treatment-related adverse events grade, however, only 15% were of a grade 3 or above. Similarly, serious immune-related adverse events were found in only 5% of the patients with asMM. These findings are consistent with RCTs with pembrolizumab and nivolumab monotherapies as interventions [ 20 , 23 ]. Previous meta-analysis on anti PD-1/PD-L1 agents did not take adverse effects of the drugs into account [ 50 ]. Through meta-regression, our study did not find PD-L1 expression to be a significant predictor of increased ORR or DCR. These findings differ from those found by Cantini et al., as they demonstrated PD-L1 positive tumors to be linked with higher ORR however, no difference in PFS or OS was seen [ 38 ]. These results are also different from those of the meta-analysis conducted by Tagliamento et al. They found PD-L1 positive tumors to be more responsive to single-agent immunotherapy [ 50 ]. The reason for this difference could be as we conducted meta-regression to derive a linear relationship, while they performed subgroup analysis. Regardless, trials are highly heterogenous when accounting for PD-L1 assessment as inconsistent immunohistochemical clones and cut-offs were applied. Moreover, a recent study found that the neoantigenic potential of MM could be attributed to structural chromosomal rearrangements [ 54 ]. Due to lack of specific data, meta-regression could not be performed based on the histology of the tumor.

This study highlights PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as promising second-line treatments for advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma (MM), demonstrating efficacy and safety profiles that may improve patient outcomes. For clinicians, these results offer evidence-based support for integrating ICIs into treatment strategies for patients with prior therapies. Significant gaps remain, particularly around biomarkers like PD-L1 expression as predictors of response. Inconsistent study designs and PD-L1 assessment methods underscore the need for standardized biomarker evaluation. Future multi-institutional studies should address these gaps, focusing on MM’s diverse subtypes and molecular characteristics. Over the next five years, we anticipate advances in combination IO therapies and personalization based on molecular profiling. These developments could transform the treatment landscape of MM, offering new, more effective options and a better quality of life for patients.

Our meta-analysis has some limitations. Firstly, we were restricted to a single-arm meta-analysis without any comparator as phase III trials are underway and results are yet to be posted. However, this study provides landmark results for pretreated asMM patients, which can provide a basis for future clinical trials. Secondly, there was moderate heterogeneity in several outcomes which was due to the retrospective nature of the studies. In this review, we could only search three major electronic databases/ EMBASE and PsycINFO could not be searched due to lack of access. Moreover, most of the studies were retrospective cohort studies which could potentially add biases to our results.

In this meta-analysis we found that anti-PD1/PD-L1 agents could be useful in pretreated asMM patients regardless of the current known predictive factors of treatment. Our study found relatively lower incidence of severe adverse events, greater ORR and DCR as compared to other second-line agents for MM and at least comparable, if not better, mOS and MPFS.

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

• Malignant mesothelioma
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors

cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4

programmed cell death protein-1

advanced-stage malignant mesothelioma

programmed death ligand 1

median progression-free survival

median overall survival

randomized controlled trials

objective response rate

disease control rate

median progression free survival

Pass HI, Vogelzang NJ, Hahn S, Carbone M. Malignant pleural mesothelioma. Curr Probl Cancer. 2004;28(3):93–174.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yang H, Testa JR, Carbone M. Mesothelioma epidemiology, carcinogenesis, and pathogenesis. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2008;9(2–3):147–57.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sekido Y. Molecular pathogenesis of malignant mesothelioma. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(7):1413–9.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, Denham C, Kaukel E, Ruffie P, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncology: Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;21(14):2636–44.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang H, Naghavi M, Allen C, Barber RM, Carter A, Casey DC, et al. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet (London England). 2016;388(10053):1459.

Article   Google Scholar  

Driscoll T, Nelson DI, Steenland K, Leigh J, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M, et al. The global burden of non malignant respiratory disease due to occupational airborne exposures. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):432–45.

Chimed-Ochir O, Arachi D, Driscoll T, Lin RT, Takala J, Takahashi K. Burden of mesothelioma deaths by national income category: current status and future implications. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):1–13.

Delgermaa V, Takahashi K, Park EK, Le GV, Hara T, Sorahan T. Global mesothelioma deaths reported to the World Health Organization between 1994 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(10).

Park EK, Takahashi K, Hoshuyama T, Cheng TJ, Delgermaa V, Le GV, et al. Global magnitude of reported and unreported mesothelioma. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(4):514–8.

Diandini R, Takahashi K, Park EK, Jiang Y, Movahed M, Le GV, et al. Potential years of life lost (PYLL) caused by asbestos-related diseases in the world. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56(9):993–1000.

Krug LM, Kindler HL, Calvert H, Manegold C, Tsao AS, Fennell D, et al. Vorinostat in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma who have progressed on previous chemotherapy (VANTAGE-014): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(4):447–56.

Maio M, Scherpereel A, Calabrò L, Aerts J, Perez SC, Bearz A, et al. Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): a multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1261–73.

Zalcman G, Mazieres J, Margery J, Greillier L, Audigier-Valette C, Moro-Sibilot D, et al. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10026):1405–14.

Baas P, Scherpereel A, Nowak AK, Fujimoto N, Peters S, Tsao AS, et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London England). 2021;397(10272):375–86.

Sahin TK, Rizzo A, Aksoy S, Guven DC. Prognostic Significance of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) Score in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) [Internet]. 2024 May 1 [cited 2024 Oct 16];16(10). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38791914/

Guven DC, Erul E, Kaygusuz Y, Akagunduz B, Kilickap S, De Luca R et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hearing loss: a systematic review and analysis of individual patient data. Support Care Cancer [Internet]. 2023 Dec 1 [cited 2024 Oct 16];31(12). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37819422/

Rizzo A, Santoni M, Mollica V, Logullo F, Rosellini M, Marchetti A et al. Peripheral neuropathy and headache in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy and immuno-oncology combinations: the MOUSEION-02 study. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2024 Oct 16];17(12):1455–66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35029519/

Rizzo A. Identifying optimal first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma with high PD-L1 expression: a matter of debate. Br J Cancer [Internet]. 2022 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Oct 16];127(8):1381–2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36064585/

Fujimoto N, Okada M, Kijima T, Aoe K, Kato T, Nakagawa K et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of Nivolumab in Japanese patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: 3-Year results of the MERIT Study. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2020;2(3).

Fennell DA, Ewings S, Ottensmeier C, Califano R, Hanna GG, Hill K, et al. Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):1530–40.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Scherpereel A, Mazieres J, Greillier L, Lantuejoul S, Dô P, Bylicki O, et al. Nivolumab or Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (IFCT-1501 MAPS2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):239–53.

Quispel-Janssen J, van der Noort V, de Vries JF, Zimmerman M, Lalezari F, Thunnissen E, et al. Programmed death 1 Blockade with Nivolumab in patients with recurrent malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncology: Official Publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2018;13(10):1569–76.

Popat S, Curioni-Fontecedro A, Dafni U, Shah R, O’Brien M, Pope A, et al. A multicentre randomised phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab versus single-agent chemotherapy for advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: the European thoracic oncology platform (ETOP 9–15) PROMISE-meso trial. Annals Oncology: Official J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734–45.

Yap TA, Nakagawa K, Fujimoto N, Kuribayashi K, Guren TK, Calabrò L, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mesothelioma in the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(6):613–21.

Desai A, Karrison T, Rose B, Pemberton E, Hill B, Straus CM et al. Phase II trial of pembrolizumab (P) in patients (pts) with previously-treated mesothelioma (MM). https://doi.org/101200/JCO20183615_suppl8565 . 2018;36(15_suppl):8565–8565.

Hassan R, Thomas A, Nemunaitis JJ, Patel MR, Bennouna J, Chen FL, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Avelumab Treatment in patients with Advanced Unresectable Mesothelioma: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(3):351–7.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Reviews. 2021;10(1).

Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M et al. Cochrane. 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2016;355.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2019;366.

Okada M, Kijima T, Aoe K, Kato T, Fujimoto N, Nakagawa K, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of Nivolumab: results of a M ulticenter, op e n-label, Single-a r m, Japanese phase II study in Mal i gnant Pleural Meso t helioma (MERIT). Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(18):5485–92.

Canova S, Ceresoli GL, Grosso F, Zucali PA, Gelsomino F, Pasello G et al. Final results of DIADEM, a phase II study to investigate the efficacy and safety of durvalumab in advanced pretreated malignant pleural mesothelioma. ESMO Open [Internet]. 2022 Dec 1 [cited 2024 Oct 16];7(6). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36463732/

Alley EW, Lopez J, Santoro A, Morosky A, Saraf S, Piperdi B, et al. Clinical safety and activity of pembrolizumab in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (KEYNOTE-028): preliminary results from a non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(5):623–30.

Ahmadzada T, Cooper WA, Holmes M, Mahar A, Westman H, Gill AJ et al. Retrospective evaluation of the Use of Pembrolizumab in Malignant Mesothelioma in a Real-World Australian Population. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2020;1(4).

Marmarelis ME, Wang X, Roshkovan L, Grady CB, Miura JT, Ginsberg MS, et al. Clinical outcomes Associated with Pembrolizumab Monotherapy among adults with diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. JAMA Netw open. 2023;6(3):E232526.

Metaxas Y, Rivalland G, Mauti LA, Klingbiel D, Kao S, Schmid S, et al. Pembrolizumab as Palliative Immunotherapy in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncology: Official Publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2018;13(11):1784–91.

Assié JB, Crépin F, Grolleau E, Canellas A, Geier M, Grébert-Manuardi A et al. Immune-Checkpoint inhibitors for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a French, Multicenter, Retrospective Real-World Study. Cancers. 2022;14(6).

Cantini L, Belderbos RA, Gooijer CJ, Dumoulin DW, Cornelissen R, Baart S, et al. Nivolumab in pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: real-world data from the Dutch expanded access program. Translational lung cancer Res. 2020;9(4):1169–79.

Nakamura A, Kondo N, Nakamichi T, Kuroda A, Hashimoto M, Matsumoto S, et al. Initial evaluation of nivolumab in patients with post-operative recurrence of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020;50(8):920–5.

Yoneda H, Nokihara H, Mitsuhashi A, Ozaki R, Yabuki Y, Ogino H et al. Correlation between immune-related adverse events and therapeutic effects of nivolumab in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21(1).

Arbour KC, Riely GJ. Systemic therapy for locally Advanced and Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: a review. JAMA. 2019;322(8):764–74.

Manca P, Raez LE, Salzberg M, Sanchez J, Hunis B, Rolfo C. The value of immunotherapy in head and neck cancer. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2019;19(1):35–43.

Hudson AL, Weir C, Moon E, Harvie R, Klebe S, Clarke SJ et al. Establishing a panel of chemo-resistant mesothelioma models for investigating chemo-resistance and identifying new treatments for mesothelioma. Sci Rep. 2014;4.

Novello S, Pinto C, Torri V, Porcu L, Di Maio M, Tiseo M et al. The Third Italian Consensus Conference for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: State of the art and recommendations. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology. 2016;104:9–20.

Stebbing J, Powles T, McPherson K, Shamash J, Wells P, Sheaff MT, et al. The efficacy and safety of weekly vinorelbine in relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung cancer (Amsterdam Netherlands). 2009;63(1):94–7.

Van Meerbeeck JP, Baas P, Debruyne C, Groen HJ, Manegold C, Ardizzoni A et al. A Phase II Study of Gemcitabine in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. 1999.

Fennell DA, Casbard AC, Porter C, Rudd R, Lester JF, Nicolson M et al. A randomized phase II trial of oral vinorelbine as second-line therapy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. https://doi.org/101200/JCO20213915_suppl8507. 2021;39(15_suppl):8507–8507.

Petrelli F, Ardito R, Conti B, Coinu A, Cabiddu M, Ghilardi M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of second-line therapies for treatment of mesothelioma. Respir Med. 2018;141:72–80.

Popat S, Baas P, Faivre-Finn C, Girard N, Nicholson AG, Nowak AK, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: ESMO Clinical Practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up ☆ . Ann Oncol. 2022;33(2):129–42.

Tagliamento M, Bironzo P, Curcio H, De Luca E, Pignataro D, Rapetti SG et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials assessing PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors activity in pre-treated advanced stage malignant mesothelioma. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2022;172.

Pinto C, Zucali PA, Pagano M, Grosso F, Pasello G, Garassino MC, et al. Gemcitabine with or without ramucirumab as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (RAMES): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(10):1438–47.

American Cancer Society. Malignant Mesothelioma. 2020 [cited 2023 Jul 7]. Survival Rates for Mesothelioma. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/malignant-mesothelioma/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-statistics.html

Mesothelioma Prognosis | Understanding Survival. and Cures | MesotheliomaHelp.org [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jul 7]. https://www.mesotheliomahelp.org/mesothelioma/prognosis/

Mansfield AS, Peikert T, Smadbeck JB, Udell JBM, Garcia-Rivera E, Elsbernd L, et al. Neoantigenic potential of Complex chromosomal rearrangements in Mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncology: Official Publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2019;14(2):276–87.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hameed Latif Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan

Amjad Zafar

Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

Asma Abdul Rashid & Abdul Moeed

Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan

Muhammad Junaid Tahir

Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan

Ahmad Jamal Khan

Faculty of Medicine, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine

Oadi N. Shrateh

Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AZ, AAR, and AM conceived the idea; A.M, AZ, AAR, AA, and AJK did write up of the manuscript; and finally, A.A, M.J.T, O.N.S, and AZ reviewed and revised the manuscript for intellectual content critically. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oadi N. Shrateh .

Ethics declarations

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

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

PROSPERO registration

This systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO under the registration number (CRD42023442350).

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zafar, A., Rashid, A.A., Moeed, A. et al. Safety and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with pre-treated advanced stage malignant mesothelioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 24 , 1353 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-13127-3

Download citation

Received : 20 January 2024

Accepted : 29 October 2024

Published : 05 November 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-13127-3

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

ISSN: 1471-2407

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