- Last Updated: Mar 20, 2023 11:15 AM
- URL: https://libraryguides.griffith.edu.au/systematic-literature-reviews-for-education
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence.
This is a guideline for writing a systematic qualitative or quantitative literature review chapter. Systematic literature reviews concentrate most of the writing in describing the methods used to collect, analyse and present the literature, so it is a good place to start. As with all academic work, remember that all of your material should be referenced and permission to reproduce charts and images obtained.
Before you start:-
If you would like to know more about systematic reviews, please see the introduction to this guide.
If you are writing a systemic review for health please use the information on the Systematic-style Reviews page.
If you are writing a scoping review, systematic quantitative, integrative, iterative, rapid, umbrella, meta-analysis or meta-synthesis then use the quantitative approach to writing the literature review. As these methods have different approaches and are applied to different discipline areas, you may need to combine it with a qualitative style literature review.
For Health research, like Cochrane Reviews or Campbell Collaborations, then use the information on the Systematic-style Reviews page. For narrative literature reviews please use the Griffith Graduate Research Guide or the Library Writing Guide.
Outline: Systematic Quantitative Literature Review Chapter
The following is a simple pattern to follow for writing your systematic quantitative literature review. Specific sections are detailed in each tab. As with all academic work, remember that all material should be referenced and permission to reproduce charts and images obtained.
Introduction (15-20% of your total available word count)
Insert Journal Article (75 - 80% of word count)
*If you are embedding an article then it would replace the remaining sections and you would include a chapter conclusion
Methods (15 – 25% of word count)
Results & Analysis (these can be separate chapters or sections) 20 - 25%
Discussion (20% of word count)
Conclusion (3 – 5% of word count)
Introduction
When writing your quantitative literature review it is easier to start with the methods and then the introduction.
State the topic for review, the type of systematic review you are undertaking; quantitative or qualitative, weighted, meta-analysis or meta-synthesis and include whether this is a new or updated review.
Describe the hypothesis, theory or problem being tested and identify the aims of the review
State the research questions and expected outcome
Explain the significance of the review to your discipline and audience
Define terms you are using, including debates and agreements about the terminology
Describe the research frontiers or state of the field being researched
Describe how you have grouped the literature in terms of theory, topics, chronology, methodology, or findings and order you have placed your main sections of writing in
This section is crucial because it provides a full, transparent explanation of the research method by using summaries and descriptions of the protocols used to find, filter, analyse and quality test the literature. This is important as it provides a way for you to describe how comprehensive your review was. It also provides future researchers with a way to reproduce an updated literature review for the same topic. It may not be needed in your final submitted thesis but may be used to inform future journal articles.
Section introduction
Name the type of literature review, research topic and aims.
State time frames if they are relevant
State any guidelines or the reporting framework you have used e.g., Prisma, AMSTAR
Indicate the process for developing your research question, e.g., pico, spider
If your review is repeating an existing protocol, updating a review protocol or is a new protocol
The logical order that you have placed your writing in
Section Body
Describe the system you used to find and collect the literature. Use tables or diagrams for data and refer to them from the text. If they are too large to place in the text, place in appendices and refer to the appendix.
If you have registered the protocols of the review (PROSPERO), provide the details
Relevant search strings, key terms, filters, and refinements you used
Tools you used, where you searched, and which databases or search engines you used
Explain your inclusion and exclusion criteria, key themes you were reading for, or changes in criteria
*if this is an updated review, describe revisions made to the protocol, why they were made and the effect.
Outline the number of documents found and then kept
Explain the system used to critically appraise articles you used from your literature search
How you assessed quality of literature, for e.g., primary studies or transparency of data
Categories or variables you used to compare content across the literature for e.g., costs, outcomes, drug concentrations
Whether any articles were subsequently excluded from your review and the reason for exclusion
Explain subsequent additions or updates after the initial search
Articulate any bias in the methods you have used and the effect on the data, results, findings, or outcomes.
Section Summary
Condense the key criteria or limitations, relate them to your research aims or questions, state the relevance to your overall thesis claim.
Section introduction (approximately 1 paragraph)
Outline the literature you kept.
Location, authors, subject areas, types of research, research methods used in literature… count and calculate percentages (of xyz) of coverage on topics, methods, or other study characteristics
Name what variables you were looking for (if applicable)
Where the frontier of research is (found literature)
Where the gaps are in the research (literature not found)
Fresh perspectives on existing literature
Summarise and state the most important variables you found in the literature. The categories will depend on your discipline, topic, purpose, and search results.
Use tables and graphs to represent the most important literature and concepts. Place large data sets into appendices and use links to raw data.
This article about types of tables commonly used may be helpful.
This article includes examples of figures (pictograms and graphs) that may be helpful.
Section body
Provide an overview of the literature you included using sentences and paragraphs. Then insert a logical series of paragraphs, about 1-3 for each section, explaining the literature and limits (see the Results and Analysis Structure tab).
Section summary (approximately 1 paragraph)
Summarise the key results, relate the results to your research aims or questions, state the relevance to your overall thesis claim.
Results & analysis of the literature
There are differences between academic disciplines about addressing analysis and results at the same time or having two separate sections. Check with your supervisor or consult previously published literature reviews in your field. Essentially, these sections are about what you found and how you categorised the data. This changes with each discipline and field, but common options are: -
Research aims
Key variables
Research question
Research question and then sub-themes in the data
Theory elaboration
Science & Health tend to organise results by research questions and apply a similar logical sequence to each answer.
Research Question 1: state the question
Describe the # of studies involved, study characteristics, participant characteristics, efficacy of intervention or efficacy of treatment, therapy, or pharmaceuticals.
or
Research Question 1: state the question
Describe each sub-theme from the literature you found about the research question.
or
Theoretical application 1: state the impact on the data or system.
Section introduction
Describe research purpose, research questions or aims. State the main ideas found in the literature. This could be the efficacy of a drug-x, new perspectives or highlight key contradictory data. Outline the order you have put the writing in. This could be aims, themes or questions – it will depend on the discipline norms.
Body of discussion
Important to write about:
The results from the review you have conducted and how they apply to what has been done in other studies
The limitations of studies included in your review
If relevant to your research topic and questions:
Give suggestions how contradictions may be resolved by future research
How this review has (or has not) generated a novel perspective on the subject
Structure
This changes with each discipline and field, but common options are: -
Research aims – often rephrased as answers and literature applied to the aims. Rørtveit et al. (2015), provide a useful example of this structure.
Key variables– often summarised and compared across the research you found. An example of this structure is used by Feldman et al. (2021).
Research question – summary of relevant literature applied to the research question. Gauffriau (2021) provides a good example of this structure.
Research question and then sub-themes in the literature you found. Slabbert and Du Perez (2021) use this type of structure.
Theory elaboration – explain how the theory you are using applies to the research data. Pitt et al. (2017) use this structure.
If relevant to your research topic and questions:
State limitations of the review and how it affects the reliability of the whole review
Future direction of research
(These elements can appear separately or be integrated into the structured response)
A brief and direct interpretation may be made by summarising
Main findings identified from the research (present study)
Evidence of research gaps (future research that may be expanded in future chapters)
Any new themes emerging from the data of your review
Implications for future research, professional or clinical practice
Introduction (15 - 20% of word count)
State the topic for review, the type of systematic review you are undertaking; quantitative or qualitative, weighted, meta-analysis or meta-synthesis and include whether this is a new or updated review.
Describe the hypothesis, theory or problem being tested and identify the aims of the review
State the research questions and expected outcome
Explain the significance of the review to your discipline and audience
Define terms you are using, including debates and agreements about the terminology
Describe the research frontiers or state of the field being researched
Describe how you have grouped the literature in terms of theory, topics, chronology, methodology, or findings and order you have placed your main sections of writing in
Insert Journal Article
If you have published your systematic quantitative literature review, then insert the article in here.
Please confirm the requirements for including articles in a thesis for your academic discipline with your supervisor and the publisher.
Conclusion (3 – 5% of word count)
A brief and direct interpretation may be made by summarising:
Main findings identified from the research (present study)
Evidence of research gaps (future research that may be expanded in future chapters)
Any new themes emerging from the data of your review
Implications for future research, professional or clinical practice
Link the article to the chapter, thesis argument and the remaining chapters in the thesis.
Abstract (3-5% of total word count)
Abstracts are used for journal articles. They appear first in the article but are written last. These are either a narrative style or structured by sub-titles. If you have editorial or publication guidelines, then follow those guidelines.
If you are writing a chapter in a thesis then they usually do not have an abstract. However, similar information would likely be included in the chapter introduction.
Narratives may include: -
What specific problem or research question was being addressed
Why the research was conducted
Research Aims
What methods were used to solve the problem or to answer the question
What results were obtained
What the results mean to your discipline and reader
State your argument or claim
Structured abstracts may include: -
Background – previous research
Aim – purpose of the study
Method – the system and summary of process
Results – what was found
Conclusions – how your results meet your aims
Value/Recommendations – what is new or of value to your discipline, practical implications, or limitations
Useful writing links:
Piper, R. (2013). How to write a systematic literature review: a guide for medical students. National Student Association for Medical Research.
RMIT Systematic Review Guides provide useful guide and annotations of medical examples of systematic reviews.
Griffith University style guide provides information about publication and tone of Griffith documents
Advice about conducting systematic reviews:
The Cochrane Library
Two recommended checklists for critical appraisal of study design; CAMARDADES and CONSORT
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Griffith University RED workshops about Meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, & multiverse analyses and systematic style reviews are available
A British Medical Journal article on meta-analysis
Outline: Systematic Qualitative Literature Review Chapter
The following is a simple pattern to follow for writing your systematic qualitative literature review. Specific sections are detailed in each tab. As with all academic work, remember that all material should be referenced and permission to reproduce charts and images obtained.
Introduction (15 - 20% of word count)
Insert Journal Article (75 - 80% of word count)
*If you are embedding an article then it would replace the remaining sections and you would include a chapter conclusion
Methods (15 – 25% of word count)
Results & Analysis of the literature (20 - 25% of word count) these can be separate sections
Discussion (20% of word count)
Conclusion (3 – 5% of word count)
Introduction
When writing your qualitative literature review it is sometimes easier to start with the methods.
State the topic for review, the type of systematic review you are undertaking (i.e., quantitative or qualitative, weighted, meta-analysis or meta-synthesis or other type of review) and include whether this is a new or updated review.
For a qualitative review, describe the questions that are being asked to explore the central phenomenon or concept under review and identify the aims and expected outcome of the review.
Explain the significance of the review to your academic field and audience. How will it contribute to our understanding of this topic?
Describe the research frontiers or state of the field being researched.
Define terms you are using, including debates and agreements about the terminology (this part may need separate paragraphs).
Describe how you have grouped the literature in terms of theory, topics, chronology, methodology, or findings. Provide a preview of the order of the main subsections in the literature review.
This section is crucial because it provides a full, transparent explanation of the research method. Summaries and descriptions of the protocols used to find, filter, analyse and quality test the literature are described. Not only does this information add credibility to your research, it also provides a way for future researchers to reproduce an updated literature review for the same topic. It may be used to inform journal articles, which may be included in your thesis.
Section introduction (1 paragraph, 5-8 sentences)
Outline the type of literature review, topic and aims.
State time frames if they are relevant.
State any guidelines or the reporting framework you have used e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
Indicate the process for developing your research question, including any standardised systematic search strategies e.g., patient/population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICO), or Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type (SPIDER).
Indicate whether this is repeating an existing protocol, an update of a review protocol, or a new protocol.
Justify the choice and sequence of the subsections in this section.
Section body (1 or more paragraphs)
Describe the system you used to find and collect the literature. Use tables or diagrams for data, then cross-reference them in your paragraphs by referring readers to them. If they are too large to place in the text, place in appendices and refer readers to the appendix.
If your topic is health-related, and you have registered the protocols of the review (PROSPERO), provide the details.
Using sentences, describe relevant search strings, key terms, filters and refinements you used.
Detail the tools you used, where you searched, and which databases or search engines you used.
Describe the criteria used to analyse and quality test the literature.
Explain your inclusion and exclusion criteria, key themes you were reading for, or changes in criteria.
If this is an updated review, describe revisions made to the protocol, why they were made and the effect.
Outline the number of documents found and then kept for each search string.
Explain the critical appraisal system, including how you evaluated the studies found in your literature search, e.g., JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research
State whether any articles were subsequently excluded and the reason for exclusion.
Explain subsequent additions or updates after the initial search.
Articulate any bias in the methods you have used for collecting, analysing or presenting information. Explain how you managed this, as well as any potential effect on the data, results, findings or outcomes.
Section summary (1 paragraph, 5 - 8 sentences)
Condense the key criteria or limitations, relate them to your research aims or questions, and state the relevance of the whole section to your main claim or academic argument.
Section introduction (approximately 1 paragraph)
Describe the type of literature review, topic and aims.
Describe the theory, situation or problem being addressed.
Indicate the main research questions and expected outcome.
Explain the significance of your results to your academic field and audience.
Describe what this section addresses, results, analysis, or both.
Describe the logic you have used to organise the section.
Section body
Provide an overview of the literature you included using sentences and paragraphs. Then insert a logical series of paragraphs, about 1-3 for each section, explaining the literature and limits (see the Results and Analysis Structure tab).
For each theme outline and describe: (approximately 1 paragraph)
Location, authors, subject areas, types of research, research methods used across the literature
Where the research frontiers are within the literature you found
Where the gaps are in the research (literature you didn’t find)
Fresh perspectives on existing literature
The most important themes you found in the literature. The categories will depend on your discipline, topic, purpose and search results.
The reasoning for prioritising the themes or sub-themes.
Section summary (approximately 1 paragraph)
Condense the key results, relate the results to your research aims or questions and state the relevance to your overall claim.
Results & analysis of the literature
There are differences between academic disciplines about addressing both elements at the same time or having two separate sections. Check with your supervisor or look at published literature reviews in your field. Essentially, these sections are about what you found and how you categorised the data. Interpretation of the findings is usually found in the Discussion section. Qualitative literature reviews are usually organised thematically.
Literature themes:
Thematically organised literature tends to apply the same logical sequence of material to each theme.
Several themes may need to be articulated. Each one could have its own sub-section and sub-heading.
Structures:
There are two commonly used options.
Theme 1
Describe the number of studies involved, study or research design, effect or outcome of the research included (this will depend on what you aimed to achieve) and its relationship to your research topic or method. A useful example of this structure is used by Macaro et al., (2017, p. 46) in their article.
Theme 2
Describe what you expected to find, what you didn’t find, then what you did find. A useful example of this structure is used by Yang et al. ( 2017, p. 96) in their article.
Tables and figures:
Create subsets of your data (literature you found) to represent the most important literature and concepts.
Place raw or large data sets into appendices and use links to raw data.
Use figures or tables to illustrate your process and findings.
This article about types of tables commonly used and this article using examples of figures (pictograms and graphs) may be helpful.Discussion section introduction (1 paragraph, 5-8 sentences):
Summarise the research topic, purpose and aims.
Describe the theory, situation or problem being addressed.
State the main ideas in the discussion.
Explain the significance of your results to your academic field and audience.
Outline the logical order you have used to organise the section; usually this is a similar logic to the results and analysis section – it will depend on the norms of your academic discipline
Discussion section body (1-3 paragraphs):
It is important to include the following:
Provide a general interpretation of the main findings, including the strength of evidence.
Apply the results from the review you have conducted to what has been done in other studies.
Identify and discuss the limitations of studies included in the review.
Consistent structure must be applied throughout the body to help readers navigate your writing.
Structures: there are four commonly used options
Research aims – often rephrased as answers and literature applied to the aims Rørtveit et al. (2015, p. 205), provide a useful example of this structure.
Key themes – often literature is summarised and applied to research questions or aims of the research like Cantali, (2019, p. 46)
Research question – summary of relevant literature applied to each research question Macaro et al., (2017, p. 66) have a good example in their article.
Theory elaboration – explain how the theory you are using applies to the research data. Pitt et al. (2017, p. 2402) provide a useful example of this structure.
Discussion section summary (1 paragraph)
A brief and direct interpretation may be made by summarising:
Main findings identified from the research (present study).
Evidence of research gaps (future research).
Any new themes emerging from the data of your review.
Implications for future research or clinical or professional practice.
Conclusion
A brief and direct interpretation may be made by summarising:
Main findings identified from the research (present study).
Evidence of research gaps (future research).
Any new themes emerging from the data of your review.
Limitations of the review.
Implications for future research or clinical or professional practice.
Introduction (15 - 20% of word count)
State the topic for review, the type of systematic review you are undertaking (i.e., quantitative or qualitative, weighted, meta-analysis or meta-synthesis or other type of review) and include whether this is a new or updated review.
For a qualitative review, describe the questions that are being asked to explore the central phenomenon or concept under review and identify the aims and expected outcome of the review.
Explain the significance of the review to your academic field and audience. How will it contribute to our understanding of this topic?
Describe the research frontiers or state of the field being researched.
Define terms you are using, including debates and agreements about the terminology (this part may need separate paragraphs).
Describe how you have grouped the literature in terms of theory, topics, chronology, methodology, or findings. Provide a preview of the order of the main subsections in the literature review.
Insert Journal Article (75 - 80% of word count)
If you have published your systematic literature review, then insert the article in here.
Please confirm the requirements for including articles in a thesis for your academic discipline with your supervisor and the publisher.
Conclusion (3 – 5% of word count)
A brief and direct interpretation may be made by summarising:
Main findings identified from the research (present study)
Evidence of research gaps (future research that may be expanded in future chapters)
Any new themes emerging from the data of your review
Implications for future research, professional or clinical practice
Link the article to the chapter, thesis argument and the remaining chapters in the thesis.
Abstract (3 - 5% of total word count)
Abstracts are used for journal articles. They appear first in the article but are written last. These are either a narrative style or structured by sub-titles. If you have editorial or publication guidelines, then follow those guidelines.
If you are writing a chapter in a thesis then they usually do not have an abstract. However, similar information would likely be included in the chapter introduction.
Narratives may include: -
What specific problem or research question was being addressed
Why the research was conducted
Research Aims
What methods were used to solve the problem or to answer the question
What results were obtained
What the results mean to your discipline and reader
State your argument or claim
Structured abstracts may include: -
Background – previous research
Aim – purpose of the study
Method – the system and summary of process
Results – what was found
Conclusions – how your results meet your aims
Value/Recommendations – what is new or of value to your discipline, practical implications, or limitations
Useful writing links:
Griffith University style guide provides information about publication and tone of Griffith documents
Advice about conducting systematic reviews:
Griffith University RED workshops about qualitative systematic reviews, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, & multiverse analyses and systematic style reviews are available.
Campbell Collaboration for Education
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
The Cochrane Library
Two recommended checklists for critical appraisal of study design; SPIDER
A British Medical Journal article on meta-analysis