What is a Literature Review? Definition, Types and Examples

• A literature review must critically analyze and connect published sources to surface themes, contradictions, methodological strengths and weaknesses, and knowledge gaps. 
• Narrative reviews suit broad background context; systematic reviews and meta-analyses answer specific questions with minimal bias; scoping reviews map emerging topics; and critical, realist, descriptive, and umbrella reviews serve more specialized purposes.
• The literature review section of a journal article or a dissertation literature review chapter is meant to show the contribution of your study and justify your research question and methodology. A standalone review is research in itself, following a set structure of title, abstract, introduction, methods (with a PRISMA flow diagram for systematic reviews), body, discussion, conclusion, and references.

 

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing published material on a particular topic. It does more than simply summarize sources; it evaluates and connects them, drawing out themes, contradictions, methodological strengths and weaknesses, and gaps in current knowledge.

What a Literature Review Is NOT

It is equally important to understand what a literature review is not:

• Not an annotated bibliography: an annotated bibliography summarizes each source individually with no synthesis between them
• Not an essay or research paper: it does not prove or develop a central argument from scratch
• Not a list of summaries: it goes beyond “Source A says X, Source B says Y”
• Not a report: it does not present findings from primary data collection

Literature Review vs Background Section: Key Differences

Aspect	Literature Review	Background (in a Research Proposal/Research Paper)
Primary Goal	Comprehensively synthesize and critically evaluate existing knowledge on a topic	Set the context and justify why the specific study being proposed/reported is needed
Scope	Broad — covers the full landscape of relevant research, including differing schools of thought, methodologies, and findings	Narrow and selective — includes only the sources needed to frame the specific research gap
Depth of Coverage	Exhaustive within its defined boundaries; aims to leave no major relevant work unaddressed	Curated; deliberately excludes tangential work even if relevant to the broader field
Structure	Often organized thematically, chronologically, or methodologically, with its own internal logic	Usually organized narrowly and linearly: general context → narrowing focus → the specific gap → how this study addresses it
Level of Critical Analysis	High — evaluates strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, and methodological quality across studies	Lower — critical only where needed to justify the gap; not an evaluation of the entire field
Length	Can range from several pages (as a chapter/section) to an entire standalone paper	Typically short — a page or two, sometimes just a few paragraphs
Standalone Value	Can exist independently as a publishable contribution (e.g., a review article)	Cannot stand alone; only meaningful as part of a larger proposal or paper
End Point	Concludes by identifying gaps, debates, or open questions in the field generally	Concludes by directly leading into the specific research question, hypothesis, or objective of the study
Reader’s Takeaway	“Here is the state of knowledge on this topic, and here’s where the field stands overall”	“Here is why this particular study needs to happen”
Typical Location	A dedicated chapter/section (in a thesis) or its own article (as a review paper)	A subsection near the start of the Introduction in a proposal, grant application, or research paper

Core distinction: a literature review maps an entire field to show what is known and unknown broadly, while a background section is a brief, targeted narrative that uses only as much of the literature as necessary to justify one specific piece of new research. In practice, a background section often reads like a compressed, purpose-built extract of a larger literature review.

Why Is a Literature Review Important?

A well-conducted literature review serves multiple interconnected purposes:

Purpose	Description
Contextualises the research	Places your study within the existing body of knowledge
Identifies knowledge gaps	Highlights where research is absent, contradictory, or limited
Establishes credibility	Demonstrates your familiarity with the field
Informs theory and methods	Helps justify your theoretical framework and methodological choices
Guides research questions	Shapes and sharpens what you choose to investigate
Avoids duplication	Ensures your work builds on, rather than repeats, prior studies
Informs practice	For practitioners, review articles offer state-of-the-art evidence to guide decisions

Types of Literature Reviews

The table below shows the common types of literature reviews:

Type	Core Purpose	Approach	Best Used When
Narrative Review	Summarize and synthesize a broad topic	Flexible, thematic, qualitative	Providing background context; exploring a broad topic
Systematic Review	Answer a specific question with minimal bias	Highly structured, protocol-driven, exhaustive search	Aggregating evidence for evidence-based practice
Meta-Analysis	Statistically combine results from multiple studies	Quantitative synthesis using statistical methods	Sufficient homogeneous studies exist
Scoping Review	Map the extent and nature of a topic area	Comprehensive but exploratory	Emerging topics; assessing feasibility of a full systematic review
Rapid Review	Answer a specific question under tight time constraints	Systematic-style methods, streamlined or abbreviated to save time	Policy or clinical decisions need evidence quickly
Descriptive/Mapping Review	Identify patterns and trends in the literature	Systematic search + frequency analysis	Understanding publication trends in a field
Critical Review	Critically evaluate and interpret existing literature	Reflective, appraisal-focused	Identifying methodological weaknesses in a body of work
Integrative Review	Synthesize findings across studies with different methodologies	Combines quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods evidence	Building a fuller picture of a complex, multifaceted topic
Realist Review	Understand how and why complex interventions work	Theory-driven, context-sensitive	Complex social or policy interventions
Umbrella Review	Synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews	Tertiary synthesis	Broad research topics with multiple existing systematic reviews

 

How to Choose the Right Type of Literature Review

Question to ask yourself	If yes / applies	Suggested review type(s)
Do I just need broad background/context on a topic, without a rigid methodology?	Yes	Narrative review
Do I need to answer one specific, focused research question with minimal bias?	Yes → check timeline below	Systematic review, meta-analysis, or rapid review
Do I have only a few weeks, not months, to complete this?	Yes	Rapid review
Do the included studies report comparable quantitative data that can be statistically pooled?	Yes	Meta-analysis
No, but I still need a structured, protocol-driven approach	Yes	Systematic review
Is the topic new or emerging, and I’m not yet sure how much literature exists?	Yes	Scoping review
Do I need to compare conclusions across several existing systematic reviews on related topics?	Yes	Umbrella review
Does my evidence base include a mix of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies I need to combine?	Yes	Integrative review
Do I need to explain how, why, for whom, or under what conditions a complex intervention works (not just whether it works)?	Yes	Realist review
Does my field/journal have a strong methodological convention (e.g., PRISMA in health sciences)?	Yes	Follow that convention regardless of the above — field norms override general fit
Do I have a registered protocol or plan to register one (e.g., PROSPERO)?	Yes	Signals systematic review or meta-analysis; rapid/narrative reviews are rarely pre-registered
Am I a single reviewer with no second person to independently screen/extract data?	Yes	Leans toward rapid or narrative review; systematic reviews typically require dual review for rigor
Do I need the review to be publishable as a standalone paper (not just a background section)?	Yes	Any of the above except a research proposal’s background section

How to use this: work down the left column in order. The first “yes” that applies is usually your primary indicator. If two rows point to different types (e.g., timeline says rapid, but your field’s norms say systematic), prioritize field norms and stated publication requirements over timeline convenience, since a rapid review may need to be explicitly justified or flagged as a limitation in more traditional fields.

How to Search the Literature

Step 1: Define Your Research Question

A well-formulated question shapes every later step of a review, from search terms to inclusion criteria, so choosing the right framework matters.

PICO

PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) is the standard in health and clinical sciences. It works well for intervention-effectiveness questions, e.g., “In adults with type 2 diabetes (P), does metformin (I) compared to lifestyle intervention alone (C) reduce HbA1c levels (O)?” Variants like PICOS (adding Study design) or PICOT (adding Time) refine it further for systematic reviews.

SPIDER

SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) is better suited to qualitative and mixed-methods research, where there’s no discrete “intervention” to test. It focuses instead on the experience or phenomenon being studied, e.g., “What are new mothers’ (S) experiences of postnatal anxiety (PI) as explored through interviews (D), regarding coping strategies (E), in qualitative studies (R)?”

PEO

PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome) fits observational and exposure-based questions common in public health and epidemiology, where there’s no intervention being tested, just a naturally occurring exposure, e.g., “Among adolescents (P), does social media use (E) affect sleep quality (O)?”

Choosing the wrong framework often produces overly broad or oddly structured questions, so it’s worth matching the framework to the review’s underlying design before drafting a question.

Step 2: Choose Your Databases

Different fields have different key databases. Use multiple databases to maximize coverage:

Field	Recommended Databases
Medicine & Health	PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase
Social Sciences	PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, ERIC
General/Multidisciplinary	Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, JSTOR
Engineering & Technology	IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library
Humanities	JSTOR, Project MUSE, MLA International Bibliography

Step 3: Develop Your Search Strategy

• Identify keywords: Use synonyms and related terms (e.g., “adolescent,” “teenager,” “youth”)
• Use Boolean operators: AND narrows your search; OR broadens it; NOT excludes terms
• Apply truncation and wildcards: e.g., “therap*” captures therapy, therapies, therapist
• Use subject headings: Controlled vocabulary like MeSH terms (in PubMed) improves precision
• Set date filters: Limit to a relevant time period based on your topic’s history
• Document your search: Record exactly what you searched and when. This is essential for transparency and reproducibility

Step 4: Screen and Select Sources

Once you have your initial results, apply inclusion and exclusion criteria:

• Inclusion criteria might specify: peer-reviewed articles, published after a certain year, studies conducted in a specific population, written in a specific language
• Exclusion criteria might eliminate: conference abstracts, grey literature (unless doing a scoping review), studies below a quality threshold

For systematic reviews, screening should be done independently by at least two reviewers, with a clear process for resolving disagreements.

Step 5: Assess Source Quality

Not all published research is of equal quality. Ask yourself:

• Is it peer-reviewed?
• Is the methodology clearly described and appropriate?
• Is the sample size adequate?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Are there conflicts of interest?
• For qualitative studies: is the researcher’s positionality addressed?

Step 6: Supplement Your Search

• Backward searching: check the reference lists of key papers you have already identified
• Forward searching: use Google Scholar or Web of Science to find papers that have since cited a key article
• Grey literature: government reports, theses, and preprints may be relevant, particularly for scoping reviews

How to Synthesize the Literature

Synthesis is the intellectual core of a literature review. It is what distinguishes a literature review from an annotated bibliography. These are the two main approaches to combining findings once studies are selected, and the choice depends on how comparable the included studies are.

Statistical Pooling

Statistical pooling (used in meta-analyses) combines numerical results from multiple studies into a single, quantitative effect size, using statistical models such as fixed-effect or random-effects models. This requires the studies to be sufficiently homogeneous, i.e., similar populations, interventions, and outcome measures, so that combining their data produces a meaningful, precise estimate rather than an apples-to-oranges average.

Narrative synthesis

Narrative synthesis is used when studies are too heterogeneous in design, population, or outcome measures to pool statistically. Instead, findings are summarized and compared in text, often organized by theme, outcome, or study characteristic, with tables used to structure comparisons. It’s inherently more subjective than statistical pooling since it relies on the reviewer’s interpretation and grouping of results rather than a standardized formula.

When to choose narrative synthesis vs statistical pooling?

Factor	Choose Narrative Synthesis	Choose Statistical Pooling (Meta-Analysis)
Study homogeneity	Studies vary substantially in population, intervention, or outcome measures	Studies are sufficiently similar in design, population, and outcomes
Outcome measures	Outcomes measured inconsistently across studies (different scales, tools, or definitions)	Outcomes measured consistently or convertible to a common metric
Study designs included	Mix of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed-methods studies	Predominantly quantitative studies with comparable numerical data
Number of studies	Very few studies, or too few per subgroup to pool meaningfully	Enough studies (typically several) to generate a statistically stable pooled estimate
Statistical heterogeneity	High heterogeneity (e.g., high I² statistic) that would make pooling misleading	Low to moderate heterogeneity, or heterogeneity that can be explained/adjusted for
Goal of synthesis	Understanding patterns, context, or a range of findings	Producing one precise, generalizable effect size
Data availability	Missing or incomplete raw/summary data from studies	Full or sufficient summary statistics available from each study

The two aren’t mutually exclusive: a review may narratively synthesize findings from one subset of studies while pooling data statistically from a more homogeneous subset. Choosing narrative synthesis doesn’t lower a review’s rigor; it’s simply the appropriate choice when statistical pooling would misleadingly force incompatible data into a single number.

Strategies for Effective Synthesis

• Group sources thematically rather than discussing one paper at a time. Cluster sources that address the same concept or finding
• Compare and contrast. Identify where researchers agree, disagree, or use conflicting methods
• Track developments over time. Note how thinking on a topic has evolved across decades
• Identify patterns. Look for recurring findings, dominant methodological approaches, or shared theoretical frameworks
• Highlight gaps: point out where has research been sparse, inconsistent, or entirely absent
• Build a synthesis matrix: a table with sources as rows and key themes or variables as columns helps you visualize connections and gaps before you start writing

 

Common Pitfalls in Literature Reviews and How to Avoid Them

Even well-intentioned literature reviews can fall short due to a handful of recurring mistakes. Being aware of these early can save significant rework later.

Overreliance on abstracts instead of full texts

Abstracts are compressed summaries and often omit crucial methodological details, limitations, or nuanced findings. Relying on them alone risks misrepresenting a study’s actual scope or conclusions, and can lead to including studies that don’t actually meet inclusion criteria once the full text is examined. Abstracts are useful for initial screening, but decisions about inclusion, quality appraisal, and data extraction should always be based on the full text.

Cherry-picking studies that confirm a hypothesis (confirmation bias)

It’s tempting, consciously or not, to give more weight to studies that support a preferred conclusion while downplaying or excluding contradictory evidence. This undermines the credibility of the entire review. A rigorous review reports the full range of findings, including conflicting or null results, and explains discrepancies rather than glossing over them. Predefined, transparent inclusion/exclusion criteria (ideally set before searching, as in a registered protocol) help guard against this.

Outdated sources / neglecting recency

Citing only older, “foundational” work while ignoring recent developments can make a review feel disconnected from the current state of a field, especially in fast-moving disciplines like technology or medicine. While seminal older studies often deserve inclusion for context, reviewers should explicitly search for and incorporate recent literature, and periodically re-run searches if the review process spans many months.

Poor synthesis (a “list of summaries” rather than an integrated argument)

One of the most common structural weaknesses: presenting a string of “Study A found X. Study B found Y. Study C found Z.” without ever connecting these findings into a coherent argument. A strong literature review identifies patterns, contradictions, and gaps across studies, and organizes discussion thematically or conceptually rather than study-by-study. The goal is synthesis, not summary.

Ignoring grey literature where relevant

Grey literature (conference proceedings, theses, government reports, preprints, clinical trial registries) can be essential for topics prone to publication bias, since studies with null or negative results are less likely to appear in peer-reviewed journals. Excluding grey literature entirely, without acknowledging the decision, can skew a review toward inflated effect sizes or overly positive conclusions. Whether to include it should be a deliberate, justified methodological choice, not an oversight.

Citation/reference management errors

Misattributed quotes, incorrect page numbers, duplicate entries, or inconsistent citation formatting undermine a review’s credibility and can misdirect readers trying to verify claims. These errors compound quickly in reviews citing dozens or hundreds of sources. Using reference management software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley) from the outset, and periodically auditing the reference list against the in-text citations, helps catch these issues before submission.

Literature Review for a Thesis or Dissertation: Special Considerations

A thesis or dissertation literature review carries unique expectations compared to a standalone review article.

Purpose Within the Thesis

The literature review in a thesis serves to:

• Establish the theoretical and conceptual framework you will work within
• Justify your research questions by showing what remains unknown or contested
• Demonstrate to examiners that you have a thorough, critical grasp of the field
• Provide the scholarly context that validates your chosen methodology
• Show original critical thinking  (not just coverage, but insight)

Key Differences from a Standalone Review

Feature	Dissertation Literature Review	Standalone Review Article
Primary purpose	Grounds your original research	Is research in itself
Perspective	Written from your position as a researcher-in-progress	Addresses the broader scholarly community
Coverage	Selective but rigorous, must justify your study	May be exhaustive (systematic) or broadly representative (narrative)
Critical voice	Your analytical stance should be present throughout	Voice depends on review type
Evolution	May be revised as empirical work progresses	Fixed once published

Common Pitfalls for Thesis Writers

• Over-describing and under-analysing: spending too much time recounting what studies found and too little evaluating and connecting them
• Losing the thread: failing to link the discussion back to your own research question
• Neglecting seminal works: skipping foundational theories or landmark studies in your field
• No critical voice: presenting the literature as if all sources are equally valid and beyond debate
• Outdated coverage: not including recent publications. Always check for literature from the last 3–5 years before submission

How to Structure a Standalone Literature Review Article

A standalone literature review (published as a journal article) follows a recognizable structure, the IMRAD format. Review articles are among the most widely cited in academic literature, because they synthesize knowledge that others need as a starting point for their own research.

1. Title and Abstract

• The title should clearly signal the topic, scope, and review type (e.g., “A Systematic Review of…”; “Trends in… A Narrative Review”)
• The abstract should summarize the purpose, scope, methods (for systematic reviews), key findings, and conclusions

2. Introduction

The introduction should:

• Introduce the broader subject and establish its significance
• Narrow to your specific topic and the research question driving the review
• Define the scope: what time period, disciplines, and study types are included and why
• State the type of review being conducted
• Explain what the review contributes and how it is organized (a forecasting statement)

3. Methods (Required for Systematic, Scoping, and Descriptive Reviews)

For rigorous review types, a methods section must include:

• Search strategy: databases, date ranges, and search terms used
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria: clearly stated, ideally in a table
• Screening process: number of reviewers and how conflicts were resolved
• Quality appraisal: tools or criteria used to assess study quality
• Data extraction: what information was extracted and how
• A PRISMA flow diagram is standard for systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

4. Body / Results

Organize the results section or body according to one of these approaches:

Organizational Approach	Description	Best For
Thematic	Groups sources by topic, concept, or finding	Most reviews; emphasizes intellectual connections
Chronological	Traces how knowledge has evolved over time	When historical development is important
Methodological	Groups by the methods used in primary studies	When comparing research approaches is the main goal
Theoretical	Groups by theoretical framework or school of thought	Theory-heavy disciplines like sociology or education

Within each section of the body:

• Provide background and definitions as needed
• Group and synthesize related findings. Do not move source by source
• Compare and contrast studies, and evaluate their methodological quality
• Note contradictions and debates
• Write topic sentences that express the analytical point of the paragraph, not just the name of a researcher

5. Discussion

Where present, the discussion section:

• Draws together patterns and conclusions from across the body
• Addresses the implications of knowledge gaps for the field
• Evaluates the overall strength and consistency of the evidence base
• Suggests specific directions for future research

6. Conclusion

The conclusion should:

• Summarize the major contributions of the reviewed literature
• Reiterate what is known, what is contested, and what remains unknown
• Propose concrete avenues for future inquiry
• Avoid introducing new material not covered in the body

7. References

• Maintain a consistent citation style throughout (APA, MLA, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.)
• Cite both direct quotations and paraphrased material
• Use citation management software (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) to stay organized

Frequently Asked Questions

How many sources should a literature review include?

There is no universal rule. The appropriate number depends on the scope of your topic, the level of your work, and the type of review. A thesis chapter might include 40–80 sources; a short undergraduate paper might require 10–20; a comprehensive systematic review in medicine can include hundreds of primary studies. The key criterion is not quantity but coverage: have you engaged with the key theories, landmark studies, and recent developments relevant to your question? Check with your supervisor or your institution’s guidelines if you are unsure.

Can I include grey literature such as government reports, policy documents, or dissertations?

Yes, and in some cases you should. Grey literature can be valuable, particularly for scoping reviews or when the academic literature on a topic is sparse. Apply the same critical appraisal standards you would to any source: consider the authority of the producing organisation, the transparency of the methodology, and any potential for bias. Including grey literature is also important for systematic reviews because it helps reduce publication bias (the tendency for studies with positive or significant findings to be published more readily than those with null results).

How do I handle conflicting findings across sources?

Conflicting findings are a feature of the literature, not a problem to be hidden. They are often the most intellectually valuable thing a literature review can surface. Rather than ignoring contradictions, explore possible reasons for them: differences in study populations, methodologies, measurement tools, sample sizes, or time periods. Acknowledge where consensus is strong and where genuine debate exists. This kind of nuanced analysis signals to your reader that you understand the field deeply.

Should I include sources that contradict my thesis or position?

Absolutely. Engaging critically with contradictory evidence is a mark of scholarly integrity. Selectively citing only sources that support your position (sometimes called “cherry-picking”) is a serious academic flaw. A strong literature review acknowledges the full landscape of evidence, including studies that challenge your perspective, and explains why, on balance, the evidence or argumentation supports your position. As the University of Toronto advises, always ask yourself whether you have cited and discussed studies contrary to your own perspective.

What is a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis?

A qualitative systematic review is a structured, transparent method for identifying, appraising, and synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative studies on a specific research question. Unlike traditional narrative reviews, it follows an explicit, reproducible protocol for searching, selecting, and evaluating studies, reducing bias and improving rigor.

Meta-synthesis is the interpretive process at its core. Rather than statistically pooling data (as meta-analysis does with quantitative studies), it integrates findings from qualitative research to generate new, higher-order understandings that transcend individual studies. Researchers compare and combine themes, concepts, and interpretations across studies to produce fresh insights.

When should I update my literature review?

Treat a literature review as a living document during the research process. For a thesis, update it whenever significant new publications appear, and always check for recent work before final submission. For published standalone reviews, the shelf life depends on the pace of the field: in fast-moving areas like biomedicine or artificial intelligence, reviews may become partially outdated within 2–3 years. As a general rule, if your database search was conducted more than 12–18 months ago in an active field, it is worth running updated searches before finalizing your manuscript.

How do I make sure I’m not citing retracted studies or papers from low-quality, predatory journals?

To avoid citing retracted papers or work from predatory journals, start with a few manual checks: look up retraction status through the Retraction Watch Database or Crossref’s metadata, and confirm journals appear in legitimate indexes like DOAJ, Scopus, or Web of Science. Cross-referencing questionable titles against Cabell’s Predatory Reports or the archived Beall’s List also helps, as does watching for red flags like unclear peer review, suspiciously fast publication, vague editorial boards, or aggressive solicitation emails.

But checking every reference by hand is slow and error-prone, especially since retraction status can change after you’ve already cited a paper. That’s where Paperpal’s Reference Checker (https://paperpal.com/tools/reference-checker) helps. It automatically scans your full reference list and flags retracted papers, citations from predatory or low-quality journals, broken or inaccurate references, and formatting inconsistencies.

Running your manuscript through it before submission is worth the few minutes it takes, since even one problematic citation can undermine an otherwise solid paper.

Can I use AI in my literature review?

Yes, you can use AI to draft a literature review as long as you have assembled all the evidence beforehand and verified it manually. Use specific, narrow prompts and never ask AI to generate entire sections at one go as this increases the risk of hallucinations. Be sure to screen all AI output carefully, especially citations and references. If you’re also using AI to search the literature or to extract data and synthesize, keep this workflow separate and first manually screen and verify that output before you use AI for any writing. 

Can I cite AI in a literature review?

Yes, but with care. You must distinguish between using AI as a source vs using AI to actually perform some of the study tasks (e.g., search or screen papers).

Citing AI as a source (references)

• If you’re referencing an AI-generated output itself as content (e.g., quoting or discussing something an AI produced), cite AI output like an Internet or non-standard source, with tool name, developer, version, and access date.
• AI outputs aren’t peer-reviewed or independently verifiable, so they generally shouldn’t be cited as evidence or scholarly sources within the review’s argument.

Disclosing AI assistance (process)

• Separate from citations, goes in Methods or an AI disclosure statement.
•  State which tasks AI helped perform: search term generation, summarizing papers, identifying themes/gaps, drafting or editing prose, formatting references.
• Note the tool/version used and confirm you verified outputs (accuracy of summaries, correct attributions, no fabricated citations).

 

 

 

 

References

1. Cantero, C. (2019). How to Write a Literature Review. San José State University Writing Center. https://www.sjsu.edu/writingcenter/docs/handouts/Literature%20Reviews.pdf   
2. Alex, D. (2026). What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples). Paperpal Blog. https://paperpal.com/blog/academic-writing-guides/what-is-a-literature-review-how-to-write-it-with-examples
3. Paré, G., & Kitsiou, S. (2017). Chapter 9: Methods for Literature Reviews. In F. Lau & C. Kuziemsky (Eds.), Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach. University of Victoria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/
4. Taylor, D. (n.d.). The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It. Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto. https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/
5. Institute for Academic Development, University of Edinburgh. (n.d.). Literature Review. https://institute-academic-development.ed.ac.uk/study-hub/learning-resources/literature-review

This article was originally published on April 3, 2024, and updated on June 3, 2026.