literature review in research notes

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core Collection This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Japan can embrace open science — but flexible approaches are key

Correspondence 07 MAY 24

US funders to tighten oversight of controversial ‘gain of function’ research

News 07 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

Postdoc in CRISPR Meta-Analytics and AI for Therapeutic Target Discovery and Priotisation (OT Grant)

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 14/06/2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute created and supported by the...

Human Technopole

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Organizing and Creating Information

• Citation and Attribution

What Is a Literature Review?

Review the literature, write the literature review, further reading, learning objectives, attribution.

This guide is designed to:

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review

A literature review is a summary and synthesis of scholarly research on a specific topic. It should answer questions such as:

• What research has been done on the topic?
• Who are the key researchers and experts in the field?
• What are the common theories and methodologies?
• Are there challenges, controversies, and contradictions?
• Are there gaps in the research that your approach addresses?

The process of reviewing existing research allows you to fine-tune your research question and contextualize your own work. Preparing a literature review is a cyclical process. You may find that the research question you begin with evolves as you learn more about the topic.

Once you have defined your research question , focus on learning what other scholars have written on the topic.

In order to  do a thorough search of the literature  on the topic, define the basic criteria:

• Databases and journals: Look at the  subject guide  related to your topic for recommended databases. Review the  tutorial on finding articles  for tips. 
• Books: Search BruKnow, the Library's catalog. Steps to searching ebooks are covered in the  Finding Ebooks tutorial .
• What time period should it cover? Is currency important?
• Do I know of primary and secondary sources that I can use as a way to find other information?
• What should I be aware of when looking at popular, trade, and scholarly resources ? 

One strategy is to review bibliographies for sources that relate to your interest. For more on this technique, look at the tutorial on finding articles when you have a citation .

Tip: Use a Synthesis Matrix

As you read sources, themes will emerge that will help you to organize the review. You can use a simple Synthesis Matrix to track your notes as you read. From this work, a concept map emerges that provides an overview of the literature and ways in which it connects. Working with Zotero to capture the citations, you build the structure for writing your literature review.

How do I know when I am done?

A key indicator for knowing when you are done is running into the same articles and materials. With no new information being uncovered, you are likely exhausting your current search and should modify search terms or search different catalogs or databases. It is also possible that you have reached a point when you can start writing the literature review.

Tip: Manage Your Citations

These citation management tools also create citations, footnotes, and bibliographies with just a few clicks:

Zotero Tutorial

Endnote Tutorial

Your literature review should be focused on the topic defined in your research question. It should be written in a logical, structured way and maintain an objective perspective and use a formal voice.

Review the Summary Table you created for themes and connecting ideas. Use the following guidelines to prepare an outline of the main points you want to make. 

• Synthesize previous research on the topic.
• Aim to include both summary and synthesis.
• Include literature that supports your research question as well as that which offers a different perspective.
• Avoid relying on one author or publication too heavily.
• Select an organizational structure, such as chronological, methodological, and thematic.

The three elements of a literature review are introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction

• Define the topic of the literature review, including any terminology.
• Introduce the central theme and organization of the literature review.
• Summarize the state of research on the topic.
• Frame the literature review with your research question.
• Focus on ways to have the body of literature tell its own story. Do not add your own interpretations at this point.
• Look for patterns and find ways to tie the pieces together.
• Summarize instead of quote.
• Weave the points together rather than list summaries of each source.
• Include the most important sources, not everything you have read.
• Summarize the review of the literature.
• Identify areas of further research on the topic.
• Connect the review with your research.
• DeCarlo, M. (2018). 4.1 What is a literature review? In Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Open Social Work Education. https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/4-1-what-is-a-literature-review/
• Literature Reviews (n.d.) https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/ Accessed Nov. 10, 2021

This guide was designed to: 

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing 
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review​

Content on this page adapted from: 

Frederiksen, L. and Phelps, S. (2017).   Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students.  Licensed CC BY 4.0

• << Previous: EndNote
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 3:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

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: May 13, 2024 11:24 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.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The process of writing a literature review

Writing a literature review is a complex and non-linear process. It usually involves reiterations of all or any of the following steps:

Conducting a Library search for sources

• Taking notes while critically reading and analysing the literature
• Structuring the literature review
• Styling the language of the literature review.

One of the first and important steps in carrying out a literature review is to conduct an effective Library search which will help you identify the most relevant sources for your research topic.

If you need some assistance with searching the literature strategically, you might want to work through the Strategies and Resources for Searching the Literature module in this collection. Amongst other things, this module will help you to effectively:

• form key words or descriptors for your topic
• create a search query
• find different and relevant types of resources
• use more advanced searching techniques.

Taking notes

Taking effective notes is another key part of the process of writing up your literature review.

There is a variety of ways that one can use to take notes. These include:

• highlighting and writing notes in margins
• drawing a diagram or a mind map
• using the Cornell note-taking system .

In this module, we will focus on using an annotated bibliography as a note-taking technique.

Using an annotated bibliography to take notes

An annotated bibliography can be a useful way of taking notes as you read the literature and think about what you are reading. It allows you to collect both a summary of the key points from different readings as well as a critical assessment of the literature. It also allows you to provide comments about how a text relates both to your own research and to other literature.

An annotated bibliography has two main sections:

• A reference (bibliographic information or citation) in your chosen citation style.
• An annotation (description and comments on the source). The annotation usually provides:
• a summary of the key points or arguments the source makes
• a reflection on how the source contributes to your field of knowledge and how it might be useful in your own research
• a critical analysis or evaluation of the ideas presented.

What to include in a summary?

When writing an annotated bibliography, start with a summary or description for each source. As you read, take notes in your own words of the aim of the research, the methodologies that have been used, the main arguments and overall findings, and the scope and limitations of the study. This will form the basis of your summary which will be in the form of a coherent 50–100-word paragraph or just two or three sentences.

How to reflect on the relevance of a source to your own research?

Writing a reflection for your annotated bibliography includes writing a few sentences explaining in what ways the source is useful for, or relates to, the overall theme of your research. This section of the annotation will be particularly helpful when you come to building an argument for your research in your literature review.

Ask yourself:

• What does this source contribute to the ideas I am developing in my research or to the argument/s I am making?

It is worth mentioning that while your reflection states your personal ideas and evaluations, it should still be objective and unemotional.

What to include in a critical analysis?

• What are the strengths and limitations of the source in terms of aim, methodology, and findings?
• Are the findings sound, logical and well researched?
• Is the source original, important and of a high standard?
• How does this source add to the research in the field?
• Where is its place — and relationship — in the wider field of research and scholarly discussions?

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Literature Reviews

• 1. Define your research question
• Getting started
• Types of reviews

Define topic

Brainstorming, limit scope, how ai can help, helpful resources.

• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Mission animated icons created by Freepik - Flaticon

For example, the following research question is too broad.

Does social media affect mental health in college students?

A more focused research question could be:

Does social media play a role in the number of eating disorder diagnoses in college-aged women?

Need some guidance? Contact your subject librarian for a research consultation or reach out to [email protected] .

Start the brainstorming process:

• Begin by identifying a broad topic of research interest (the more you're personally interested in it, the better!). Write it down to clarify your focus.
• Narrow down your scope  by considering specific areas within this topic that you want to explore.
• Identify key themes and elements  related to these specific areas. These will be the building blocks of your investigation.
• Finally,  integrate these key areas and elements  into a well-crafted research question.

One way to brainstorm is to use a flowchart.

The scope of a topic  encompasses the boundaries and constraints you set for your research. The more precise your research question, the smoother the research process becomes.

Feeling stuck? Here are some ways you can narrow down your topic:

• geographic location
• time period
• discipline/field of study
• age group, etc.

You:  I need to conduct a literature review about social media, mental health, and college students. What are some example research questions within this topic?

ChatGPT: 

• How does the frequency and nature of social media use impact the mental health of college students?
• What role do specific social media platforms play in influencing the mental well-being of college students?
• How do online social interactions on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter relate to the mental health outcomes of college students?
• Are there differences in the association between social media use and mental health outcomes based on demographic factors such as gender, age, or academic major among college students?
• What strategies do college students employ to cope with negative mental health effects associated with social media use?
• How does the perception of social support through online platforms affect the mental health of college students?
• To what extent does the comparison of oneself to others on social media contribute to mental health challenges among college students?
• What interventions or educational programs are effective in promoting positive mental health behaviors in the context of social media use for college students?
• How do social media literacy and awareness programs impact the mental health attitudes and behaviors of college students?
• What is the relationship between the use of social media for academic and social purposes and the mental health outcomes of college students?

Generative AI tools : ChatGPT , Google Gemini (formerly Bard) , Claude , Microsoft Copilot

For more information on how to incorporate AI tools into your research, check out the section on AI Tools .

• Developing Your Research Question
• Developing a Researchable Question
• Brainstorming tips from UNC Writing Center
• << Previous: Types of reviews
• Next: 2. Plan your search >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

Writing a Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• Step 1: Choosing a Topic
• Step 2: Finding Information
• Step 3: Evaluating Content
• Step 4: Taking Notes
• Step 5: Synthesizing Content
• Step 6: Writing the Review
• Step 7: Citing Your Sources
• Meet the Library Team
• Off-Campus & Mobile Access
• Research Help
• Other Helpful Guides

Note Taking Tips!

• Notetaking Systems: California Polytechnic State University

At this point in the process, you have committed to a topic, found resources on it, and now are trying to glean information from those sources. The page linked above provides some note taking tips, ways to avoid plagiarism, and 5 different note taking styles (also described below). Pick the style that works best for you.

The Cornell Method

The outline method, the mapping method, the charting method, the sentence method.

• Cornell Learning Strategies Center Resources including Note-Taking Method

The Cornell Method uses a two-column approach to note taking.

• The first column measures about 2.5 inches.
• The second column (the larger of the two) measures about 6 inches.
• The larger column is the space to take your notes in.
• The smaller column is to be used to create cue words or keywords that describe the information they are taking notes about.
• At the very bottom of the sheet is a two-inch wide space used to summarize in one or two sentences the main concept or idea taken from the resource.

Cornell Notes - wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_Notes

• How to take Cornell notes - YouTube

The Outline Method is a very structed way of note-taking.

• The left side of the sheet contains general ideas.
• As you work your way to the right, the information grows increasely more detailed.
• The relationship between ideas and information is carried out through the indentation.

The Mapping Method is a very visual way of organizing your notes and information.

• It makes use of graphical representation of information content.
• It involves writing down the concept or terms and radiating the related ideas out of the center.
• You can use lines and symbols to build and link the related ideas.
• It can also be used as a way of brainstorming.

The Charting Method utilizes a chart-structure as a way of organizing your notes.

• Determine the points/topics/subjects that you are trying to find information about.
• Set up your paper in advance by columns headed by these points/topics/subjects.
• As you read through a source (a book, article, website, etc.), record information (words, phrases, main ideas, etc.) under the the appropriate column.

The Sentence Method is the most basic notes-taking method.

• As you research, write down any new ideas or bits of information as a sentence.
• Number each sentence as you move down the page.
• << Previous: Step 3: Evaluating Content
• Next: Step 5: Synthesizing Content >>
• Last Updated: Apr 1, 2024 9:42 AM
• URL: https://libguides.llu.edu/literaturereview

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

Researching the Literature Review

• 1. Get Started
• 2. Find Articles

Tracking Your Searches

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

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

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

Viewing the search history and saving searches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• OSU Graduate Writing Center

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

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

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

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

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

Digital Projects

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

A bibliometrics review of the journal mindfulness : science mapping the literature from 2012 to 2022.

• Department of Education and Learning Technology, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan

This study conducts a bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science database on 1,950 articles published in the journal Mindfulness from 2012 to 2022. By constructing a knowledge graph, the research delineates the evolution, stages of development, and emerging trends in the field of mindfulness. Significant growth in the annual publication volume has been observed since 2012, with the research progression segmented into three distinct phases. The United States has emerged as a pivotal contributor to the field, dominating in terms of publication volume, researcher involvement, and institutional contributions. Through the application of keyword co-occurrence and reference co-citation analysis, five principal clusters were identified, focusing on mindfulness, meditation, depression, stress, and self-compassion, underscoring these as focal research areas. Furthermore, the exploration of mindfulness within the educational sphere in Taiwan is still nascent, signaling a critical need for bolstered research support in diverse thematic domains.

Introduction

Mental health, a cornerstone of contemporary society, substantially influences national productivity and interpersonal relationships. Recent advances in mindfulness research suggest that cultivating mindfulness fosters positive and resilient attitudes towards evolving social contexts. Kabat-Zinn’s pioneering work in 1979 integrated Buddhist mindfulness meditation into the medical realm, inaugurating Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) clinics—a milestone in healthcare applications of mindfulness ( Wen, 2016 ).

As research into mindfulness has deepened, its applications have broadened from medicine to fields such as psychology, education, business, and even commercialization ( Wilson, 2014 ). Empirical studies indicate that mindfulness enhances self-acceptance, care, and courage, which in turn uplifts the quality of life ( Dobkin and Zhao, 2011 ). Additionally, it mitigates symptoms of stress, depression, and anxiety, bolsters positive emotions, and improves psychological health ( Keng et al., 2011 ; Lakhan and Schofield, 2013 ; Penman and Burch, 2013 ). It also positively impacts attention and emotional regulation ( Wen, 2013 ), and strengthens interpersonal relationships ( Grossman et al., 2004 ; Davis and Hayes, 2011 ). As a holistic approach to psychological and physical well-being, mindfulness education encourages students to deepen their reflective thinking, enhance awareness, and apply mindfulness practices, thus continually advancing their academic and health outcomes. For instance, Napoli et al. (2005) observed that mindfulness improves children’s selective attention, mental health, and cognitive functions, enhancing overall well-being. Mindfulness interventions have also been shown to mitigate depressive symptoms in adolescents ( Raes et al., 2014 ; Kallapiran et al., 2015 ) and to enhance cognition, academic performance, behavior, and socio-emotional qualities among primary and secondary students ( Maynard et al., 2017 ). Hsieh (2018) advocates for the integration of mindfulness into school education and management, aiming to foster a comprehensive understanding of life’s significance, the pursuit of meaningful values, and the promotion of care and social responsibility.

In Taiwan, mindfulness research, albeit more recent, focuses on enhancing attention, body and mind awareness, emotional processing, and stress regulation through mindfulness practices, or explores its benefits in physical and mental health, professional development, and patient care ( Chen et al., 2019 ). Thus, it is necessary for Taiwan to further expand the application domains of mindfulness research and to support its development through government policies, as well as to strengthen interdisciplinary collaborations to deepen the understanding of mindfulness effects across various groups. For example, Jin and Liu (2017) implemented targeted mindfulness interventions for special student groups, providing insightful experiences applicable to broader student populations; Jiang et al. (2022) integrated insights from psychology, education, and sociology to explore how mindfulness parenting positively affects parent–child relationships and alleviates behavioral issues in children, contributing significantly to societal welfare.

The advent of Knowledge Graph technology has revolutionized the exploration of disciplines, academic communities, and intellectual traditions through the analysis of journal articles. Unlike traditional reviews and meta-analyses, bibliometric analysis offers a detailed summary of a field’s literature metrics and knowledge structure by examining the structural relationships among authors, countries, institutions, and themes, employing statistical methods such as article counts, reference co-citation analysis, and impact factors ( Donthu et al., 2021 ). This approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics across various scientific fields, enhancing the scope and depth of academic exploration.

To date, the systematic construction of knowledge graphs in the realm of mindfulness research remains limited. The journal Mindfulness serves as a critical resource for advancing the assessment, prevention, treatment, counseling, training, and collaboration of mindfulness theories and interdisciplinary studies. Given this backdrop, a comprehensive analysis of the mindfulness research literature is essential. This analysis will facilitate a macroscopic understanding of the developmental trajectory, knowledge base, research hotspots, and future research directions in this field. Moreover, it will inform recommendations and enhancements for education in Taiwan.

This paper employs VOSviewer (v.1.6.18) to analyze mindfulness-related research from 2012 to 2022, exploring thematic developments and presenting the findings via a knowledge graph, providing a foundational reference for future studies. This study addresses the following research questions:

1. What is the publication count and growth trajectory of mindfulness literature?

2. Which authors and countries have the most significant influence on mindfulness research?

3. What are the primary research hotspots within the field of mindfulness?

4. What implications does mindfulness research hold for the educational in Taiwan?

Literature review

“Mindfulness,” often associated with terms such as contemplation, introspection, and concentration, originates from the Buddhist term “sammā-sati,” which translates to “Right Mindfulness” or simply “Mindfulness.” This term encapsulates the concepts of awareness, attention, and remembering, essential for alleviating physical and mental stress ( Lv, 2014 ). Buddha, who lived approximately 2,500 years ago, emphasized that mindfulness is crucial for overcoming ‘attachment, aversion, and delusion.’

The theoretical foundation of mindfulness research was laid by Ellen Langer, a social psychologist at Harvard University. In her 1989 work, she proposed that many negative life outcomes, such as unhappiness, accidents, and poor health, could result from a lack of mindfulness ( Langer, 1989 ). Thus, she viewed mindfulness as both a method of mental training and a way of life, helping individuals to observe changes within their bodies and minds and to maintain an open, accepting, and clear presence in the moment ( Lin, 2013 ).

Mindfulness, deeply rooted in religious traditions, has evolved significantly under their influence. Wen (2013) emphasized that mindfulness focuses on present awareness and mental states, which profoundly impact human physical and mental health. The process involves causal interactions that construct what is termed “experience,” generated through the senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) and integrated conceptually. Mindfulness categorizes the six senses into five aggregates: form (material), sensation, perception (identification and evaluation), volitional formations (responses and actions), and consciousness. The practice asserts that identification with “self,” “mine,” or “myself” is illusory, and true awareness is based on this realization. Buddha taught that mental changes are constant and recognizing this allows for greater flexibility and acceptance in responding to life’s changes ( Ronald et al., 2009 ).

Mindfulness has been extensively researched within medicine, modern psychology, and social psychology, influenced initially by psychologist Kabat-Zinn. In 1979, he introduced the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) technique, applying mindfulness to clinical psychology with a focus on emotional regulation, stress management, mind–body interaction, and meditation practices. Numerous studies have confirmed mindfulness’s effectiveness in alleviating physical and psychological distress ( Kabat-Zinn, 2003 ). Recent research indicates positive effects of mindfulness interventions on individuals with amphetamine-type substance use disorders (SUDs), highlighting improved mindful awareness and certain electroencephalographic functional connectivity ( Zhang et al., 2019 ). Additionally, a meta-analysis of 40 randomized controlled trials on mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for SUDs, excluding tobacco use disorders, suggests these interventions might slightly reduce substance use days compared to standard care, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or pharmacotherapy, though further research is needed to confirm their overall effectiveness ( Goldberg et al., 2021 ). MBIs have also been successfully applied to a range of addictions, from smoking to alcohol, and behavioral addictions like gambling disorders, reducing dependency, cravings, and improving emotional states. Common MBI methods include Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention, Mindfulness Training for Smokers, and Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement, with the integration of MBIs with treatment as usual (TAU) or other active treatments proving most effective ( Sancho et al., 2018 ). MBSR courses have not only benefitted the fields of medicine, psychology, and education but have also been widely promoted within the corporate sector, significantly improving physical and mental health, emotions, and quality of life ( Hsieh, 2019 ). Research by Valentine and Sweet (1999) showed that mindfulness meditators exhibit better psychological health than those practicing focused meditation. Various studies have explored the attention mechanisms of mindfulness meditation, correlating it with mental health improvements through attention regulation, body awareness, emotional regulation, and changing self-perceptions. Evidence suggests mindfulness meditation training enhances attention-related behavioral responses, cognitive abilities, reduces stress, and increases well-being ( Jha et al., 2007 ; Chiesa et al., 2011 ; Hölzel et al., 2011 ; Eberth and Sedlmeier, 2012 ; Jensen et al., 2012 ).

Research on self-compassion, particularly prevalent in Western studies, highlights its components—self-love, reduced self-judgment, decreased feelings of isolation, mindfulness, and lessened over-identification. Self-compassion interventions foster self-care, kindness, and tolerance, aiding individuals, especially the youth, in developing positive internal processing systems and reducing mental health issues. Its core aspects include treating oneself kindly, recognizing common humanity, and maintaining mindfulness ( Neff, 2003a ; MacBeth and Gumley, 2012 ; Körner et al., 2015 ; Costa et al., 2016 ; Muris et al., 2016 ; Neff et al., 2017 , 2019 ). Additionally, mindfulness regulates emotions, enhances attention, reduces stress, and positively impacts interpersonal communication and creativity ( Grossman et al., 2004 ; Corcoran et al., 2010 ; Farb et al., 2010 ; Davis and Hayes, 2011 ; Keng et al., 2011 ; Lakhan and Schofield, 2013 ; Lawlor, 2014 ; Penman and Burch, 2013 ; Wall, 2014 ; Willis and Dinehart, 2014 ; Laukkonen et al., 2020 ).

Compared to Western studies, mindfulness research in Taiwan shows distinct traits. In quantitative studies, there is a strong focus on developing mindfulness scales, therapeutic interventions, and curriculum implementation. For example, Huang et al. (2015) conducted reliability and validity analyses of the “Taiwanese Version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire”; Liu and Rau (2015) investigated how mindfulness meditation enhances attention; Yang (2016) integrated mindfulness practices into curricula and assessed impacts through pre- and post-tests using the “Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire,” “Stress Perception,” and “Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale.” In qualitative research, studies often focus on specific benefits or challenges encountered during mindfulness practices. For instance, Zheng et al. (2013) examined the effects of adult mindfulness courses on depression, anxiety, and mindfulness awareness, finding no significant differences; Shin and Jin (2010) discussed how “Zen Mindfulness Groups” influence intern counselors’ self-focus and professional practices. These studies provide insights into the effects of mindfulness on specific target groups and contribute to a deeper understanding of factors influencing mindfulness practices.

The ongoing deepening of mindfulness practice enables scholars to gain profound insights into their behavioral and cognitive patterns, reflecting on and adjusting their values and beliefs. This integration of awareness and action not only advances research in mindfulness but also demonstrates its significant applicative value across various fields such as medicine, psychology, and education, effectively enhancing individual well-being and broader societal impact.

In recent years, bibliometric analysis has emerged as a fundamental method in scientific research, providing quantitative and statistical evaluation of scholarly outputs such as journal articles, citation counts, and impact factors ( Donthu et al., 2021 ). First introduced by Pritchard in 1969, the concept of bibliometrics pertains to the systematic analysis of scholarly literature to understand the evolution and structural dynamics of academic disciplines ( Pritchard, 1969 ). This review applies bibliometric techniques to scrutinize significant literature and themes within the field of mindfulness research, aiming to delineate the current state of the discipline and project future research directions.

The analysis utilizes VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) as the principal tool, capitalizing on its ability to create knowledge maps that visualize relationships between various bibliometric elements. These include descriptive analysis, examination of authorship and geographical distribution, keyword co-occurrence, and reference co-citation analyses. VOSviewer is renowned for its effectiveness in graphically representing scientific landscapes, thereby facilitating the exploration of connections across diverse research areas ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2010 ; Zupic and Čater, 2015 ).

Keyword co-occurrence analysis is particularly valuable for detecting research development trends and assessing the status of domains ( Zhang, 2013 ; Yang, 2015 ). In this analysis, keywords with higher co-occurrence frequencies are indicative of prevailing research hotspots, highlighting the central themes within the field. This method employs visual representations of co-occurrence networks, where nodes represent keywords, encapsulating the cumulative knowledge of a domain, and links illustrate the relationships between word pairs, denoting their co-occurrence ( Radhakrishnan et al., 2017 ).

Reference co-citation analysis is employed to measure the similarity between documents or topics based on the frequency of their co-citations ( Small, 1973 ). The density of connection lines in the co-citation network graphically represents the strength of relationships between documents, providing insights into the interconnectedness of research themes. This type of analysis is crucial for identifying topics that have gained traction in the short term and may also indicate emerging research frontiers ( Zhang, 2013 )

Data source, procedure, and analytic software

This study employs data sourced from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, which includes the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded), and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). These databases are recognized for their extensive reach and integration across multiple disciplinary areas, holding significant academic influence ( Zyoud et al., 2017 ). WoS is particularly noted for its comprehensive coverage, with approximately 99.11% of its indexed journals also featured in the Scopus database, underscoring its broad applicability and prominence in global research landscapes ( Singh et al., 2021 ). The journal Mindfulness , indexed in the SSCI and ranking highly within the Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology categories, consistently achieves Q1 and Q2 status, indicative of its high-quality scholarly output. Thus, the selection of research papers from these sources ensures a reliable representation of the mindfulness research quality, supporting the validity of the study’s findings.

Bibliometric analysis serves as a crucial tool for elucidating the accumulated scientific knowledge and developmental nuances of established fields through the systematic examination of large volumes of unstructured data ( Donthu et al., 2021 ). This study adopts the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework ( Figure 1 ), guiding the systematic literature review process to ensure transparency and standardization in the bibliometric methodology. This approach aids in the precise selection of relevant outcomes ( Moher et al., 2009 ). This study specifically focuses on articles from the Mindfulness journal indexed in the WoS database, covering the period from 2012 to 2022. The selected articles encompass a wide array of types, including academic papers, conference proceedings, editorial materials, book reviews, and chapters. These documents collectively address diverse aspects of mindfulness, including therapy and intervention measures tailored to different populations, and explore various research directions such as the application of mindfulness in different therapeutic contexts and intervention strategies. After removing duplicates and irrelevant entries, a search conducted in December 2022 resulted in a corpus of 1,950 documents ( Figure 1 ), forming the basis for subsequent bibliometric analyses.

Figure 1 . Flow diagram of study selection process.

The extracted data includes authors, paper titles, and keywords, which were inputted into the VOSviewer software for visual mapping. This software supports the comparison of normalized cluster networks, coverage visualization, and density visualization ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2010 ), allowing for comprehensive bibliometric analysis through appropriately set threshold values.

Results and discussion

Yearly quantitative distribution of literature.

As shown in Figure 2 , the journal Mindfulness has published a total of 1,950 articles in the WoS database as of December 2022. Since its inception in 2012, the annual publication volume has exhibited a consistent upward trajectory, delineated into three distinct stages: the “Emergence Stage” (2012–2014), where fewer than 100 articles were published each year; the “Exploration Stage” (2015–2018), characterized by a gradual increase in publication numbers, with 2015 marking the first year the journal exceeded 150 articles; and the “Growth Stage” (2019–2022), noted for a robust and stable trend of publishing over 200 articles annually starting in 2019. This latter stage underscores a burgeoning interest in mindfulness research. Nonetheless, there was a notable decline in publication numbers in 2021 and 2022, a trend likely influenced by the global disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 2 . Yearly quantitative distribution of literature.

Significant publications in different development stages

Table 1 categorizes key literature from the journal Mindfulness into three developmental stages, highlighting the impact of these works through the lens of “the top three most-cited articles” in the WoS database. This method underscores the relevance and significance of these articles within their respective research domains.

Table 1 . Significant publications in different development stages.

During the “Emergence Stage” (2012–2014), 183 articles were published. The top three most-cited articles included Eberth and Sedlmeier (2012) , Meiklejohn et al. (2012) , and Sauer et al. (2013) . Eberth and Sedlmeier (2012) offered a comprehensive review of the effects of mindfulness meditation on various psychological variables among non-clinical meditators. Meiklejohn et al. (2012) explored the integration of mindfulness training into K-12 curricula, employing a combination of direct and indirect teaching methods facilitated by teacher training. This study highlighted that continuous mindfulness practice enhances attention and emotional regulation, benefiting both teachers and students. Sauer et al. (2013) emphasized the necessity of comparing mindfulness measurement results obtained through self-assessment tools with those from other mindfulness measurement tools, providing insights for improving current methodologies.

The “Exploration Stage” (2015–2018) produced 687 articles, with Zoogman et al. (2015) , Neff (2016) , and Tomlinson et al. (2018) being the most cited. Neff (2016) introduced the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS), establishing it as an effective measure of self-compassion and highlighting the importance of the “self-criticism” factor. Zoogman et al. (2015) investigated mindfulness-based interventions for adult depression and anxiety, suggesting potential applicability to adolescents, especially in non-clinical settings. Tomlinson et al. (2018) examined the correlation between trait mindfulness and mental health, indicating positive impacts and pointing out areas for future research, including addressing conceptual and methodological challenges in the field.

From 2019 to 2022, the “Growth Stage” saw the publication of 1,080 articles, with significant contributions from Ferrari et al. (2019) , Flett et al. (2019) , and Wilson et al. (2019) . Ferrari et al. (2019) validated the effectiveness of self-compassion interventions in enhancing psychosocial outcomes. Flett et al. (2019) explored both the short-term and long-term benefits of mindfulness meditation on mental health. Wilson et al. (2019) reviewed therapies related to self-compassion, including compassion-focused therapy and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, demonstrating significant improvements in conditions like anxiety and depression, thus promoting self-compassion and reducing psychopathology among both clinical and subclinical populations.

In summary, each developmental stage of Mindfulness research progressively explores different facets, with a significant emphasis on the management and regulation of psychological processes like self-regulation, emotions, and psychological health, which are increasingly recognized as central themes in contemporary mindfulness research.

Distribution of authors

As shown in Figure 3 , this study’s analysis of author distribution provides insights into their connections with international scholars. Among the 200 authors featured on Mindfulness, notable contributors include Kabat-Zinn, Analayo, Van Gordon, Medvedev and Bögels.

Figure 3 . Distribution of authors.

In 1979, Dr. Kabat-Zinn launched the MBSR program at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, effectively helping patients handle stress, pain, and illness through mindfulness techniques. His method, practiced in over 200 medical institutions across North America, has significantly influenced healthcare, education, and other sectors for decades. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s numerous publications, including Full Catastrophe Living and The Mindful Way Through Depression, have further popularized these approaches ( Kabat-Zinn, 2023 ).

Dr. Analayo of the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies and the Numata Centre for Buddhist Studies at The University of Hamburg focuses on early Buddhist texts and meditation practices. His work bridges ancient Buddhist techniques with modern practices, exploring mindfulness as a connection between mind and body, vital for continuous awareness in daily life ( Anālayo, 2020 ).

Dr. Van Gordon, from the University of Derby, has established credibility in studying the efficacy of Buddhist-derived meditations like Loving-Kindness Meditation (LKM) and Compassion Meditation (CM) in treating a range of mental health problems. His research emphasizes the foundational importance of Meditation Awareness Training (MAT) in enhancing psychological well-being in educational settings among other applications ( University of Derby, 2023 ).

Dr. Medvedev from the University of Waikato has refined the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using Rasch analysis to enhance its precision and validity, supporting its application in diverse psychological and health-related fields ( The University of Waikato, 2023 ). His research covers various fields, such as assessment methods, health psychology, psychophysiology, and biostatistics.

Dr. Bögels, a professor at the University of Amsterdam, has extensively researched the interplay between cognitive-behavioral therapy and mood disorders in treating childhood social anxiety ( University of Amsterdam, 2023 ). Her findings on the effectiveness of mindful parenting as a therapeutic intervention highlight its benefits in reducing stress and improving family dynamics ( Bögels et al., 2014 ).

As shown in Table 2 , Kabat-Zinn, Analayo, and Van Gordon have predominantly focused on exploring aspects of Buddha’s teachings, the inherent purity of the meditator’s mind, and Meditation Awareness Mindfulness, among other elements. Analayo and Van Gordon bring unique perspectives to their empirical research on meditation’s role in regulating personal physical and mental states, enhancing internal awareness, insight, compassion, and peace. Kabat-Zinn, on the other hand, has been pivotal in integrating mindfulness into psychological therapy and neuropsychology, significantly advancing the therapeutic landscape by mitigating physical and mental distress and promoting overall well-being. Their collective research emphasizes the efficacy of mindfulness interventions in alleviating anxiety and stress, while also advocating for the enhancement of physical and mental health and overall happiness. Medvedev, renowned for his expertise in assessing mindfulness, excels in documenting the observable benefits and self-regulation strategies of mindfulness training through the use of questionnaires, observations, and interviews. In contrast, Bögels concentrates on the application of mindfulness counseling treatment to address stress, depressive mood, and situational trait anxiety among children and their parents, revealing significant benefits in children’s cognition, social interaction, self-care, and mental health.

Table 2 . Distribution of authors.

Distribution of countries and institutions

As shown in Figure 4 , this study analyzes the distribution of publications and institutions to elucidate geographical knowledge networks within the field of mindfulness. An examination of publications from the Mindfulness journal indicates a wide international spread, involving researchers from 68 countries, with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and China being the primary contributors. Among these, significant institutions include the University of Massachusetts System, University of Massachusetts Worcester, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, University of California System, and University System of Georgia, all located in the USA, underscoring the predominant role of the United States in mindfulness research. Notably, the focus of Chinese research is primarily centered in Hong Kong, signaling its prominence in China’s mindfulness studies, while suggesting that other regions in China could enhance their contributions to this field.

Figure 4 . Distribution of countries and institutions.

As shown in Table 3 , the United States leads in publication volume, followed by the United Kingdom, with substantial inputs from Canada and Australia, whereas China exhibits fewer publications. This distribution underscores a pronounced interest and earlier initiation of mindfulness research among scholars in the US and UK. Institutions like the University of Massachusetts System, Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, and University of Derby, which house principal authors in mindfulness research, are closely aligned with core fields such as mindfulness meditation, training, measurement, intervention, and regulation. This alignment reflects a concentrated and specialized focus in the developmental stages of mindfulness research.

Table 3 . Distribution of countries and institutions.

Keyword co-occurrence

The analysis of keyword co-occurrence in this study is based on the size of network nodes, which represents the importance of each keyword. The larger the keyword, the closer it is to the research hotspot. As shown in Figure 5 , the high-frequency keywords in the Mindfulness journal are ‘mindfulness,’ ‘meditation,’ ‘depression,’ ‘self-compassion,’ and ‘stress,’ all of which are at the core of the clusters.

Figure 5 . Keyword co-occurrence.

As shown in Table 4 , “Mindfulness” is identified as the central term across all articles, reflecting its prevalent usage within the field. The analysis reveals other significant keywords such as “meditation,” “depression,” “self-compassion,” and “stress.” Notably, “meditation” was a dominant theme in the initial stages of research, with a marked increase in related studies between 2014 and 2018, while “self-compassion” gained prominence around 2020. This study organizes these keywords into five distinct clusters based on node size. The red cluster, focusing on “depression,” incorporates themes like anxiety, systematic analysis, cognitive therapy, and treatment, primarily concerning mindfulness treatment. The green cluster, centered around “self-compassion,” includes terms related to emotion regulation, intervention, psychological health, and acceptance, highlighting aspects of mindfulness regulation. The blue cluster, led by “mindfulness,” deals with the facets of examination, questionnaires, psychometric properties, and grading, pertinent to mindfulness assessment. The yellow cluster, under the banner of “meditation,” delves into mechanisms, attention, compassion, and empathy, enriching the discourse on mindfulness meditation. Lastly, the purple cluster, themed around “stress,” addresses issues related to health, adolescents, well-being, and education, underscoring mindfulness education. Collectively, these clusters illustrate the breadth of mindfulness research, showcasing a range of topics from treatment and regulation to assessment and educational applications, reflecting the evolving dynamics and the comprehensive scope of mindfulness as a research field.

Table 4 . Keyword co-occurrence analysis.

The interconnected themes highlighted by these keywords underscore the varied research focus directions of the journal Mindfulness in recent years, reflecting the dynamic evolution of paradigms within mindfulness research. This body of work integrates several core areas, including addressing unhealthy, negative, and adverse emotions through mindfulness-based interventions, exploring strategies for mental health and emotion regulation, conducting evaluations with mindfulness-related questionnaires, investigating meditation practices to foster understanding and empathy, and developing psychophysical educational programs specifically designed for adolescents. Collectively, these focal points illustrate the journal’s commitment to advancing both the theoretical and practical aspects of mindfulness, contributing significantly to our understanding of its diverse applications across various contexts.

Reference co-citation

This study aims to explore the development and dynamic evolution of themes and their relationships within the mindfulness research field, thereby enhancing our understanding of its current state and providing valuable scientific guidance for scholars. As shown in Figure 6 , an analysis of references from the Mindfulness journal reveals that reference co-citations are divided into five clusters: the red cluster focuses on mindfulness assessment with 70 articles, primarily exploring the development and validation of related scales; the green cluster, comprising 65 articles, assesses various mindfulness therapies; the blue cluster, with 62 articles, discusses the structural aspects of mindfulness; the yellow cluster includes 43 articles on mindfulness intervention, evaluating its structural composition and clinical intervention mechanisms; and the purple cluster, consisting of 37 articles, measures the effectiveness of mindfulness across medicine, psychology, education, and other fields. Prominent researchers contributing to these clusters include Kabat-Zinn (2003) , Neff (2003a) , Bishop et al. (2004) , Baer et al. (2006) , and Kabat-Zinn (2009) , whose works significantly shape the discourse within these areas.

Figure 6 . Reference co-citation.

As shown in Table 5 , the article “Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness” by Baer et al. (2006) stands out as the most strongly linked article, published by the American Psychological Association, Society for Clinical Psychology (Division 12), Section IX (Assessment). This pivotal article investigates various methods and approaches for self-assessing mindfulness. Following closely is “The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being” by Brown and Ryan (2003) , which utilized the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) to analyze mindfulness’s predictive and regulatory role in psychological health, published in Personality and Social Psychology. The reference co-citations related to these articles are organized into five clusters that reflect their influence and connections within the field. The red cluster, focusing on mindfulness assessment, is highlighted by Baer et al. (2006) , who discuss the multifaceted nature of mindfulness and its assessment techniques. This cluster emphasizes articles that delve into the development and validation of scales designed to measure mindfulness attributes accurately. The green cluster centers around mindfulness therapy, featuring Hofmann et al. (2010) who confirm the effectiveness of mindfulness therapies in treating clinical issues like anxiety and depression. This cluster collectively examines the therapeutic applications and outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions. In the blue cluster, which addresses the structural aspects of mindfulness, Brown and Ryan (2003) explore the role of mindfulness in enhancing psychological well-being, showcasing its regulatory impact on mental health through empirical studies. The yellow cluster, dedicated to mindfulness interventions, includes Kabat-Zinn (2009) , whose work discusses practical mindfulness applications in dealing with stress, pain, and illness, emphasizing the operational mechanisms and clinical efficacy of mindfulness. Finally, the purple cluster, focusing on the effectiveness of mindfulness, features Neff (2003a) who develops and validates the Self-Compassion Scale, exploring the beneficial effects of self-compassion as part of a mindfulness approach. This cluster explores how mindfulness practices contribute to overall health and education, highlighting their potential in fostering enhanced well-being across various populations. These clusters demonstrate the journal Mindfulness ’s comprehensive coverage of research that spans theoretical explorations to practical applications, reflecting the dynamic and evolving landscape of mindfulness research.

Table 5 . Reference co-citation analysis.

Conclusion and implications

This study employs bibliometric analysis to conduct a visual analysis of research published in the Mindfulness journal, aiming to provide scholars with a relatively objective perspective to grasp the dynamics and future directions of international mindfulness research. The findings indicate that over the past decade, the journal has published 1,950 articles, with publication numbers increasing over time. Among the many contributors, Kabat-Zinn, Analayo, Van Gordon, Medvedev, and Bögels stand out as key figures, with mindfulness research predominantly concentrated in Western countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, which have had the most significant impact on the field. The research primarily focuses on themes such as mindfulness, meditation, depression, stress, and self-compassion. Moreover, the studies are extensively centered around specific aspects of mindfulness, including “intervention,” “therapy,” “regulation,” “assessment,” and “education.” In Taiwan, mindfulness research is relatively underdeveloped; the analysis of this data not only helps identify current research hotspots and gaps but also provides valuable references for researchers in Taiwan, further facilitating the extensive application and in-depth development of mindfulness studies.

We conducted a systematic analysis of various dimensions within mindfulness research, including institutions, nations, individual researchers, and trending topics, thus uncovering key interconnections among these elements. The distribution of these relationships not only maps the trajectory of mindfulness research but also highlights the global imbalance in research capabilities. Particularly, the cultural drivers and relationships between research hotspots, regions, institutions, and individual researchers are crucial as they facilitate collaboration across geographical, disciplinary, and cultural boundaries, which is vital for the global application and dissemination of mindfulness. For instance, Hofmann et al. (2010) have confirmed through their comprehensive analysis that mindfulness therapy positively impacts symptoms of anxiety and depression, a finding that is consistently underscored by frequent references to “depression” and “therapy.” The high-frequency keywords and reference co-citations exhibit a robust linkage pattern, illustrating interrelated connections among these themes. Not only do these connections enrich the existing literature, but they also provide invaluable references for the further development of mindfulness research, highlighting its significance across various psychological and educational settings. Although Asian countries have lesser participation in mindfulness research, their rich history of traditional meditation practices offers substantial untapped potential for future studies. Strengthening collaborations with Western countries can enhance the exchange of knowledge and technologies, bringing fresh perspectives that are essential for advancing the globalization of mindfulness research.

Implications for mindfulness research and education in Taiwan

In Taiwan, mindfulness research is still in its nascent stages, with a notable absence of publications in the international journal Mindfulness , indicative of a lack of systematic research. Scholars in Taiwan are thus encouraged to align with international research trends in mindfulness, enhancing their analytical approaches. There is a strong recommendation for scholars to focus more on demographic groups that could benefit from improved mental health. This involves intensifying global dialogue and exchange between domestic scholars and their international counterparts, which is vital for understanding the structural and developmental nuances of mindfulness research. This approach will facilitate international comparative studies, promote scientific collaboration globally, and provide robust support for individuals in high-pressure work environments. To improve Taiwan’s education directions and aid Taiwanese researchers in thoroughly exploring the development status and trends of the international mindfulness research fields, this study proposes several strategies to accelerate the internationalization of domestic research and discipline construction. These include integrating mindfulness education into curricula at all educational levels to provide students with systematic training in mindfulness practices like meditation, emotion regulation, and concentration; developing mindfulness teacher training programs to enhance educators’ emotional management skills; promoting mindfulness-friendly campuses to foster a respectful, caring, and harmonious learning environment; integrating mindfulness into special education as an auxiliary therapy for students with conditions such as autism and ADHD to enhance their emotion regulation and self-control; and conducting thorough research and assessments of mindfulness education to gauge its impact on students’ learning outcomes, psychological health, and interpersonal relationships, thereby generating empirical evidence to support the expansion of mindfulness education.

Limitations, and suggestions for future research

While this study presents notable findings, it is not without its limitations. The analysis relies exclusively on literature data from the Journal of Mindfulness in the WoS database, lacking empirical field investigations and experimental validation. This focus restricts the breadth of mindfulness-related literature reviewed, as it does not consider contributions from other journals. Future research could benefit from employing a variety of research methods and data sources, integrating themes such as “intervention, therapy, regulation, assessment, education” to expand the exploration of mindfulness applications across diverse domains and populations. Additionally, by prioritizing key terms within the co-occurrence patterns, new research avenues can be identified, which will drive the development of mindfulness research and offer valuable guidance for practical applications and policy formulation.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

C-CH: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. SL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Anālayo, B. (2020). Somatics of early Buddhist mindfulness and how to face anxiety. Mindfulness 11, 1520–1526. doi: 10.1007/s12671-020-01382-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., and Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment 13, 27–45. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283504

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five-facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment 15, 329–342. doi: 10.1177/1073191107313003

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 11, 230–241. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bph077

Bögels, S. M., Hellemans, J., van Deursen, S., Römer, M., and van der Meulen, R. (2014). Mindful parenting in mental health care: effects on parental and child psychopathology, parental stress, parenting, coparenting, and marital functioning. Mindfulness 5, 536–551. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0209-7

Brown, K. W., and Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological wellbeing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 822–848. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Chen, S. J., Peng, T. W., and Wu, Y. H. (2019). Review of the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions in Taiwan: reflections on evidence and practice. Appl. Psychol. Res. 70, 77–121.

Google Scholar

Chiesa, A., Calati, R., and Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsychological findings. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31, 449–464. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.003

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power analysis for the behavioral sciences . 2nd Edn. New York: Routledge.

Corcoran, K. M., Farb, N., Anderson, A., and Segal, Z. V. (2010). “Mindfulness and emotion regulation: outcomes and possible mediating mechanisms” in Emotion regulation and psychopathology: a trans diagnostic approach to etiology and treatment . eds. A. M. Kring and D. M. Sloan (New York: Guilford Press), 339–355.

Costa, J. A., Marôco, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Ferreira, C., and Castilho, P. (2016). Validation of the psychometric properties of the self-compassion scale. Testing the factorial validity and factorial invariance of the measure among borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorder, eating disorder and general populations. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 23 5, 460–468. doi: 10.1002/cpp.1974

Davis, D. M., and Hayes, J. A. (2011). What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy 48, 198–208. doi: 10.1037/a0022062

Dobkin, P. L., and Zhao, Q. (2011). Increased mindfulness-the active component of the mindfulness-based stress reduction program? Complement. Therap. Clin. Pract. 17, 22–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2010.03.002

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., and Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133, 285–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., and Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting: implications for parent-child relationships and prevention research. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 12, 255–270. doi: 10.1007/s10567-009-0046-3

Eberth, J., and Sedlmeier, P. (2012). The effects of mindfulness meditation: a meta-analysis. Mindfulness 3, 174–189. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0101-x

Farb, N. A. S., Anderson, A. K., Mayberg, H., Bean, J., McKeon, D., and Segal, Z. V. (2010). Minding one’s emotions: mindfulness training alters the neural expression of sadness. Emotion 10, 25–33. doi: 10.1037/a0017151

Ferrari, M., Hunt, C., Harrysunker, A., Abbott, M. J., Beath, A. P., and Einstein, D. A. (2019). Self-compassion interventions and psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis of RCTs. Mindfulness 10, 1455–1473. doi: 10.1007/s12671-019-01134-6

Flett, J. A., Hayne, H., Riordan, B. C., Thompson, L. M., and Conner, T. S. (2019). Mobile mindfulness meditation: a randomized controlled trial of the effect of two popular apps on mental health. Mindfulness 10, 863–876. doi: 10.1007/s12671-018-1050-9

Goldberg, S. B., Pace, B., Griskaitis, M., Willutzki, R., Skoetz, N., Zgierska, A. E., et al. (2021). Mindfulness-based interventions for substance use disorders. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 10:CD011723. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011723.pub2

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., and Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. A meta-analysis. J. Psychosom. Res. 57, 35–43. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7

Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., and Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: a meta-analytic review. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 78, 169–183. doi: 10.1037/a0018555

Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., and Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 537–559. doi: 10.1177/1745691611419671

Hsieh, C. C. (2018). Developing meaningful schools: an exploration of mindful leadership by principals. Educ. Res. Monthly 292, 69–86. doi: 10.3966/168063602018080292005

Hsieh, C. C. (2019). Practice and development of mindfulness education in Taiwan. Second. Educ. 70, 6–18. doi: 10.6249/SE.201912_70(4).0032

Huang, F. Y., Wu, C. W., Bhikshu, H. M., Bhikshu, G. H., Chao, Y. P., and Dai, C. T. (2015). Validation of the Taiwanese version of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (T-FFMQ). Psychol. Testing 62, 231–260.

Jensen, C. G., Vangkilde, S. A., Frokjaer, V. G., and Hasselbalch, S. G. (2012). Mindfulness training affects attention--or is it attentional effort? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141, 106–123. doi: 10.1037/a0024931

Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J. W., and Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of attention. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 7, 109–119. doi: 10.3758/CABN.7.2.109

Jiang, Y., Wang, Y. Z., and Luo, F. (2022). The current status and prospects of mindfulness parenting. Chin. J. Health Psychol. 5:30.

Jin, J. S., and Liu, X. H. (2017). Mindfulness education for children and adolescents: exploring mindfulness as a new method of mental health education. J. Capital Norm. Univ. 2:11.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based intervention in context: past, present, and future. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 10, 144–156. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg016

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2009). Full catastrophe living: using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness . New York: Random House Publishing Group.

Kabat-Zinn, Jon . (2023). Wikipedia. Available at: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zhtw/%E5%96%AC%C2%B7%E5%8D%A1%E5%B7%B4%E9%87%91#cite_note-5

Kallapiran, K., Koo, S., Kirubakaran, R., and Hancock, K. M. (2015). Review: effectiveness of mindfulness in improving mental health symptoms of children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Child Adolesc. Mental Health 20, 182–194. doi: 10.1111/camh.12113

Keng, S., Smoski, M. J., and Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: a review of empirical studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31, 1041–1056. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006

Körner, A., Coroiu, A., Copeland, L., Gomez-Garibello, C., Albani, C., Zenger, M., et al. (2015). The role of self-compassion in buffering symptoms of depression in the general population. PLoS One 10:e0136598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136598

Lakhan, S. E., and Schofield, K. L. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapies in the treatment of somatization disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 8:e71834. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071834

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness . Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Laukkonen, R., Leggett, J. M. I., Gallagher, R., Biddell, H., Mrazek, A., Slagter, H. A., et al. (2020). The science of mindfulness-based interventions and learning: a review for educators . Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Lawlor, M. S. (2014). Mindfulness in practice: considerations for implementation of mindfulness-based programming for adolescents in school contexts. New Dir. Youth Dev. 2014, 83–95. doi: 10.1002/yd.20098

Lin, Y. J. (2013). An integrated framework for exploring the process of mindfulness-based psychotherapy. Chin. J. Mental Health 26, 395–442.

Liu, C. C., and Rau, J. W. (2015). A study on the influence of mindfulness meditation on elementary school children’s capability of sustained attention. Buddhism Sci. 16, 81–98.

Lv, K. W. (2014). The practice and theory of mindfulness therapy: 33 mindfulness exercises . Taiwan: Taiwan Mindfulness Association.

MacBeth, A., and Gumley, A. I. (2012). Exploring compassion: a meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 32, 545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003

Maynard, B. R., Solis, M., Miller, V. L., and Brendel, K. E. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions for improving cognition, academic achievement, behavior, and socioemotional functioning of primary and secondary school students. Campbell Syst. Rev. 13, 1–32. doi: 10.1002/CL2.177

Meiklejohn, J. M., Phillips, C. L., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M., Biegel, G. M., Roach, A. T., et al. (2012). Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: fostering the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness 3, 291–307. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0094-5

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Muris, P., Otgaar, H., and Petrocchi, N. (2016). Protection as the Mirror image of psychopathology: further critical notes on the self-compassion scale. Mindfulness 7, 787–790. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0509-9

Napoli, M., Krech, P. R., and Holley, L. C. (2005). Mindfulness training for elementary school students: the attention academy. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 21, 99–125. doi: 10.1300/J370v21n01_05

Neff, K. D. (2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self Identity 2, 223–250. doi: 10.1080/15298860309027

Neff, K. D. (2003b). Self-compassion: an alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self Identity 2, 85–101. doi: 10.1080/15298860309032

Neff, K. D. (2016). The self-compassion scale is a valid and theoretically coherent measure of self-compassion. Mindfulness 7, 264–274. doi: 10.1007/s12671-015-0479-3

Neff, K. D., Tóth-Király, I., Yarnell, L. M., Arimitsu, K., Castilho, P., Ghorbani, N., et al. (2019). Examining the factor structure of the self-compassion scale in 20 diverse samples: support for use of a Total score and six subscale scores. Psychol. Assess. 31, 27–45. doi: 10.1037/pas0000629

Neff, K. D., Whittaker, T. A., and Karl, A. (2017). Examining the factor structure of the self-compassion scale in four distinct populations: is the use of a Total scale score justified? J. Pers. Assess. 99, 596–607. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1269334

Penman, D., and Burch, V. (2013). Mindfulness for health: A practical guide to relieving pain, reducing stress and restoring wellbeing . London: Paitkus.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Doc. 25, 344–349. doi: 10.1108/eb026482

Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., and Kamarthi, S. (2017). Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLoS One 12, 1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172778

Raes, F., Griffith, J. W., Gucht, K. V., and Williams, J. M. (2014). School-based prevention and reduction of depression in adolescents: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mindfulness group program. Mindfulness 5, 477–486. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0202-1

Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., and Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 18, 250–255. doi: 10.1002/cpp.702

Ronald, D. S., Germer, C. K., and Olendzki, A. (2009). “Mindfulness: what is it? Where did it come from?” in Clinical handbook of mindfulness . ed. D. Fabrizio (New York: Springer), 17–35.

Sancho, M., De Gracia, M., Rodriguez, R. C., Mallorquí-Bagué, N., Sánchez-González, J., Trujols, J., et al. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of substance and behavioral addictions: a systematic review. Front. Psych. 9:353853. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00095

Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing, A., et al. (2013). Assessment of mindfulness: review on state of the art. Mindfulness 4, 3–17. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012-0122-5

Segal, Z. V., and Ferguson, A. M. (2018). “Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: treatment development from a common cognitive therapy core” in Science and practice in cognitive therapy: foundations, mechanisms, and applications . ed. R. L. Leahy (New York: Guilford Press), 159–174.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., and Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. J. Clin. Psychol. 62, 373–386. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20237

Shin, T. B., and Jin, S. R. (2010). The qualitative study of “mindfulness group” toward t he self-care and counseling practice of counselor interns. Bull. Educ. Psychol. 42, 163–184. doi: 10.6251/BEP.20100423

Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., and Mayr, P. (2021). The journal of web of science, Scopus and dimensions: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126, 5113–5142. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Small, H. G. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inform. 24, 265–269. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406

The University of Waikato . (2023). Available at: https://www.waikato.ac.nz/staff-profiles/people/omedvede

Tomlinson, E. R., Yousaf, O., Vittersø, A. D., and Jones, L. (2018). Dispositional mindfulness and psychological health: a systematic review. Mindfulness 9, 23–43. doi: 10.1007/s12671-017-0762-6

University of Amsterdam . (2023). Available at: https://www.uva.nl/en/profile/b/o/s.m.bogels/s.m.bogels.html#Publications

University of Derby . (2023). Available at: https://www.derby.ac.uk/staff/william-van-gordon/

Valentine, E. R., and Sweet, P. L. (1999). Meditation and attention: a comparison of the effects of concentrative and mindfulness meditation on sustained attention. Mental Health Religion Cult. 2, 59–70. doi: 10.1080/13674679908406332

Van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOS viewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scient Metrics 84, 523–538. doi: 10.1007/S11192-009-0146-3

Wall, J. M. (2014). Finding an inner voice through silence: mindfulness goes to college. J. Coll. Charact. 15, 133–140. doi: 10.1515/jcc-2014-0017

Wen, T. K. (2013). An overview of Western mindfulness education: moving towards integrating mindfulness training in Taiwan. J. Life Educ. Res. 5, 145–180.

Wen, T. K. (2016). An exploration of western mindfulness teacher training and certification. Fu Jen J. Religious Stud. 32, 71–101.

Wen, T. K. (2013). The Origins and Mechanisms of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: From a Perspective of Buddhist Studies. New Century Religious Studies 12, 27–48. Available at: https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=16843738-201312-201401160022-201401160022-27-48 .

Willis, E., and Dinehart, L. (2014). Contemplative practices in early childhood: implications for self-regulation skills and school readiness. Early Child Dev. Care 184, 487–499. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2013.804069

Wilson, J. (2014). Mindful America: The mutual transformation of buddhist meditation and American culture . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, A. C., Mackintosh, K., Power, K., and Chan, S. W. (2019). Effectiveness of self-compassion related therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness 10, 979–995. doi: 10.1007/s12671-018-1037-6

Yang, Y. W. (2015). Research hotspots and evolution on cultivating reserve talents of competitive sports in China based on knowledge maps. J. Shanghai Univ. Sport 39, 73–79.

Yang, J. Y. (2016). Teaching reflection of integrating mindfulness in general education courses of military school: the example of army academy R.O.C. J. NDU General Educ. 6, 91–109.

Zhang, J. J. (2013). Evolution of research hotspots, themes, and methods in the field of tourism management in China. Econ. Geogr. 23, 173–179.

Zhang, L. M. (2013). Research on the integration of ice and snow tourism and culture from the perspective of tourism culture industry. Academic Exchange 2013, 106–109.

Zhang, J. T., Zhang, J. Y., Du, Z. Y., Li, J., Lü, C. H., and Du, J. (2019). Effect of mindfulness-based intervention on functional connectivity of resting state electroencephalogram of amphetamine-type stimulants use patients. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. 39, 1416–1421.

Zheng, Y. C., Fang, S. Y., and Huang, S. L. (2013). Exploring mindfulness therapy and experiences: qualitative study results. Taiwan J. Clin. Psychol. 7, 48–49.

Zoogman, S., Goldberg, S. B., Hoyt, W. T., and Miller, L. (2015). Mindfulness interventions with youth: a meta-analysis. Mindfulness 6, 290–302. doi: 10.1007/s12671-013-0260-4

Zupic, I., and Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18, 429–472. doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629

Zyoud, S. H., Waring, W. S., Al-Jabi, S. W., and Sweileh, W. M. (2017). Global cocaine intoxication research trends during 1975-2015: a bibliometric analysis of web of science publications. Subst. Abuse Treat. Prev. Policy 12, 1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13011-017-0090-9

Keywords: mindfulness, science mapping, bibliometric analysis, knowledge graph, visualization analysis

Citation: Hsieh C-C and Li S (2024) A bibliometrics review of the journal mindfulness : science mapping the literature from 2012 to 2022. Front. Psychol . 15:1378143. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1378143

Received: 29 January 2024; Accepted: 01 May 2024; Published: 17 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Hsieh and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shun Li, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Research Note
• Open access
• Published: 16 May 2024

Gene expression profiles in COVID-19-associated tracheal stenosis indicate persistent anti-viral response and dysregulated retinol metabolism

• Russell Seth Martins 1 , 4   na1 ,
• Joanna Weber 1 ,
• Kostantinos Poulikidis 1 ,
• Al Haitham Al Shetawi 2 , 3 ,
• M. Jawad Latif 1 ,
• Syed Shahzad Razi 1 ,
• Robert S. Lebovics 1 &
• Faiz Y. Bhora 1 , 5   na1  

BMC Research Notes volume  17 , Article number:  140 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated tracheal stenosis (COATS) may occur as a result of prolonged intubation during COVID-19 infection. We aimed to investigate patterns of gene expression in the tracheal granulation tissue of patients with COATS, leverage gene expression data to identify dysregulated cellular pathways and processes, and discuss potential therapeutic options based on the identified gene expression profiles.

Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) presenting to clinics for management of severe, recalcitrant COATS were included in this study. RNA sequencing and differential gene expression analysis was performed with transcriptomic data for normal tracheal tissue being used as a control. The top ten most highly upregulated and downregulated genes were identified. For each of these pathologically dysregulated genes, we identified key cellular pathways and processes they are involved in using Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) applied via Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery (DAVID).

Two women, aged 36 years and 37 years, were included. The profile of dysregulated genes indicated a cellular response consistent with viral infection (CXCL11, PI15, CCL8, DEFB103A, IFI6, ACOD1, and DEFB4A) and hyperproliferation/hypergranulation (MMP3, CASP14 and HAS1), while downregulated pathways included retinol metabolism (ALDH1A2, RBP1, RBP4, CRABP1 and CRABP2).

Gene expression changes consistent with persistent viral infection and dysregulated retinol metabolism may promote tracheal hypergranulation and hyperproliferation leading to COATS. Given the presence of existing literature highlighting retinoic acid’s ability to favorably regulate these genes, improve cell-cell adhesion, and decrease overall disease severity in COVID-19, future studies must evaluate its utility for adjunctive management of COATS in animal models and clinical settings.

Peer Review reports

Acquired tracheal stenosis may occur in up to 20% of patients after prolonged intubation [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], inflicting significant limitations on patients’ respiratory function, vocal ability, and overall quality of life [ 4 ]. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, studies from across the world reported intubation rates ranging from 5 to 88% amongst patients with COVID-19 [ 5 ]. Moreover, the median duration of intubation may be as long as 17 days, with more than 18% of patients requiring reintubation within one week of extubation [ 6 , 7 ]. It is believed that in addition to airway mucosal damage due to intubation, tracheitis due to COVID-19 may also contribute to tracheal stenosis [ 8 ]. As a result, the European Laryngological Society urges physicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for tracheal stenosis amongst patients with COVID-19 requiring intubation [ 9 ].

The management of tracheal stenosis is mainly interventional, with options including tracheal resection and reconstruction, bronchoscopic dilation, laser therapy, spray cryotherapy, or airway stent placement [ 10 , 11 ]. Adjunctive medical therapies have been explored with limited success, including local mitomycin C, local or inhaled steroids, oral proton pump inhibitors, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, penicillin, and macrolide antibiotics [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Recently, an increased understanding of molecular and genetic profiles of tracheal granulation tissue is guiding the exploration of novel therapies for tracheal stenosis [ 15 ]. However, data is sparse and there is an urgent need to explore genetic mechanisms underlying the development of tracheal stenosis [ 16 ], particularly in the context of COVID-19 infection. Thus, we aimed to investigate patterns of gene expression in the tracheal granulation tissue of patients with COVID-19-associated tracheal stenosis (COATS), and leverage gene expression data to identify key dysregulated pathways and processes. We also discuss potential therapeutic options based on the identified gene expression profiles. Although this Research Note presents data for a small sample, we believe the novelty of the results warrant its sharing with the scientific community.

This study was conducted between July 2020-July 2021 at Nuvance Health in Connecticut, USA, after receiving ethical approval from the institutional review board (ID: 2019-19).

Patient enrollment and sample collection

We sought to include adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) presenting to clinics for management of severe, recalcitrant COATS, as visualized by upper airway endoscopy. Patients were diagnosed with COATS if they developed tracheal stenosis in the setting of active COVID-19 infection during airway interventions performed for the management of COVID-19. Informed consent was acquired prior to patient enrolment and data collection. Patient data collected included demographics, baseline health status, and clinical history. Samples were collected at the index visit and subsequent visits at time of reintervention (with each reintervention and sample collection being roughly six months apart), making for a total of five tissue samples (two from patient 1 and three from patient 2).

Tracheal tissue biopsies of granulation tissue were collected at the time of endoscopic intervention, which consisted of balloon dilation and spray cryotherapy. If enrolled patients returned to clinics requiring reintervention for re-stenosis, they were reapproached for collection of additional samples. Additional biopsies were collected from consenting patients, with these being considered as unique samples for analysis.

RNA sequencing of samples (transcriptomics)

Tissue samples were sent to Azenta Life Sciences (Burlington, Massachusetts, USA) for processing and RNA sequencing. A next-generation sequencing platform (HiSeq ®; Illumina, Inc., San Diego, California, USA) with Poly(A) selection was used to prepare the cDNA (complementary DNA) libraries.

Normal control

Publicly accessible transcriptomics data for normal tracheal tissue was sourced from the public data repositories of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI: SRR16760102) and the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA: ERR2022844).

Data analysis

CLC Genomics Workbench by QIAGEN (Venlo, Netherlands) was used for analysis of the sequenced data. Trimmed reads were aligned and annotated with Ensembl 91: Dec 2017 (GRCh38.p10). Differential gene expressions were explored between tissue samples of COATS and normal control data. Gene expression was considered significant if the false discovery rate (FDR) p-value was < 0.05 and the fold change (ratio of value in specimen to value in normal control) was > 1.5. The top 10 most highly upregulated and downregulated genes were identified by calculating a change coefficient that accounted for both FDR p-value and fold change, as follows:

The protein class of the gene products and their relevant functions were retrieved from the Human Protein Atlas [ 17 ], an open-source repository containing data on all proteins coded by the human genome. Based on their relevant functions, we determined whether the upregulation or downregulation of each gene was likely part of the body’s protective response to COVID-19-infection (e.g., immune system activation) or contributing towards pathological mechanisms causing tracheal stenosis. In addition to comparing the COATS samples to normal control data, we also compared the COATS samples against each other.

Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) functional enrichment were applied via DAVID (Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery) for significantly upregulated and downregulated genes separately. Significantly upregulated and downregulated cellular pathways and biological processes (i.e., those with a Benjamini p-value < 0.05), along with their GO identification numbers, were noted.

We included two patients in this study. Patient 1 was a 37-year-old woman with obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension who had developed tracheal stenosis two months after undergoing tracheostomy tube placement during COVID-19 infection. She had undergone three prior spray cryotherapy and balloon dilation procedures for tracheal stenosis prior to presenting to our institution for her index visit with our team. She had been diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea three years ago and hypertension recently. Patient 2 was a 36-year-old woman with interstitial lung disease and a history of smoking who developed tracheal stenosis a month after prolonged intubation during COVID-19 infection. She was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease a year ago. Patient 2 had not undergone any prior procedures for tracheal stenosis. These details are shown in Supplementary File 1 - Table  1 .

The top 10 most highly upregulated and downregulated genes amongst these five tissue samples are shown in Tables  1 and 2 , respectively. Significantly upregulated cellular pathways included those related to COVID-19 and other viral infections (influenza A, human papillomavirus, hepatitis C virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and measles virus), cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, viral protein interaction with cytokine and cytokine receptor, and NOD (nucleotide oligomerization domain)-like receptor signaling pathways (Supplementary File 1 - Table  2 ). Significantly upregulated biological processes included antiviral defense, innate immunity, inflammatory response, chemotaxis, angiogenesis, and collagen degradation; significantly downregulated biological processes included cell adhesion & ion transport (Supplementary File 1 - Table  3 ).

Notably, retinol metabolism was also identified as the sole significantly downregulated cellular pathway (Supplementary File 1 - Table  2 ). Thus, we conducted a deep-dive into the genes directly involved in the metabolism and action of retinoic acid (active form of retinol). Gene expression appeared to indicate a state of compensation for relative retinoic acid deficiency, with CRABP1 (cellular retinoic acid-binding protein 1: functions to inhibit retinoic acid’s activity) being downregulated by a factor of 18.04 and CRABP2 (cellular retinoic acid-binding protein 1: functions to enable retinoic acid’s cellular activity) being upregulated by a factor of 99.96. In addition, RBP1 (retinol-binding protein 1: facilitates enzymatic conversion of retinol to retinoic acid) was upregulated by a factor of 22.02. The local retinoic acid deficiency may arise due to suppressed retinoic acid transport from the liver to the trachea: RBP4 (retinol-binding protein 4: functions to transport retinoic acid from the liver to peripheral tissues) was downregulated by a factor of 26.01. Moreover, enzymatic conversion of retinoid precursors to retinoic acid was also suppressed: RALDH2/ALDH1A2 (retinaldehyde dehydrogenase 2/ aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family member A2: catalyzes synthesis of retinoic acid from retinaldehyde) was downregulated by a factor of 12.71.

In addition, we also compared the significantly dysregulated genes for Patient 1 vs. Patient 2. Genes that were uniquely upregulated in Patient 2 (vs. Patient 1) were involved in cellular pathways related to carcinogenesis.

The raw transcriptomic data is shown in Supplementary File 2 .

This is the first study reporting patterns of gene expression in COATS. RNA sequencing analysis indicated an upregulation of genes and pathways involved in a persistent cellular antiviral response, confirming the notion that the pathophysiology of COATS features an infective component. Gene expression indicated cellular processes typical of tracheal stenosis, such as hyperproliferation (due to downregulated CRNN and CAPN14 causing decreased cell-cycle regulation), hypergranulation (due to downregulated SPRR3, RPTN, TGM3, and SLURP1 causing dysregulated keratinization), and extracellular matrix remodeling (upregulated MMPs and HAS1). Several of the upregulated genes indicated a cellular response to viral infection (CXCL11, CCL8, DEFB103A, IFI6, ACOD1, and DEFB4A). CXCL11 and CCL8 are involved in chemotaxis of immune cells, while the defensins (DEFB103A and DEFB4A) are broadly involved in innate immunity at the epithelial surface of the trachea. IFI6 plays an important role in the innate immunity against viruses, while ACOD1 also acts in an anti-viral capacity by suppressing replication of viral genomes. Our results also indicated downregulation of cellular pathways involved in retinol metabolism and suggested a state of relative retinoic acid deficiency. Figure  1 summarizes and synthesizes the proposed interactions between the key cellular processes contributing to COATS.

Persistent antiviral response may lead to dysregulated retinol metabolism; these collectively cause the hyperproliferation and hypergranulation characteristic of tracheal stenosis

We performed a literature search to identify potential therapeutic options that could inhibit pathologically upregulated gene products or promote pathologically downregulated gene products (Table  3 ). Retinoic acid suppresses MMP3 [ 18 ] and CASP14 [ 19 ] (upregulated in COATS) and promotes SLURP1 [ 20 ] and CRNN [ 21 ] (downregulated in COATS). MMP3 and CASP14 may also serve as molecular targets for the prevention and management of COATS, as their expression may be suppressed using their respective inhibitors. Thus, retinoic acid, MMP3 inhibitors, and CASP14 inhibitors may hold therapeutic promise and should be prioritized for future investigation.

Retinoic acid is well-known for its role in maintaining epithelial integrity and promoting mucosal immunity [ 22 ]. Topical retinoic acid can improve the regeneration of a mucociliary respiratory epithelium after iatrogenic mucosal injury [ 23 ]. Retinoic acid has been shown to suppress MMPS [ 18 ] and CASP14 [ 19 ], while promoting expression of SLURP1 [ 20 ] and CRNN [ 21 ]. Moreover, retinoic acid has also been shown to promote cell-cell adhesion [ 24 ], which was also downregulated in the COATS tissue samples. Lastly, we also observed downregulation of pathways concerned with retinol metabolism. In fact, evidence suggests that retinoic acid depletion may be a common feature of COVID-19 infection [ 25 , 26 ] and that administration of retinoic acid may reduce overall disease severity by targeting a variety of key molecular players [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Systemic retinoic acid can prevent virus-induced airway hyper-reactivity due to its anti-inflammatory and anti-viral effects [ 30 ]. This evidence collectively points towards retinoic acid being a potential adjunct therapy to prevent or treat COATS, and future studies must evaluate its benefits in animal models and clinical settings.

Other potential therapies that may be explored include MMP3 inhibitors and caspase inhibitors. MMP3, like other matrix metalloproteinases, plays a key role in extracellular matrix degradation during tissue remodeling that occurs as part of hyperproliferation and stenosis [ 31 ]. In COVID-19 infection, the upregulation of MMP3 has been identified previously as both a biomarker and a potential therapeutic target to prevent systemic complications of the disease [ 32 , 33 ]. The main role of CASP14 (caspase-14) in the human body is the maintenance of the stratum corneum by promoting epidermal cornification [ 34 ]. However, formation of a cornified layer has been shown to occur in tracheal stenosis [ 35 ], presumably leading to a severe and recalcitrant manifestation of the disease. Caspases are widely upregulated in severe and chronic forms of COVID-19 infection, and caspase inhibitors have been identified as possible therapeutic options for these conditions [ 36 ]. While CASP-14 specific inhibitors have not been explored, pan-caspase inhibitors may be used in COVID-19 [ 36 ]. Thus, MMP3 and caspase inhibition also warrant attention with regards to their role in preventing and managing COATS.

In conclusion, we identified three upregulated genes (MMP3, CASP14, and HAS1) and five downregulated genes (SPRR3, CRNN, CAPN14, SLURP1, and RPTN) that likely promote tracheal hypergranulation and hyperproliferation leading to COVID-19-associated tracheal stenosis (COATS). In addition, retinol metabolism pathways were dysregulated, and gene expression indicated a relative local retinoic acid deficiency. Given the presence of existing literature highlighting retinoic acid’s ability to favorably regulate these genes, improve cell-cell adhesion, and decrease overall disease severity in COVID-19, future studies must evaluate its utility for adjunctive management of COATS in animal models and clinical settings.

Limitations

This study has limitations. First this research note presents data from only five samples from two patients. Second, genes upregulated in Patient 2 indicated possible carcinogenesis (may be indicative of early neoplastic processes attributable to the patient’s smoking history), which may confound results. Third, our work only discusses on the biological plausibility of potential therapeutic options, and future work is required to evaluate actual benefits of these drugs. Lastly, we did not evaluate changing trends in the gene expression at different timepoints within the continuum of the disease course.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The genomic data for the patients with COATS can be found in Supplementary File 2 .

Pearson FG, Andrews MJ. Detection and management of tracheal stenosis following cuffed tube tracheostomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 1971;12(4):359–74. Epub 1971/10/01.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Grillo HC, Donahue DM, Mathisen DJ, Wain JC, Wright CD. Postintubation tracheal stenosis. Treatment and results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109(3):486–92. discussion 92– 3. Epub 1995/03/01.

Stauffer JL, Olson DE, Petty TL. Complications and consequences of endotracheal intubation and tracheotomy. A prospective study of 150 critically ill adult patients. Am J Med. 1981;70(1):65–76. Epub 1981/01/01.

Bibas BJ, Cardoso PFG, Minamoto H. Pêgo-Fernandes PMJTcr. Quality-of-life evaluation in patients with laryngotracheal diseases. 2020;9(3):2099.

Mohammadi M, Khamseh AKP, Varpaei HAJA, Medicine P. Invasive Airway Intubation in COVID-19 Patients; Statistics, Causes, and Recommendations: A Review Article. 2021;11(3).

Allgood S, Peters J, Benson A, Maragos C, McIltrot K, Slater T et al. Acquired laryngeal and subglottic stenosis following COVID-19—Preparing for the coming deluge. 2021.

Fleuren LM, Dam TA, Tonutti M, de Bruin DP, Lalisang RC, Gommers D et al. Predictors for extubation failure in COVID-19 patients using a machine learning approach. 2021;25(1):1–10.

Tyagi R, Arunachalam M, Mittal S, Hadda V, Mohan A, Guleria R et al. COVID-19-Associated Tracheal Stenosis (COATS): A New Entity? 2022:10.1097.

Piazza C, Filauro M, Dikkers FG, Nouraei SR, Sandu K, Sittel C, et al. Long-term intubation and high rate of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients might determine an unprecedented increase of airway stenoses: a call to action from the European. Laryngological Soc. 2021;278:1–7.

Google Scholar  

Herrington HC, Weber SM, Andersen PEJTL. Mod Manage Laryngotracheal Stenosis. 2006;116(9):1553–7.

Bhora FY, Ayub A, Forleiter CM, Huang CY, Alshehri K, Rehmani S, et al. Treatment of Benign Tracheal Stenosis using Endoluminal Spray Cryotherapy. JAMA otolaryngology– head neck Surg. 2016;142(11):1082–7. Epub 2016/08/18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hoffman MR, Patro A, Huang LC, Chen SC, Berry LD, Gelbard A et al. Impact of adjuvant medical therapies on surgical outcomes in idiopathic subglottic stenosis. 2021;131(12):E2880–6.

Croft CB, Zub K, Borowiecki B. Therapy of iatrogenic subglottic stenosis: a steroid/antibiotic regimen. Laryngoscope. 1979;89(3):482–9. Epub 1979/03/01.

Zhou L, Li Y, Gan LM, Qin EY, Meng XY, Gan JH, et al. [Effects of different drugs on bronchial stenosis by TGF-β/mTOR signaling pathway in rabbit model]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2019;99(24):1898–903. Epub 2019/07/05.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wei P, Huang Z, Gan L, Li Y, Qin C, Liu GJA. Nintedanib ameliorates tracheal stenosis by activating HDAC2 and suppressing IL-8 and VEGF in rabbit. 2020;12(8):4739.

Farzanegan R, Feizabadi M, Ghorbani F, Movassaghi M, Vaziri E, Zangi M, et al. Overv Tracheal Stenosis Res Trends hot Top. 2017;20(9):–.

Gogna P, Narain TA, O’Sullivan DE, Villeneuve PJ, Demers PA, Hystad P, et al. Estimates of the current and future burden of lung cancer attributable to PM2.5 in Canada. Prev Med. 2019;122:91–9.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liu Y, Kimura K, Orita T, Teranishi S, Suzuki K, Sonoda KH. All-trans-retinoic acid inhibition of transforming growth factor-β-induced collagen gel contraction mediated by human Tenon fibroblasts: role of matrix metalloproteinases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(4):561–5. Epub 2015/01/24.

Rendl M, Ban J, Mrass P, Mayer C, Lengauer B, Eckhart L, et al. Caspase-14 expression by epidermal keratinocytes is regulated by retinoids in a differentiation-associated manner. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;119(5):1150–5. Epub 2002/11/26.

Mastrangeli R, Donini S, Kelton CA, He C, Bressan A, Milazzo F, et al. ARS Component B: structural characterization, tissue expression and regulation of the gene and protein (SLURP-1) associated with Mal De Meleda. Eur J Dermatology: EJD. 2003;13(6):560–70. Epub 2004/01/15.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Cheong KA, Kim HJ, Kim JY, Kim CH, Lim WS, Noh M, et al. Retinoic acid and hydroquinone induce inverse expression patterns on cornified envelope-associated proteins: implication in skin irritation. J Dermatol Sci. 2014;76(2):112–9. Epub 2014/09/23.

McCullough FS, Northrop-Clewes CA, Thurnham DI. The effect of vitamin A on epithelial integrity. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999;58(2):289–93. Epub 1999/08/31.

Fang KM, Wang CT, Chen YW, Huang TW. Reduction of adhesions and antrostomy stenosis with topical vitamin A after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015;29(6):430–4. Epub 2015/12/08.

Whelan JT, Chen J, Miller J, Morrow RL, Lingo JD, Merrell K, et al. 9-cis-retinoic acid promotes cell adhesion through integrin dependent and independent mechanisms across immune lineages. J Nutr Biochem. 2013;24(5):832–41. Epub 2012/08/29.

Sarohan AR. COVID-19: endogenous retinoic acid theory and retinoic acid depletion syndrome. Med Hypotheses. 2020;144:110250. Epub 2020/12/02.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sarohan AR, Akelma H, Araç E, Aslan Ö, Cen O. Retinol Depletion in COVID-19. Clin Nutr open Sci. 2022;43:85–94. Epub 2022/06/07.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stephensen CB, Lietz G. Vitamin A in resistance to and recovery from infection: relevance to SARS-CoV2. Br J Nutr. 2021;126(11):1663–72. Epub 2021/01/21.

Tepasse PR, Vollenberg R, Fobker M, Kabar I, Schmidt H, Meier JA et al. Vitamin A plasma levels in COVID-19 patients: a prospective Multicenter Study and Hypothesis. Nutrients. 2021;13(7). Epub 2021/07/03.

Li R, Wu K, Li Y, Liang X, Tse WKF, Yang L, et al. Revealing the targets and mechanisms of vitamin A in the treatment of COVID-19. Aging. 2020;12(15):15784–96. Epub 2020/08/18.

Moreno-Vinasco L, Verbout NG, Fryer AD, Jacoby DB. Retinoic acid prevents virus-induced airway hyperreactivity and M2 receptor dysfunction via anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2009;297(2):L340–6. Epub 2009/05/26.

Jarmuz T, Roser S, Gal A, Rivera H, Roman J. Transforming growth Factor-β1, myofibroblasts, and tissue remodeling in the pathogenesis of Tracheal Injury: potential role of gastroesophageal reflux. 2004;113(6):488–97.

Almuntashiri S, Zhang D, Somanath PR, Sikora A. MMP3 in severe COVID-19: a biomarker or therapeutic target? Infect Disord Drug Targ. 2023;23(1):e190622206159. Epub 2022/06/22.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kadry R, Newsome AS, Somanath PR. Pharmacological inhibition of MMP3 as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19 Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Infect Disord Drug Targ. 2021;21(6):e170721187996. Epub 2020/11/18.

Denecker G, Ovaere P, Vandenabeele P, Declercq W. Caspase-14 reveals its secrets. J Cell Biol. 2008;180(3):451–8. Epub 2008/02/06.

Li XZ, Wang ZC, Qiu Y, Ma SX, Meng LB, Wu WH, et al. Bioinformatics analysis and verification of gene targets for benign tracheal stenosis. Mol Genet Genom Med. 2020;8(6):e1245. Epub 2020/04/21.

Plassmeyer M, Alpan O, Corley MJ, Premeaux TA, Lillard K, Coatney P, et al. Caspases and therapeutic potential of caspase inhibitors in moderate-severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID. Allergy. 2022;77(1):118–29. Epub 2021/05/17.

Arredondo J, Chernyavsky AI, Webber RJ, Grando SA. Biological effects of SLURP-1 on human keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatol. 2005;125(6):1236–41. Epub 2005/12/16.

Chernyavsky AI, Galitovskiy V, Shchepotin IB, Grando SA. Anti-inflammatory effects of the nicotinergic peptides SLURP-1 and SLURP-2 on human intestinal epithelial cells and immunocytes. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:609086. Epub 2014/05/31.

Mitchell JK, Pitcher D, McArdle BM, Alnefelt T, Duffy S, Avery V, et al. Identifying common metalloprotease inhibitors by protein fold types using Fourier transform mass spectrometry. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2007;17(23):6521–4. Epub 2007/10/16.

Paolocci N, Tavazzi B, Biondi R, Gluzband YA, Amorini AM, Tocchetti CG, et al. Metalloproteinase inhibitor counters high-energy phosphate depletion and AMP deaminase activity enhancing ventricular diastolic compliance in subacute heart failure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006;317(2):506–13. Epub 2006/01/27.

Okamoto Y, Satomura K, Nakayama K, Tanaka N, Ohsuzu F, Imaki J, et al. A matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, ONO-4817, suppresses the development of aortic intimal hyperplasia in experimental hyperlipidemic rabbit. Int Heart J. 2007;48(3):369–78. Epub 2007/06/27.

Sindermann JR, Köbbert C, Voss R, Ebbing J, March KL, Breithardt G, et al. Transgenic model of smooth muscle cell cycle reentry: expression pattern of the collageneous matrix. Cardiovasc Pathology: Official J Soc Cardiovasc Pathol. 2008;17(2):72–80. Epub 2008/03/11.

Johnson LL, Bornemeier DA, Janowicz JA, Chen J, Pavlovsky AG, Ortwine DF. Effect of species differences on stromelysin-1 (MMP-3) inhibitor potency. An explanation of inhibitor selectivity using homology modeling and chimeric proteins. J Biol Chem. 1999;274(35):24881–7. Epub 1999/08/24.

Jacobsen EJ, Mitchell MA, Hendges SK, Belonga KL, Skaletzky LL, Stelzer LS, et al. Synthesis of a series of stromelysin-selective thiadiazole urea matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors. J Med Chem. 1999;42(9):1525–36. Epub 1999/05/07.

Matthews KH, Stevens HN, Auffret AD, Humphrey MJ, Eccleston GM. Formulation, stability and thermal analysis of lyophilised wound healing wafers containing an insoluble MMP-3 inhibitor and a non-ionic surfactant. Int J Pharm. 2008;356(1–2):110–20. Epub 2008/02/19.

Fray MJ, Dickinson RP. Discovery of potent and selective succinyl hydroxamate inhibitors of matrix metalloprotease-3 (stromelysin-1). Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2001;11(4):571–4. Epub 2001/03/07.

Hibino T, Fujita E, Tsuji Y, Nakanishi J, Iwaki H, Katagiri C, et al. Purification and characterization of active caspase-14 from human epidermis and development of the cleavage site-directed antibody. J Cell Biochem. 2010;109(3):487–97. Epub 2009/12/05.

Kao JJ. The NF-kappaB inhibitor pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate blocks IL-1beta induced hyaluronan synthase 1 (HAS1) mRNA transcription, pointing at NF-kappaB dependence of the gene HAS1. Exp Gerontol. 2006;41(6):641–7. Epub 2006/05/26.

Marzoll A, Wördehoff L, Dai G, Fries S, Grosser T, Schrör K et al. Abstract 1161: cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors reduce Hyaluronan Synthesis in Murine atherosclerosis. 2007;116(suppl_16):II234–5.

Stuhlmeier KM, Pollaschek C. Glucocorticoids inhibit induced and non-induced mRNA accumulation of genes encoding hyaluronan synthases (HAS): hydrocortisone inhibits HAS1 activation by blocking the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling pathway. Rheumatology. 2003;43(2):164–9.

Stuhlmeier KM. Effects of leflunomide on hyaluronan synthases (HAS): NF-kappa B-independent suppression of IL-1-induced HAS1 transcription by leflunomide. J Immunol (Baltimore Md: 1950). 2005;174(11):7376–82. Epub 2005/05/21.

Pasonen-Seppänen SM, Maytin EV, Törrönen KJ, Hyttinen JMT, Hascall VC, MacCallum DK, et al. All-trans Retinoic Acid-Induced Hyaluronan Production and Hyperplasia are partly mediated by EGFR Signaling in Epidermal Keratinocytes. J Invest Dermatology. 2008;128(4):797–807.

Davis BP, Stucke EM, Khorki ME, Litosh VA, Rymer JK, Rochman M, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis-linked calpain 14 is an IL-13-induced protease that mediates esophageal epithelial barrier impairment. JCI Insight. 2016;1(4):e86355. Epub 2016/05/10.

Narumoto O, Horiguchi K, Horiguchi S, Moriwaki Y, Takano-Ohmuro H, Shoji S, et al. Down-regulation of secreted lymphocyte antigen-6/urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor-related peptide-1 (SLURP-1), an endogenous allosteric alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor modulator, in murine and human asthmatic conditions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010;398(4):713–8. Epub 2010/07/14.

Hohl D, de Viragh PA, Amiguet-Barras F, Gibbs S, Backendorf C, Huber M. The small proline-rich proteins constitute a multigene family of differentially regulated cornified cell envelope precursor proteins. J Invest Dermatol. 1995;104(6):902–9. Epub 1995/06/01.

Krieg P, Schuppler M, Koesters R, Mincheva A, Lichter P, Marks F. Repetin (Rptn), a new member of the fused gene subgroup within the S100 gene family encoding a murine epidermal differentiation protein. Genomics. 1997;43(3):339–48. Epub 1997/08/01.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Russell Seth Martins and Faiz Y. Bhora wish to be considered joint corresponding authors for this article.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Surgery, Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack Meridian Health (HMH) Network, 08820, Edison, NJ, USA

Russell Seth Martins, Joanna Weber, Kostantinos Poulikidis, M. Jawad Latif, Syed Shahzad Razi, Robert S. Lebovics & Faiz Y. Bhora

Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Dyson Center for Cancer Care, Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Nuvance Health, 12601, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA

Al Haitham Al Shetawi

Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgery, Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Nuvance Health, 12601, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA

Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack Meridian Health (HMH) Network– Central Region, 65 James Street, 08820, Edison, NJ, USA

Russell Seth Martins

Chief of Thoracic Surgery, Hackensack Meridian Health (HMH) Network– Central Region, Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, 65 James Street, 08820, Edison, NJ, USA

Faiz Y. Bhora

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JW, KP, ALAS, MJL, SSR, RSL, and FB were involved in obtaining the specimens. JW was involved in lab work and sample processing. RSM performed the data analysis and wrote the preliminary draft of the manuscript. All authors provided their intellectual input on the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Russell Seth Martins or Faiz Y. Bhora .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The institutional review board at Nuvance Health granted ethical approval for this study. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from the study participants.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the study participants.

Competing interests

Faiz Bhora, MD has consulting relationships with the following, that are unrelated to this study: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Biodesix, Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. The other authors have no relevant financial disclosures or competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Martins, R.S., Weber, J., Poulikidis, K. et al. Gene expression profiles in COVID-19-associated tracheal stenosis indicate persistent anti-viral response and dysregulated retinol metabolism. BMC Res Notes 17 , 140 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06775-y

Download citation

Received : 10 May 2023

Accepted : 15 April 2024

Published : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06775-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus disease 2019
• Subglottic stenosis
• Molecular medicine
• Endotracheal intubation
• Granulation tissue

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

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

Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Lee Dupuis
• ORCID record for Mina Tadrous
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Objective The primary objective is to identify which observational research methods have been used in the last 5 years in rare disease drug evaluation and how they are applied to generate adequate evidence regarding the real-world effectiveness or safety of rare disease drugs. Background Rare disease is an umbrella term for a condition which affects <200,000 people each year and despite the rarity of these conditions, collectively they encompass approximately 7000 different conditions. With the striking number of rare conditions, many pharmaceutical manufacturers are introducing an increased number of drugs to treat them. However, due to small patient populations, heterogeneity and other factors related to rare diseases, there are feasibility concerns regarding the generation of adequate efficacy and safety evidence using conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recently, real-world evidence generated through observational (or real-world) studies has been proposed to address some of the feasibility concerns with RCTs by measuring drug effectiveness or safety in the real-world setting. However, there remain methodological concerns due to a lack of randomization/masking. This proposed scoping review aims to identify which observational research methods in the last 5 years are used in rare disease drug evaluation to address methodological concerns and how they’re applied to generate evidence on drug effectiveness or safety. Inclusion criteria Articles must be primary observational or real-world studies reporting rare disease drug effectiveness or safety published between 2018-2023. Literature reviews, meta-analyses, randomized control trials, case series, case reports, opinion pieces, conference abstracts, and studies with unavailable full-text articles will be excluded. Methods The search strategy will combine the following key search concepts: rare disease, drugs for rare disease and observational/real-world studies. The search will be conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Review registration number Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/f3wpv

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (324)
• Allergy and Immunology (627)
• Anesthesia (163)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2373)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (289)
• Dermatology (206)
• Emergency Medicine (379)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (836)
• Epidemiology (11770)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (702)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3738)
• Geriatric Medicine (350)
• Health Economics (633)
• Health Informatics (2395)
• Health Policy (933)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (896)
• Hematology (341)
• HIV/AIDS (782)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13310)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (767)
• Medical Education (365)
• Medical Ethics (104)
• Nephrology (398)
• Neurology (3502)
• Nursing (198)
• Nutrition (525)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (674)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (664)
• Oncology (1823)
• Ophthalmology (537)
• Orthopedics (219)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (232)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (446)
• Pediatrics (1033)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (420)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3175)
• Public and Global Health (6139)
• Radiology and Imaging (1280)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (747)
• Respiratory Medicine (826)
• Rheumatology (379)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (372)
• Sports Medicine (323)
• Surgery (402)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (145)