stages in literature review process

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

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

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

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

Collections
Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips:

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

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: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

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

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 1, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

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

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

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

February 03, 2022

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

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

How to Write a Literature Review

Step One: Decide on your areas of research:

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

Step Two: Search for the literature:

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

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

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

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

2. Definitions of terms

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

4. Gaps you notice in the literature

5. Disagreement about the constructs you are investigating

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

Step Four: Code the literature:

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

Step Five: Create Your Conceptual Schema:

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

Step Six: Begin to Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit/Source: Goldmund Lukic/Getty Images

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

How research content supports academic integrity

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

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

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

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

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

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

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

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

Effectively and Efficiently Creating your Paper

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Rights & Permissions

Literature Reviews

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

Selecting a Research Topic

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

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

Does the topic interest you?

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

Is the Topic Relevant?

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

What is the Scope and Purpose?

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

Are there Enough Resources to Support Your Research?

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

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

Why use keywords to search?

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

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

Remember to be:

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

Criteria for Evaluating Research Publications

Significance and Contribution to the Field

• What is the author’s aim?

• To what extent has this aim been achieved?

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

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

• What is missing/not stated?

• Is this a problem?

Methodology or Approach (Formal, research-based texts)

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

• How objective/biased is the approach?

• Are the results valid and reliable?

• What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?

Argument and Use of Evidence

• Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?

• What claims are made?

• Is the argument consistent?

• What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?

• How valid and reliable is the evidence?

• How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?

• What conclusions are drawn?

• Are these conclusions justified?

Writing Style and Text Structure

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

• What is the organizing principle of the text?

Could it be better organized?

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

Analysis: the Starting Point for Further Analysis & Inquiry

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

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

Top 10 Tips for Analyzing the Research

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

Prepared by the fine librarians at California State University Sacramento.

Synthesis vs Summary

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

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

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

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

Literature Review and Synthesis
Lit Review Synthesis Matrix
Synthesis Matrix Example

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

A literature review:

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

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

Organizing Your Literature Review

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

Image result for literature review format

Introduction

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

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

Body

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

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

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

Writing for Your Audience

Writing within your discipline means learning:

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

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

Use our Databases by Title to access:

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

The Research Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction
Select Topic
Identify Keywords
Background Information
Develop Research Questions
Refine Topic
Search Strategy
Evaluate Sources
Primary & Secondary Sources
Types of Periodicals
Organize / Take Notes
Writing & Grammar Resources
Annotated Bibliography

Literature Review

Citation Styles
Paraphrasing
Privacy / Confidentiality
How to Read Research Article
ChatGPT and the Research Process

Academic Success Center

Academic Success Center Contact the Academic Success Center for tutoring hours for writing.

What is a literature review?

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: Jun 26, 2024 1:35 PM
URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/research/process

How to write a Literature Review: Literature review process

Literature review process
Purpose of a literature review
Evaluating sources
Managing sources
Request a literature search
Selecting the approach to use
Quantitative vs qualitative method
Summary of different research methodologies
Research design vs research methodology
Diagram: importance of research
Attributes of a good research scholar

Step 1: Select a topic

Select a topic you can manage in the time frame you have to complete your project.
Establish your research questions and organize your literature into logical categories around the subject/ topic areas of your questions. Your research questions must be specific enou gh to guide you to the relevant literature.
Make sure you understand the concept of ‘broader’ and ‘narrower’ terms. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the literature.

Step 2: Identify the most relevant sources on your topic

Use a variety of resources - locate books , journals , and documents that contain useful information and ideas on your topic. Internet sites , theses & dissertations , conference papers , ePrints and government or industry reports can also be included. Do not rely solely on electronic full-text material which is more easily available. Reference sources such as dictionaries can assist in defining terminology, and encyclopaedias may provide useful introductions to your topic by experts in the field and will list key references.

Step 3 : Search and refine

Unisa has a number of databases that provide full text access to articles, that allow you to refine your search to ‘peer reviewed’ journals. These are scholarly journals which go through a rigorous process of quality assessment by several researchers or subject specialists in the academic community before they are accepted for publication.
Use the And, Or, Not operators, Wildcards and Logical Brackets when searching in the databases. For instance, you can use And to narrow your search while the operator OR expands your search. Not, on the other hand, helps to exclude irrelevant information from your search results. Please click here for more information on searching.

Literature review process - an overview

Step 3: search and refine.

Unisa has a number of databases that provide full text access to articles, that allow you to refine your search to ‘peer reviewed’ journals. These are scholarly journals which go through a rigorous process of quality assessment by several researchers or subject specialists in the academic community before they are accepted for publication.
Use the And, Or, Not operators, Wildcards and Logical Brackets when searching in the databases. For instance, you can use And to narrow your search while the operator OR expands your search. Not, on the other hand, helps to exclude irrelevant information from your search results. Please click here for more information on searching.

How do I write a literature review

See the chapter below for a helpful overview of the literature review process, especially the sections on how to analyse the literature you have gathered and how to write up your literature review:

Literature Reviews and Bibliographic Searches. 2006. In V. Desai, & R. Potter (Eds.), Doing Development Research. (pp. 209-222). London, England: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Available at: http://0-dx.doi.org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.4135/9781849208925.n22 (A student will be prompted at some stage for his/ her student number and myUnisa password. A staff member will be prompted at some stage for his/ her Unisa Network username and login password).

This book is available in the Sage Research Methods Online database.

Step 4: Read and analyse

Group the sources into the themes and sub-themes of your topic. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider what themes or issues connect your sources together.

Do they present one or different solutions?
Is there an aspect of the field that is missing?
How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory?
Do they reveal a trend in the field?
A raging debate?
Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Step 5: Write the literature review

You can organize the review in many ways; for example, you can center the review historically (how the topic has been dealt with over time); or center it on the theoretical positions surrounding your topic (those for a position vs. those against, for example); or you can focus on how each of your sources contributes to your understanding of your project.

Your literature review should include:

an introduction which explains how your review is organized.
a body which contains the headings and subheadings that provide a map to show the various perspectives of your argument. In other words the body contains the evaluation of the materials you want to include on your topic.
a summary .

Some of the information on this page is indebted to the sources below:

Caldwell College Library

Monmouth University Library

University of Cape Town Libraries

<< Previous: Home
Next: Purpose of a literature review >>
Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 1:19 PM
URL: https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/literature_review

How to Write a Literature Review

What Is a Literature Review
What Is the Literature

Writing the Review

Why Are You Writing This?

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

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

General Steps for Writing a Literature Review

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

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

Specific Points to Include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

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

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue below to begin working through the process.

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

1. Define your topic.

I. Define your topic

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

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

1. To help narrow a broad topic :

a. Brainstorm.

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

a) Step 1. Write down your broad topic.

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

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

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

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

a) Example 1.

Step 1. information security

Step 2. protocols

Step 3. handshake protocol

Brainstorming has brought us to focus on the handshake protocol.

b) Example 2.

Step 1. information security

Step 2. single sign-on authentication

Step 3. analyzing

Step 4. methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. What new knowledge do I need to gain?

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

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

1. Identify key words

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

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

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

b. Use these alternatives when doing searches.

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

2. Develop a strategy.

II. Develop a strategy for finding the information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Locate the information.

III. Locate the information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Are the conclusions justified by the information presented?

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

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

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

c. objectivity -- does the information show bias?

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

2) Does the source show political or cultural biases?

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

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

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

a. the right sources?

b. the right tools to get to the sources?

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

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

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

4. Use and evaluate the information.

IV. Use the information.

A. Read, hear or view the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Synthesize.

V. Synthesize.

A. Organize and integrate information from multiple sources

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

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

6. Evaluate your work.

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

A. Is it effective?

B. Does it meet the requirements?

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

<< Previous: Research Communication Graphic
Next: Search techniques >>
Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:27 PM
URL: https://library.dsu.edu/graduate-research

Franklin University |
Help & Support |
Locations & Maps |

| Research Guides

To access Safari eBooks,

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

Continue Close

Literature Review

Getting Started
Framing the Literature Review

Literature Review Process

Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
Value -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

Development of the Literature Review

Four stages:.

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

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:

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

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

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

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

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

By Publication:

Order your sources chronologically by publication date, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Conceptual Categories:

The literature review is organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most.

Methodological:

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

Sections of Your Literature Review:

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

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

Current Situation : information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
History : the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
Selection Methods : the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
Standards : the way in which you present your information.
Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Writing Your Literature Review

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

Use Evidence:

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

Be Selective:

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

Use Quotes Sparingly:

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

Summarize and Synthesize:

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

Keep Your Own Voice:

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording.

Use Caution When Paraphrasing:

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

<< Previous: Getting Started
Next: Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help >>
Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 2:44 PM
URL: https://guides.franklin.edu/LITREVIEW

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

Conducting Literature Reviews

About Literature Reviews

Process Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can also:

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

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

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

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

More Resources

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

General guidance on where to search for sources:

Where to Find Sources

Subject-specific guidance on where to search for sources:

Evidence-Based Practice by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 26, 2023 18 views this year
Finding Legislation, Data, & Statistics by Mike Jundi Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 21 views this year
Nursing Research by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 47 views this year
RAD 112 - Introduction to Radiography by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 11 views this year
RAD 246 - Radiographic Pathology by Mike Jundi Last Updated Mar 14, 2024 145 views this year
Social Work Resources by Mike Jundi Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 15 views this year

How to search for sources by developing a search strategy:

How to Search for Sources

General guidance on using catalogs and databases:

Basic Library Tutorials by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 384 views this year

Research management involves collecting, organizing, and citing.

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

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

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

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

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

What is synthesis?

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

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

How do I synthesize information?

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

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

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

Other Helpful Tips: Note-Taking & Proofreading

Writing style

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

APA Style Resources (7th ed.) by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 13, 2023 228 views this year

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

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

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

Why doesn't the author-driven structure work?

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

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

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

Theme-based structure

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

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

Why does the them-based structure work better?

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

Aultman Health Sciences Library

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

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Cover of Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of primary studies,
extracting data, and
analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel .aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article =1221&context =ecis2011 .
Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
PDF version of this title (4.5M)
Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

Introduction
Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
Concluding Remarks

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Research in International Management

Doing a literature review: an 8-step process

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

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

Step 1: Information management strategies

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

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

Step 8: The literature review in your thesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 7a: 7 criteria to evaluate coverage

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

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

Step 7b: 12 guidelines to evaluate references

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

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

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

Related blogposts

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

Find the resources on my website useful?

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

Aug 2022:

Nov 2022:

Feb 2023:

May 2023:

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

Systematic Review

Library Help
What is a Systematic Review (SR)?

Steps of a Systematic Review

Framing a Research Question
Developing a Search Strategy
Searching the Literature
Managing the Process
Meta-analysis
Publishing your Systematic Review

Forms and templates

Image: David Parmenter's Shop

PICO Template
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Database Search Log
Review Matrix
Cochrane Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies

• PRISMA Flow Diagram - Record the numbers of retrieved references and included/excluded studies. You can use the Create Flow Diagram tool to automate the process.

• PRISMA Checklist - Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

PROSPERO Template
Manuscript Template
Steps of SR (text)
Steps of SR (visual)
Steps of SR (PIECES)

Image by

from the UMB HSHSL Guide. (26 min) on how to conduct and write a systematic review from RMIT University from the VU Amsterdam . , (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

. (1), 49-60. . (4), 471-475.

(2020) (2020) - Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews (2017) - Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews (2011) - Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2008)


	entify your research question. Formulate a clear, well-defined research question of appropriate scope. Define your terminology. Find existing reviews on your topic to inform the development of your research question, identify gaps, and confirm that you are not duplicating the efforts of previous reviews. Consider using a framework like or to define you question scope. Use to record search terms under each concept. It is a good idea to register your protocol in a publicly accessible way. This will help avoid other people completing a review on your topic. Similarly, before you start doing a systematic review, it's worth checking the different registries that nobody else has already registered a protocol on the same topic. - Systematic reviews of health care and clinical interventions - Systematic reviews of the effects of social interventions (Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies) - The protocol is published immediately and subjected to open peer review. When two reviewers approve it, the paper is sent to Medline, Embase and other databases for indexing. - upload a protocol for your scoping review - Systematic reviews of healthcare practices to assist in the improvement of healthcare outcomes globally - Registry of a protocol on OSF creates a frozen, time-stamped record of the protocol, thus ensuring a level of transparency and accountability for the research. There are no limits to the types of protocols that can be hosted on OSF. - International prospective register of systematic reviews. This is the primary database for registering systematic review protocols and searching for published protocols. . PROSPERO accepts protocols from all disciplines (e.g., psychology, nutrition) with the stipulation that they must include health-related outcomes. - Similar to PROSPERO. Based in the UK, fee-based service, quick turnaround time. - Submit a pre-print, or a protocol for a scoping review. - Share your search strategy and research protocol. No limit on the format, size, access restrictions or license. outlining the details and documentation necessary for conducting a systematic review: , (1), 28.
	Clearly state the criteria you will use to determine whether or not a study will be included in your search. Consider study populations, study design, intervention types, comparison groups, measured outcomes. Use some database-supplied limits such as language, dates, humans, female/male, age groups, and publication/study types (randomized controlled trials, etc.).
	Run your searches in the to your topic. Work with to help you design comprehensive search strategies across a variety of databases. Approach the grey literature methodically and purposefully. Collect ALL of the retrieved records from each search into , such as , or , and prior to screening. using the and .
- export your Endnote results in this screening software	Start with a title/abstract screening to remove studies that are clearly not related to your topic. Use your to screen the full-text of studies. It is highly recommended that two independent reviewers screen all studies, resolving areas of disagreement by consensus.
	Use , or systematic review software (e.g. , ), to extract all relevant data from each included study. It is recommended that you pilot your data extraction tool, to determine if other fields should be included or existing fields clarified.
Risk of Bias (Quality) Assessment - (download the Excel spreadsheet to see all data)	Use a Risk of Bias tool (such as the ) to assess the potential biases of studies in regards to study design and other factors. Read the to learn about the topic of assessing risk of bias in included studies. You can adapt ( ) to best meet the needs of your review, depending on the types of studies included.
- - -	Clearly present your findings, including detailed methodology (such as search strategies used, selection criteria, etc.) such that your review can be easily updated in the future with new research findings. Perform a meta-analysis, if the studies allow. Provide recommendations for practice and policy-making if sufficient, high quality evidence exists, or future directions for research to fill existing gaps in knowledge or to strengthen the body of evidence. For more information, see: . (2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.2450/2012.0247-12 - Get some inspiration and find some terms and phrases for writing your manuscript - Automated high-quality spelling, grammar and rephrasing corrections using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the flow of your writing. Free and subscription plans available.
- -	8. Find the best journal to publish your work. Identifying the best journal to submit your research to can be a difficult process. To help you make the choice of where to submit, simply insert your title and abstract in any of the listed under the tab.

Adapted from A Guide to Conducting Systematic Reviews: Steps in a Systematic Review by Cornell University Library

This diagram illustrates in a visual way and in plain language what review authors actually do in the process of undertaking a systematic review.

This diagram illustrates what is actually in a published systematic review and gives examples from the relevant parts of a systematic review housed online on The Cochrane Library. It will help you to read or navigate a systematic review.

Source: Cochrane Consumers and Communications (infographics are free to use and licensed under Creative Commons )

Check the following visual resources titled " What Are Systematic Reviews?"

Video with closed captions available
Animated Storyboard

Image:

- the methods of the systematic review are generally decided before conducting it.
- searching for studies which match the preset criteria in a systematic manner
- sort all retrieved articles (included or excluded) and assess the risk of bias for each included study
- each study is coded with preset form, either qualitatively or quantitatively synthesize data.
- place results of synthesis into context, strengths and weaknesses of the studies
- report provides description of methods and results in a clear and transparent manner

Source: Foster, M. (2018). Systematic reviews service: Introduction to systematic reviews. Retrieved September 18, 2018, from

<< Previous: What is a Systematic Review (SR)?
Next: Framing a Research Question >>
Last Updated: May 8, 2024 1:44 PM
URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/SR

My Library Account
Articles, Books & More
Course Reserves
Site Search
Advanced Search
Sac State Library
Research Guides
Writing a Literature Review
6 Stages to Writing a Literature Review
What is a Literature Review?
Literature Review Examples
Organizing Your Literature Review
Managing your Citations
Further Reading on Lit Reviews

Academic Phrasebank

Last Updated: Jun 6, 2024 9:36 AM
URL: https://csus.libguides.com/litreview

'Babbling' and 'hoarse': Biden's debate performance sends Democrats into a panic

ATLANTA — President Joe Biden was supposed to put the nation’s mind at ease over his physical and mental capacity with his debate showing Thursday night.

But from the onset of the debate, Biden, 81, seemingly struggled even to talk, mostly summoning a weak, raspy voice. In the opening minutes, he repeatedly tripped over his words, misspoke and lost his train of thought.

In one of the most notable moments, Biden ended a rambling statement that lacked focus by saying, “We finally beat Medicare,” before moderators cut him off and transitioned back to former President Donald Trump.

While Biden warmed up and gained more of a rhythm as the debate progressed, he struggled to land a punch against Trump, much less fact-check everything Trump said as he unleashed a torrent of bad information.

Trump also pounced on Biden, saying at one point that he didn’t understand what Biden had just said with regard to the border.

“I don’t know if he knows what he said, either,” Trump said.

Nearly an hour into the debate, a Biden aide and others familiar with his situation offered up an explanation for his hoarseness: He has a cold.

But there were problems aside from the shakiness of Biden's voice. When he wasn't talking, he often stared off into the distance. Trump frequently steamrolled over Biden, accusing him of being a criminal and of peddling misinformation — many times without a response from Biden, though he did fire back with a handful of one-liners throughout.

The Biden campaign acknowledged that the debate would be a critical moment in the election, with officials hoping it could shake up the race to his benefit. Most polls have found the race to be neck and neck, with razor-thin margins that have moved negligibly for months, even after a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts .

Questions about Biden’s age and frailty have dragged down his polling numbers for months. The public concerns are exacerbated by deceptively edited videos , some of which have gone viral, that cut off relevant parts of an event, making it appear as if Biden is wandering or confused. This was Biden’s first opportunity since the State of the Union speech to dispel that narrative.

Instead of a new beginning, many Democrats saw it as a moment for panic.

“Democrats just committed collective suicide,” said a party strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns. “Biden sounds hoarse, looks tired and is babbling. He is reaffirming everything voters already perceived. President Biden can’t win. This debate is a nail in the political coffin.”

“It’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t nominate someone else,” a Democratic consultant who works on down-ballot races said.

Biden did ramp up as the debate progressed.

“Only one of us is a convicted felon, and I’m looking at him,” Biden said to Trump. That was one moment that tested particularly well in the Biden campaign's internal real-time polling at the time of the debate, according to a person familiar with the polling.

An aide said that it was “not an ideal start” for Biden at the beginning of the debate but that there was “no mass panic” at the campaign headquarters in Delaware.

The muting of the candidates' microphones at the debate, a stipulation both campaigns agreed to before the debate, added a new dimension to the faceoff. The first Biden-Trump match-up in 2020 was marked by repeated interruptions by Trump, leading to moments of frustration for Biden.

“Will you shut up, man?” Biden complained at that first Cleveland debate.

Reaction pours in

“I’m thinking the Democrats are thinking about who the Barry Goldwater is who can walk in tomorrow and tell the president he needs to step aside,” said Ben Proto, chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party.

In 1974, after key Watergate tapes were made public, Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., went to see President Richard Nixon alongside other prominent lawmakers, telling Nixon that he would be convicted by the Senate and that he should step aside — which he did.

Biden’s campaign defended his performance, saying he offered a “positive and winning vision” for America.

“On the other side of the stage was Donald Trump, who offered a dark and backwards window into what America will look like if he steps foot back in the White House: a country where women are forced to beg for the health care they need to stay alive. A country that puts the interests of billionaires over working people,” Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a statement. “And a former president who not once, not twice, but three times, failed to promise he would accept the results of a free and fair election this November.”

Some Democrats also defended Biden presidency more broadly after the debate, pointing to his policies over Trump's.

"One thing this debate won’t change is Trump’s base instinct to sell out anyone to make a quick buck or put his own image on a steak, golf course or even the Holy Bible," said Brandon Weathersby, a spokesman with the pro-Biden American Bridge 21st Century super PAC. "Trump puts himself first every time, and that won’t change if he becomes president again."

Trump, meanwhile, has fended off his own questions over whether he’s diminished by age, including his struggles to stay on topic and his meandering when he’s speaking . Biden has posited that Trump “snapped” after his 2020 election loss and is unstable, which he aired again Thursday night.

Trump often gave his typical rambling responses and seemed at times to make up factoids and figures.

“During my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever, and my top environmental people gave me that statistic just before I walked on the stage, actually,” Trump said.

Trump also said he would lower insulin prices for seniors, but it was Biden who signed legislation in 2022 that lowered out-of-pocket costs for people on Medicare to $35 a month and covered all insulin products.

Setting the stage for the fall

The first debate during the 2020 election cycle was in early September, meaning the first 2024 general election debate was significantly earlier than usual — more than two months ahead of Labor Day, which is often seen as the point when most voters start to pay attention to presidential contests.

“Debates move numbers,” said Matt Gorman, a longtime Republican strategist who worked for presidential campaign of Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. “And with this so early — and the next one not until September — you’re stuck with the narrative for four long months.

“And one and the other’s performance will set the tone for the next one,” he added.

For months, Trump’s team has been hammering Biden’s mental acuity, a strategy that is at odds with how campaigns generally handle the lead-up to debates, when they try to build up opponents as deft debaters to set expectations.

The expectations for Biden were low, and by almost all estimates he was unable to clear them.

“Biden just had to beat himself; unfortunately the stumbling and diminished Joe Biden the world has come to know made Trump look competent and energetic,” said a former Trump campaign official who isn’t working for his campaign this year. “I expect there will be some loud calls from Democrats for a change on the top of the ticket.”

“The floor for Biden was so low,” the person added. “After Biden’s debate performance, it seems the floor is 6 feet under.”

The 90-minute debate hit on a wide variety of topics, but many of the most dominant themes were centered on those that have been most prominent on the campaign trail over the past few months.

Trump hit Biden on two big policy fights that have stubbornly dogged his campaign: immigration and inflation.

Since Biden took office, 15 million jobs have been created and the unemployment rate sits at a relatively low 4%, but prices for consumer goods have remained high, and they provided a consistent line of attack from the Trump campaign and Republicans more broadly.

In one heated exchange, Trump point-blank said “he caused the inflation.” Biden said in response there was less inflation under Trump because he tanked the economy.

“There was no inflation when I came into office,” Biden said before that rejoinder — a quote Republicans quickly used as evidence that all of the current price hikes happened on Biden’s watch.

Trump continued to attack Biden over his border policies, which his campaign has used as one of its biggest lines of attack throughout the campaign. That often including amplifying each time an undocumented migrant commits a crime even though the data doesn’t support the idea of a migrant crime wave .

“ We have a border that is the most dangerous place anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

Earlier this year, Trump used his influence over congressional Republicans to block a bipartisan border deal that Biden supported.

Biden also tried to land a punch about Jan. 6, trying to build on the oft-discussed idea that Trump’s returning to the White House would be a threat to democracy.

“He encouraged those folks to go up to Capitol Hill,” Biden said. “He sat there for three hours being begged by his vice president and many colleagues on the Republican side to do something.”

Trump deflected, arguing the Biden should be “ashamed” for arresting those who participated in the attempted insurrection.

Natasha Korecki is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Matt Dixon is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News, based in Florida.

Jonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News, based in Washington.

An official website of the United States Government

Kreyòl ayisyen
Search Toggle search Search Include Historical Content - Any - No Include Historical Content - Any - No Search
Menu Toggle menu
INFORMATION FOR…
Individuals
Business & Self Employed
Charities and Nonprofits
International Taxpayers
Federal State and Local Governments
Indian Tribal Governments
Tax Exempt Bonds
FILING FOR INDIVIDUALS
How to File
When to File
Where to File
Update Your Information
Get Your Tax Record
Apply for an Employer ID Number (EIN)
Check Your Amended Return Status
Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN)
File Your Taxes for Free
Bank Account (Direct Pay)
Payment Plan (Installment Agreement)
Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS)
Your Online Account
Tax Withholding Estimator
Estimated Taxes
Where's My Refund
What to Expect
Direct Deposit
Reduced Refunds
Amend Return

Credits & Deductions

INFORMATION FOR...
Businesses & Self-Employed
Earned Income Credit (EITC)
Child Tax Credit
Clean Energy and Vehicle Credits
Standard Deduction
Retirement Plans

Forms & Instructions

POPULAR FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
Form 1040 Instructions
Form 4506-T
POPULAR FOR TAX PROS
Form 1040-X
Circular 230

IRS enters next stage of Employee Retention Credit work; review indicates vast majority show risk of being improper

Highest-risk claims being denied, additional processing to begin on low-risk claims; heightened scrutiny and review continues as compliance work tops $2 billion; IRS will consult with Congress on potential legislative action before making decision on future of moratorium

IR-2024-169, June 20, 2024

WASHINGTON — Following a detailed review to protect taxpayers and small businesses, the Internal Revenue Service today announced plans to deny tens of thousands of improper high-risk Employee Retention Credit claims while starting a new round of processing lower-risk claims to help eligible taxpayers.

“The completion of this review provided the IRS with new insight into risky Employee Retention Credit activity and confirmed widespread concerns about a large number of improper claims,” said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. “We will now use this information to deny billions of dollars in clearly improper claims and begin additional work to issue payments to help taxpayers without any red flags on their claims.”

“This is one of the most complex credits the IRS has administered, and we continue to ask taxpayers for patience as we unravel this complex process,” Werfel added. “Ultimately, this period will help us protect taxpayers against improper payouts that flooded the system and get checks to those truly eligible.”

The review involved months of digitizing information and analyzing data since last September to assess a group of more than 1 million Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims representing more than $86 billion filed amid aggressive marketing last year.

During this process, the IRS identified between 10% and 20% of claims fall into what the agency has determined to be the highest-risk group, which show clear signs of being erroneous claims for the pandemic-era credit. Tens of thousands of these will be denied in the weeks ahead. This high-risk group includes filings with warning signals that clearly fall outside the guidelines established by Congress.

In addition to this highest risk group, the IRS analysis also estimates between 60% and 70% of the claims show an unacceptable level of risk. For this category of claims with risk indicators, the IRS will be conducting additional analysis to gather more information with a goal of improving the agency’s compliance review, speeding resolution of valid claims while protecting against improper payments.

At the same time, the IRS continues to be concerned about small businesses waiting on legitimate claims, and the agency is taking more action to help. Between 10% and 20% of the ERC claims show a low risk. For those with no eligibility warning signs that were received prior to the last fall’s moratorium, the IRS will begin judiciously processing more of these claims.

The IRS anticipates some of the first payments in this group will go out later this summer. But the IRS emphasized these will go out at a dramatically slower pace than payments that went out during the pandemic period given the need for increased scrutiny.

As the additional IRS processing work begins at a measured pace, other claims will begin being paid later this summer following a final review. This additional review is needed because the submissions may have calculation errors made during the complex filings. For those claims with calculation errors, the amount claimed will be adjusted before payment.

The IRS also noted that generally the oldest claims will be worked first, and no claims submitted during the moratorium period will be processed at this time.

No additional action needed by taxpayers at this time; await further notification from the IRS

The IRS cautioned taxpayers who filed ERC claims that the process will take time, and the agency warned that processing speeds will not return to levels that occurred last summer. Taxpayers with claims do not need to take any action at this point, and they should await further notification from the IRS. The agency emphasized those with ERC claims should not call IRS toll-free lines because additional information is generally not available on these claims as processing work continues.

“These complex claims take time, and the IRS remains deeply concerned about how many taxpayers have been misled and deluded by promoters into thinking they’re eligible for a big payday. The reality is many aren’t,” Werfel said. “People may think they are on safe ground, but many are simply not eligible under the law. The IRS continues to urge those with pending claims to use this period to review the guideline checklist on IRS.gov, talk to a legitimate tax professional rather than a promoter and use the special IRS withdrawal program when there’s an issue.”

Werfel also cautioned taxpayers to be wary of promoters using today’s announcement as a springboard to attract more clients to file ERC claims.

“The whole world has changed involving Employee Retention Credits since the deepest days of the pandemic,” Werfel said. “Anyone applying for this credit needs to talk to a trusted tax professional and closely review the eligibility requirements, not someone playing fast and loose and trying to make a fast buck off well-meaning taxpayers. People need to be cautious of promoters trying to take advantage of today’s announcement to drive more business. People should remember the IRS continues to be very active in our compliance lanes on Employee Retention Credits.”

Steps taken since September 2023 when processing moratorium on new ERC claims began

During the ERC review period, the IRS continued to process claims received prior to September 2023. The agency processed 28,000 claims worth $2.2 billion and disallowed more than 14,000 claims worth more than $1 billion.

The ERC program began as a critical effort to help businesses during the pandemic, but the program later became the target of aggressive marketing well after the pandemic ended. Some promoter groups may have called the credit by another name, such as a grant, business stimulus payment, government relief or other names besides ERC or the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC).

To counter the flood of claims being driven by promoters, the IRS announced last fall a moratorium on processing claims submitted after Sept. 14, 2023, to give the agency time to digitize information on the large study group of nearly 1 million ERC claims, which are made on amended paper tax returns. The subsequent analysis of the results during this period helped the IRS evaluate next steps, providing the IRS valuable information to change the way the agency will process ERC claims going forward.

The findings of the IRS review confirmed concerns raised by tax professionals and others that there was an extremely high rate of improper ERC claims.

The claims followed a flurry of aggressive marketing and promotions last year that led to people being misled into filing for the ERC. After the moratorium was put in place on Sept. 14, the IRS has continued to see ERC claims continuing to come in at the rate of more than 17,000 a week, with the ERC inventory currently at 1.4 million.

In light of the large inventory and the results of the ERC review, the IRS will keep the processing moratorium in place on ERC claims submitted after Sept. 14, 2023. The IRS will use this period to gather additional feedback from partners, including Congress and others, on the future course of ERC.

“We decided to keep the post-September moratorium in place because we continue to be concerned about the substantial number of claims coming in so long after the pandemic,” Werfel said. “These claims are clogging the system for legitimate taxpayers. We worry that ending the moratorium might trigger a gold rush by aggressive marketers that could lead to a new round of improper claims, which would be a bad result for taxpayers or tax administration. We will use this time to consult with Congress and seek additional help from them on the ERC program, including potentially closing down new claims entirely and seeking an extension of the statute of limitations to allow the agency more time to pursue improper claims.”

Special IRS Withdrawal Program remains open for those with unprocessed ERC claims

Given the large number of questionable claims indicated by the new review, the IRS continues to urge those with unprocessed claims to consider the special IRS ERC Withdrawal Program to avoid future compliance issues.

Businesses should quickly pursue the claim withdrawal process if they need to ask the IRS to not process an ERC claim for any tax period that hasn’t been paid yet. Taxpayers who received an ERC check — but haven’t cashed or deposited it — can also use this process to withdraw the claim and return the check. The IRS will treat the claim as though the taxpayer never filed it. No interest or penalties will apply.

With more than 1.4 million unprocessed ERC claims, the claim withdrawal process remains an important option for businesses who may have submitted an improper claim.

IRS compliance work tops $2 billion from Voluntary Disclosure Program, withdrawal process, disallowances

The IRS also announced today that compliance efforts around erroneous ERC claims have now topped more than $2 billion since last fall. This is nearly double the amount announced in March following completion of the special ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), which the IRS announced led to the disclosure of $1.09 billion from over 2,600 applications. The IRS is currently considering reopening the VDP at a reduced rate for those with previously processed claims to avoid future compliance action by the IRS.

Compliance work on previously processed ERC claims continue, and work continues on a number of efforts to counter questionable claims:

The ongoing claim withdrawal process for those with unprocessed ERC claims has led to more than 4,800 entities withdrawing $531 million.
The IRS has determined that more than 12,000 entities filed over 22,000 claims that were improper and resulted in $572 million in assessments. This initial round of letters covers Tax Year 2020. Thousands more of these letters are planned in coming months to address Tax Year 2021, which involved larger claims. Congress increased the maximum ERC from $5,000 per employee per year in 2020, to $7,000 per employee for each quarter of the year in 2021.
More than 2,600 applications for the special ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) , which ended in March, disclosed $1.09 billion.

The IRS is currently assessing whether to reopen the special ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program to help taxpayers get into compliance on paid claims and avoid future IRS compliance action, including audits. If the program reopens, the IRS anticipates the terms will not be as favorable as the initial offering that closed in the spring. A decision will be made in coming weeks.

The IRS also reminded those with pending claims or considering submitting an ERC claim about other compliance actions underway:

Criminal investigations: As of May 31, 2024, IRS Criminal Investigation has initiated 450 criminal cases, with potentially fraudulent claims worth nearly $7 billion. In all, 36 investigations have resulted in federal charges so far, with 16 investigations resulting in convictions and seven sentencings with an average sentence of 25 months.

Audits: The IRS has thousands of ERC claims currently under audit.

Promoter investigations: The IRS is gathering information about suspected abusive tax promoters and preparers improperly promoting the ability to claim the ERC. The IRS’s Office of Promoter Investigations has received hundreds of referrals from internal and external sources. The IRS will continue civil and criminal enforcement efforts of these unscrupulous promoters and preparers.

Help for businesses with eligibility questions and those misled by promoters

Some promoters told taxpayers every employer qualifies for ERC. The IRS and the tax professional community emphasize that this is not true. Eligibility depends on specific facts and circumstances. The IRS has dozens of resources to help people learn about and check ERC eligibility and businesses can also consult their trusted tax professional . Key IRS materials to help show taxpayers if they have a risky ERC claim include:

ERC Eligibility Checklist (interactive version and a printable guide PDF ) includes cautions about common areas of misinformation and links to facts and examples.
7 warning signs ERC claims may be incorrect outlines tactics that unscrupulous promoters have used and why their points are wrong.
Frequently asked questions about the Employee Retention Credit includes eligibility rules, definitions, examples and more.
Facebook
Twitter
Linkedin

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Author Biographies
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Discovering potential in non-cancer medications: a promising breakthrough for multiple myeloma patients.

Simple Summary

1. the significance of repurposing, 2. pharmacological repurposing strategies and tools, 3. medicines that could be repurposed to treat mm, 3.1. thalidomide, 3.2. statins, 3.3. celecoxib, 3.4. aspirin, 3.5. clarithromycin, 3.6. rapamycin, 3.7. valproic acid, 3.8. nelfinavir, 3.9. metformin, 3.10. bisphosphonates, 3.12. albendazole, 4. conclusions and future prospectives, 5. practice points.

Although there have been numerous clinical trials conducted to evaluate different approaches for treating cancer, the 5-year survival rate for individuals with MM in the US remains at a modest 55%.
Myeloma remains a challenging malignancy to treat due to the development of drug resistance, resulting in relapse for all patients.
There is an ongoing demand for new medications. However, the process of finding a new treatment can often be quite time-consuming. Therefore, repurposing already approved non-cancer medication for MM can aid in the discovery of new effective drugs.
The potential for repurposing approved drugs is promising, although a thorough analysis of these agents is necessary before they can be considered for clinical trials.

6. Research Agenda

The potential of various non-anti-cancer drugs as an anti-myeloma treatment was discussed.
Thalidomide stands out as an exemplary repurposed agent for treating MM.
There is encouraging evidence that statins, rapamycin, clarithromycin, and leflunomide can inhibit MM.
Extensive animal studies using the MM animal model, along with phase 1 clinical studies, are necessary to thoroughly investigate these agents as potential MM therapies.

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest.

Yang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhong, Q.-Z.; Yang, Y.; Wu, T.; Chen, S.-Y.; Chen, B.; Song, Y.-W.; Fang, H.; Wang, S.-L.; et al. Disparities in mortality risk after diagnosis of hematological malignancies in 185 countries: A global data analysis. Cancer Lett. 2024 , 595 , 216793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ashburn, T.T.; Thor, K.B. Drug repositioning: Identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004 , 3 , 673–683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Scannell, J.W.; Blanckley, A.; Boldon, H.; Warrington, B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012 , 11 , 191–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Pammolli, F.; Magazzini, L.; Riccaboni, M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011 , 10 , 428–438. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Waring, M.J.; Arrowsmith, J.; Leach, A.R.; Leeson, P.D.; Mandrell, S.; Owen, R.M.; Pairaudeau, G.; Pennie, W.D.; Pickett, S.D.; Wang, J.; et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015 , 14 , 475–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Beachy, S.H.; Johnson, S.G.; Olson, S.; Berger, A.C. Drug Repurposing and Repositioning: Workshop Summary ; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
DiMasi, J.A.; Grabowski, H.G.; Hansen, R.W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 2016 , 47 , 20–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Paul, S.M.; Mytelka, D.S.; Dunwiddie, C.T.; Persinger, C.C.; Munos, B.H.; Lindborg, S.R.; Schacht, A.L. How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010 , 9 , 203–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Papapetropoulos, A.; Szabo, C. Inventing new therapies without reinventing the wheel: The power of drug repurposing. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2018 , 175 , 165–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hernandez, J.J.; Pryszlak, M.; Smith, L.; Yanchus, C.; Kurji, N.; Shahani, V.M.; Molinski, S.V. Giving drugs a second chance: Overcoming regulatory and financial hurdles in repurposing approved drugs as cancer therapeutics. Front. Oncol. 2017 , 7 , 273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Nosengo, N. Can you teach old drugs new tricks? Nature 2016 , 534 , 314–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ishida, J.; Konishi, M.; Ebner, N.; Springer, J. Repurposing of approved cardiovascular drugs. J. Transl. Med. 2016 , 14 , 269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cheng, F.; Lu, W.; Liu, C.; Fang, J.; Hou, Y.; Handy, D.E.; Wang, R.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Huang, J.; et al. A genome-wide positioning systems network algorithm for in silico drug repurposing. Nat. Commun. 2019 , 10 , 3476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Rudrapal, M.; Khairnar, S.J.; Jadhav, A.G. Drug repurposing (DR): An emerging approach in drug discovery. In Drug Repurposing-Hypothesis, Molecular Aspects and Therapeutic Applications ; IntechOpe: London, UK, 2020; Volume 10. [ Google Scholar ]
Rajkumar, S.V.; Kumar, S. Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms. Blood Cancer J. 2020 , 10 , 94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Dehghanifard, A.; Kaviani, S.; Abroun, S.; Mehdizadeh, M.; Saiedi, S.; Maali, A.; Ghaffari, S.; Azad, M. Various signaling pathways in multiple myeloma cells and effects of treatment on these pathways. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 , 18 , 311–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Al-Odat, O.S.; von Suskil, M.; Chitren, R.J.; Elbezanti, W.O.; Srivastava, S.K.; Budak-Alpddogan, T.; Jonnalagadda, S.C.; Aggarwal, B.B.; Pandey, M. Mcl-1 inhibition: Managing malignancy in multiple myeloma. Front. Pharmacol. 2021 , 12 , 699629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hurle, M.R.; Yang, L.; Xie, Q.; Rajpal, D.K.; Sanseau, P.; Agarwal, P. Computational drug repositioning: From data to therapeutics. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2013 , 93 , 335–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Keiser, M.J.; Setola, V.; Irwin, J.J.; Laggner, C.; Abbas, A.I.; Hufeisen, S.J.; Jensen, N.H.; Kuijer, M.B.; Matos, R.C.; Tran, T.B.; et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 2009 , 462 , 175–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hieronymus, H.; Lamb, J.; Ross, K.N.; Peng, X.P.; Clement, C.; Rodina, A.; Nieto, M.; Du, J.; Stegmaier, K.; Raj, S.M.; et al. Gene expression signature-based chemical genomic prediction identifies a novel class of HSP90 pathway modulators. Cancer Cell 2006 , 10 , 321–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cheng, F.; Desai, R.J.; Handy, D.E.; Wang, R.; Schneeweiss, S.; Barabási, A.L.; Loscalzo, J. Network-based approach to prediction and population-based validation of in silico drug repurposing. Nat. Commun. 2018 , 9 , 2691. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nam, Y.; Kim, M.; Chang, H.S.; Shin, H. Drug repurposing with network reinforcement. BMC Bioinform. 2019 , 20 , 383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zickenrott, S.; Angarica, V.E.; Upadhyaya, B.B.; Del Sol, A. Prediction of disease–gene–drug relationships following a differential network analysis. Cell Death Dis. 2016 , 7 , e2040. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hu, G.; Agarwal, P. Human disease-drug network based on genomic expression profiles. PLoS ONE 2009 , 4 , e6536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Peyvandipour, A.; Saberian, N.; Shafi, A.; Donato, M.; Draghici, S. A novel computational approach for drug repurposing using systems biology. Bioinformatics 2018 , 34 , 2817–2825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Naylor, D.M.; Kauppi, D.; Schonfeld, J. Therapeutic drug repurposing, repositioning and rescue. Drug Discov. 2015 , 57 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
Chatr-Aryamontri, A.; Breitkreutz, B.-J.; Heinicke, S.; Boucher, L.; Winter, A.; Stark, C.; Nixon, J.; Ramage, L.; Kolas, N.; O’Donnell, L.; et al. The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 , 41 , D816–D823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Szklarczyk, D.; Franceschini, A.; Wyder, S.; Forslund, K.; Heller, D.; Huerta-Cepas, J.; Simonovic, M.; Roth, A.; Santos, A.; Tsafou, K.P. STRING v10: Protein–protein interaction networks, integrated over the tree of life. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 , 43 , D447–D452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chen, J.Y.; Pandey, R.; Nguyen, T.M. HAPPI-2: A comprehensive and high-quality map of human annotated and predicted protein interactions. BMC Genom. 2017 , 18 , 182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kanehisa, M.; Furumichi, M.; Tanabe, M.; Sato, Y.; Morishima, K. KEGG: New perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 , 45 , D353–D361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Croft, D.; O’Kelly, G.; Wu, G.; Haw, R.; Gillespie, M.; Matthews, L.; Caudy, M.; Garapati, P.; Gopinath, G.; Jassal, B.; et al. Reactome: A database of reactions, pathways and biological processes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 , 39 , D691–D697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wang, Z.; Jensen, M.; Zenklusen, J. A Practical Guide to the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Statistical Genomics. Methods Protoc. 2016 , 1418 , 111–141. [ Google Scholar ]
Uhlén, M.; Fagerberg, L.; Hallström, B.M.; Lindskog, C.; Oksvold, P.; Mardinoglu, A.; Sivertsson, Å.; Kampf, C.; Sjöstedt, E.; Asplund, A.; et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 2015 , 347 , 1260419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Uhlen, M.; Oksvold, P.; Fagerberg, L.; Lundberg, E.; Jonasson, K.; Forsberg, M.; Zwahlen, M.; Kampf, C.; Wester, K.; Hober, S.; et al. Towards a knowledge-based human protein atlas. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010 , 28 , 1248–1250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Uhlén, M.; Björling, E.; Agaton, C.; Szigyarto, C.A.-K.; Amini, B.; Andersen, E.; Andersson, A.-C.; Angelidou, P.; Asplund, A.; Asplund, C.; et al. A human protein atlas for normal and cancer tissues based on antibody proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2005 , 4 , 1920–1932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Barretina, J.; Caponigro, G.; Stransky, N.; Venkatesan, K.; Margolin, A.A.; Kim, S.; Wilson, C.J.; Lehár, J.; Kryukov, G.V.; Sonkin, D.; et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 2012 , 483 , 603–607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Lamb, J.; Crawford, E.D.; Peck, D.; Modell, J.W.; Blat, I.C.; Wrobel, M.J.; Lerner, J.; Brunet, J.-P.; Subramanian, A.; Ross, K.N.; et al. The Connectivity Map: Using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 2006 , 313 , 1929–1935. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Lamb, J. The Connectivity Map: A new tool for biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007 , 7 , 54–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Borate, B.; Baxevanis, A.D. Searching Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) for information on genetic loci involved in human disease. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2009 , 27 , 1.2.1–1.2.13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Goh, K.-I.; Cusick, M.E.; Valle, D.; Childs, B.; Vidal, M.; Barabási, A.-L. The human disease network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007 , 104 , 8685–8690. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yang, J.; Wu, S.-J.; Yang, S.-Y.; Peng, J.-W.; Wang, S.-N.; Wang, F.-Y.; Song, Y.-X.; Qi, T.; Li, Y.-X.; Li, Y.-Y. DNetDB: The human disease network database based on dysfunctional regulation mechanism. BMC Syst. Biol. 2016 , 10 , 36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Law, V.; Knox, C.; Djoumbou, Y.; Jewison, T.; Guo, A.C.; Liu, Y.; Maciejewski, A.; Arndt, D.; Wilson, M.; Neveu, V.; et al. DrugBank 4.0: Shedding new light on drug metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 , 42 , D1091–D1097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Andersson, M.L.; Böttiger, Y.; Bastholm-Rahmner, P.; Ovesjö, M.-L.; Veg, A.; Eiermann, B. Evaluation of usage patterns and user perception of the drug–drug interaction database SFINX. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2015 , 84 , 327–333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kale, V.P.; Habib, H.; Chitren, R.; Patel, M.; Pramanik, K.C.; Jonnalagadda, S.C.; Challagundla, K.; Pandey, M.K. Old drugs, new uses: Drug repurposing in hematological malignancies. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2021 , 68 , 242–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kuhn, M.; Letunic, I.; Jensen, L.J.; Bork, P. The SIDER database of drugs and side effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 , 44 , D1075–D1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Siramshetty, V.B.; Nickel, J.; Omieczynski, C.; Gohlke, B.-O.; Drwal, M.N.; Preissner, R. WITHDRAWN—A resource for withdrawn and discontinued drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 , 44 , D1080–D1086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kuhn, M.; Szklarczyk, D.; Franceschini, A.; Von Mering, C.; Jensen, L.J.; Bork, P. STITCH 3: Zooming in on protein–chemical interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 , 40 , D876–D880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Shameer, K.; Glicksberg, B.S.; Hodos, R.; Johnson, K.W.; Badgeley, M.A.; Readhead, B.; Tomlinson, M.S.; O’Connor, T.; Miotto, R.; Kidd, B.A.; et al. Systematic analyses of drugs and disease indications in RepurposeDB reveal pharmacological, biological and epidemiological factors influencing drug repositioning. Brief. Bioinform. 2018 , 19 , 656–678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Garnett, M.J.; Edelman, E.J.; Heidorn, S.J.; Greenman, C.D.; Dastur, A.; Lau, K.W.; Greninger, P.; Thompson, I.R.; Luo, X.; Soares, J.; et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 2012 , 483 , 570–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Lee, B.K.B.; Tiong, K.H.; Chang, J.K.; Liew, C.S.; Abdul Rahman, Z.A.; Tan, A.C.; Khang, T.F.; Cheong, S.C. DeSigN: Connecting gene expression with therapeutics for drug repurposing and development. BMC Genom. 2017 , 18 , 934. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Singhal, S.; Mehta, J.; Desikan, R.; Ayers, D.; Roberson, P.; Eddlemon, P.; Munshi, N.; Anaissie, E.; Wilson, C.; Dhodapkar, M.; et al. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999 , 341 , 1565–1571. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Rajkumar, S.V.; Blood, E.; Vesole, D.; Fonseca, R.; Greipp, P.R. Phase III clinical trial of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A clinical trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 , 24 , 431–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Afzal, A.; Fiala, M.A.; Gage, B.F.; Wildes, T.M.; Sanfilippo, K. Statins reduce mortality in multiple myeloma: A population-based US study. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 , 20 , e937–e943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Brånvall, E.; Ekberg, S.; Eloranta, S.; Wästerlid, T.; Birmann, B.M.; Smedby, K.E. Statin use is associated with improved survival in multiple myeloma: A Swedish population-based study of 4315 patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2020 , 95 , 652–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sanfilippo, K.M.; Keller, J.; Gage, B.F.; Luo, S.; Wang, T.-F.; Moskowitz, G.; Gumbel, J.; Blue, B.; O’Brian, K.; Carson, K.R. Statins are associated with reduced mortality in multiple myeloma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 , 34 , 4008–4014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Epstein, M.M.; Divine, G.; Chao, C.R.; Wells, K.E.; Feigelson, H.S.; Scholes, D.; Roblin, D.; Ulcickas Yood, M.; Engel, L.S.; Taylor, A.; et al. Statin use and risk of multiple myeloma: An analysis from the cancer research network. Int. J. Cancer 2017 , 141 , 480–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bernard, M.; Bancos, S.; Sime, P.; Phipps, R. Targeting cyclooxygenase-2 in hematological malignancies: Rationale and promise. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008 , 14 , 2051–2060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Tołoczko-Iwaniuk, N.; Dziemiańczyk-Pakieła, D.; Nowaszewska, B.K.; Celińska-Janowicz, K.; Miltyk, W. Celecoxib in cancer therapy and prevention—Review. Curr. Drug Targets 2019 , 20 , 302–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kardosh, A.; Soriano, N.; Liu, Y.-T.; Uddin, J.; Petasis, N.A.; Hofman, F.M.; Chen, T.C.; Schönthal, A.H. Multitarget inhibition of drug-resistant multiple myeloma cell lines by dimethyl-celecoxib (DMC), a non–COX-2 inhibitory analog of celecoxib. Blood 2005 , 106 , 4330–4338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Marinac, C.R.; Colditz, G.A.; Rosner, B.; Ghobrial, I.M.; Birmann, B.M. Aspirin Use and Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients. Blood 2018 , 132 , 3250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Birmann, B.M.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Rosner, B.A.; Colditz, G.A. Regular aspirin use and risk of multiple myeloma: A prospective analysis in the health professionals follow-up study and nurses’ health study. Cancer Prev. Res. 2014 , 7 , 33–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Holien, T.; Olsen, O.E.; Misund, K.; Hella, H.; Waage, A.; Rø, T.B.; Sundan, A. Lymphoma and myeloma cells are highly sensitive to growth arrest and apoptosis induced by artesunate. Eur. J. Haematol. 2013 , 91 , 339–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Papanikolaou, X.; Johnson, S.; Garg, T.; Tian, E.; Tytarenko, R.; Zhang, Q.; Stein, C.; Barlogie, B.; Epstein, J.; Heuck, C. Artesunate overcomes drug resistance in multiple myeloma by inducing mitochondrial stress and non-caspase apoptosis. Oncotarget 2014 , 5 , 4118–4128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Li, S.; Xue, F.; Cheng, Z.; Yang, X.; Wang, S.; Geng, F.; Pan, L. Effect of artesunate on inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis of SP2/0 myeloma cells through affecting NFκB p65. Int. J. Hematol. 2009 , 90 , 513–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hu, G.-F.; Dong, K.; Dong, J.-F.; Wang, Y.; Gao, W. Effects of Artesunate Combined with Arsenious Acid on Proliferation and Apoptosis of Multiple Myeloma Cells via PI3K/AKT Signaling Pathway. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 2021 , 29 , 1819–1824. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Baumann, P.; Mandl-Weber, S.; Volkl, A.; Adam, C.; Bumeder, I.; Oduncu, F.; Schmidmaier, R. Dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitor A771726 (leflunomide) induces apoptosis and diminishes proliferation of multiple myeloma cells. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009 , 8 , 366–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rosenzweig, M.; Palmer, J.; Tsai, N.-C.; Synold, T.; Wu, X.; Tao, S.; Hammond, S.N.; Buettner, R.; Duarte, L.; Htut, M.; et al. Repurposing leflunomide for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase 1 study. Leuk. Lymphoma 2020 , 61 , 1669–1677. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Van Nuffel, A.M.; Sukhatme, V.; Pantziarka, P.; Meheus, L.; Sukhatme, V.P.; Bouche, G. Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO)—Clarithromycin as an anti-cancer agent. Ecancermedicalscience 2015 , 9 , 513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mark, T.M.; Bowman, I.A.; Rossi, A.C.; Shah, M.; Rodriguez, M.; Quinn, R.; Pearse, R.N.; Zafar, F.; Pekle, K.; Jayabalan, D.; et al. Thalidomide, clarithromycin, lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy in newly diagnosed, symptomatic multiple myeloma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2014 , 55 , 2842–2849. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Strömberg, T.; Dimberg, A.; Hammarberg, A.; Carlson, K.; Osterborg, A.; Nilsson, K.; Jernberg-Wiklund, H. Rapamycin sensitizes multiple myeloma cells to apoptosis induced by dexamethasone. Blood 2004 , 103 , 3138–3147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Gera, J.; Lichtenstein, A. The mammalian target of rapamycin pathway as a therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2011 , 52 , 1857–1866. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Raje, N.; Kumar, S.; Hideshima, T.; Ishitsuka, K.; Chauhan, D.; Mitsiades, C.; Podar, K.; Le Gouill, S.; Richardson, P.; Munshi, N.C.; et al. Combination of the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin and CC-5013 has synergistic activity in multiple myeloma. Blood 2004 , 104 , 4188–4193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yee, A.J.; Hari, P.; Marcheselli, R.; Mahindra, A.K.; Cirstea, D.D.; Scullen, T.A.; Burke, J.N.; Rodig, S.J.; Hideshima, T.; Laubach, J.P.; et al. Outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in a phase I study of everolimus in combination with lenalidomide. Br. J. Haematol. 2014 , 166 , 401–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kikuchi, J.; Wada, T.; Shimizu, R.; Izumi, T.; Akutsu, M.; Mitsunaga, K.; Noborio-Hatano, K.; Nobuyoshi, M.; Ozawa, K.; Kano, Y.; et al. Histone deacetylases are critical targets of bortezomib-induced cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 2010 , 116 , 406–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bono, C.; Karlin, L.; Harel, S.; Mouly, E.; Labaume, S.; Galicier, L.; Apcher, S.; Sauvageon, H.; Fermand, J.-P.; Bories, J.-C.; et al. The human immunodeficiency virus-1 protease inhibitor nelfinavir impairs proteasome activity and inhibits the proliferation of multiple myeloma cells in vitro and in vivo. Haematologica 2012 , 97 , 1101–1109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kraus, M.; Bader, J.; Overkleeft, H.; Driessen, C. Nelfinavir augments proteasome inhibition by bortezomib in myeloma cells and overcomes bortezomib and carfilzomib resistance. Blood Cancer J. 2013 , 3 , e103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Alodhaibi, I.; Ailawadhi, S.; Burbano, G.P.; O’Brien, P.J.; Buadi, F.K.; Hayman, S.; Kumar, S.K.; Gonsalves, W.I. An Open-Label Phase I Study of Metformin and Nelfinavir in Combination with Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2024 , 24 , 298–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Koltai, T. Nelfinavir and other protease inhibitors in cancer: Mechanisms involved in anticancer activity. F1000Research 2015 , 4 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Dalva-Aydemir, S.; Bajpai, R.; Martinez, M.; Adekola, K.U.; Kandela, I.; Wei, C.; Singhal, S.; Koblinski, J.E.; Raje, N.S.; Rosen, S.T.; et al. Targeting the metabolic plasticity of multiple myeloma with FDA-approved ritonavir and metformin. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015 , 21 , 1161–1171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mishra, R.K.; Wei, C.; Hresko, R.C.; Bajpai, R.; Heitmeier, M.; Matulis, S.M.; Nooka, A.K.; Rosen, S.T.; Hruz, P.W.; Schiltz, G.E.; et al. In silico modeling-based identification of glucose transporter 4 (GLUT4)-selective inhibitors for cancer therapy. J. Biol. Chem. 2015 , 290 , 14441–14453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jagannathan, S.; Abdel-Malek, M.; Malek, E.; Vad, N.; Latif, T.; Anderson, K.; Driscoll, J. Pharmacologic screens reveal metformin that suppresses GRP78-dependent autophagy to enhance the anti-myeloma effect of bortezomib. Leukemia 2015 , 29 , 2184–2191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mansour, A.; Wakkach, A.; Blin-Wakkach, C. Emerging roles of osteoclasts in the modulation of bone microenvironment and immune suppression in multiple myeloma. Front. Immunol. 2017 , 8 , 954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tai, Y.-T.; Cho, S.-F.; Anderson, K.C. Osteoclast immunosuppressive effects in multiple myeloma: Role of programmed cell death ligand 1. Front. Immunol. 2018 , 9 , 1822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chroma, K.; Skrott, Z.; Gursky, J.; Bacovsky, J.; Moudry, P.; Buchtova, T.; Mistrik, M.; Bartek, J. A drug repurposing strategy for overcoming human multiple myeloma resistance to standard-of-care treatment. Cell Death Dis. 2022 , 13 , 203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yi, H.; Liang, L.; Wang, H.; Luo, S.; Hu, L.; Wang, Y.; Shen, X.; Xiao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Peng, H.; et al. Albendazole inhibits NF-κB signaling pathway to overcome tumor stemness and bortezomib resistance in multiple myeloma. Cancer Lett. 2021 , 520 , 307–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kumar, S.; Witzig, T.; Rajkumar, S.V. Thalidomide as an anti-cancer agent. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2002 , 6 , 160–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Miller, M.T. Thalidomide embryopathy: A model for the study of congenital incomitant horizontal strabismus. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1991 , 89 , 623–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Grover, J.; Vats, V.; Gopalakrishna, R.; Ramam, M. Thalidomide: A re-look. Natl. Med. J. India 2000 , 13 , 132–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Perri, A.J., III; Hsu, S. A review of thalidomide’s history and current dermatological applications. Dermatol. Online J. 2003 , 9 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Gordon, J.; Goggin, P. Thalidomide and its derivatives: Emerging from the wilderness. Postgrad. Med. J. 2003 , 79 , 127–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Holmes, A.; McMenamin, M.; Mulcahy, F.; Bergin, C. Thalidomide Therapy for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Herpes Simplex Virus—Related Genitalis in HIV-Infected Individuals. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007 , 44 , e96–e99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Holland, S. Cytokine therapy of mycobacterial infections. Adv. Intern. Med. 2000 , 45 , 431–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Gupta, S.C.; Sung, B.; Prasad, S.; Webb, L.J.; Aggarwal, B.B. Cancer drug discovery by repurposing: Teaching new tricks to old dogs. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2013 , 34 , 508–517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Locksley, R.M.; Killeen, N.; Lenardo, M.J. The TNF and TNF receptor superfamilies: Integrating mammalian biology. Cell 2001 , 104 , 487–501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hideshima, T.; Chauhan, D.; Richardson, P.; Mitsiades, C.; Mitsiades, N.; Hayashi, T.; Munshi, N.; Dang, L.; Castro, A.; Palombella, V.; et al. NF-κB as a therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. J. Biol. Chem. 2002 , 277 , 16639–16647. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Singhal, S.; Mehta, J. Thalidomide in cancer. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2002 , 56 , 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kumar, V.; Chhibber, S. Thalidomide: An old drug with new action. J. Chemother. 2011 , 23 , 326–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Solèr, R.A.; Howard, M.; Brink, N.S.; Gibb, D.; Tedder, R.S.; Nadal, D. Regression of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma during therapy with thalidomide. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996 , 23 , 501–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Tunio, M.A.; Hashmi, A.; Qayyum, A.; Naimatullah, N.; Masood, R. Low-dose thalidomide in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Brain 2012 , 3 , 3.75. [ Google Scholar ]
Franks, M.E.; Macpherson, G.R.; Figg, W.D. Thalidomide. Lancet 2004 , 363 , 1802–1811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Figg, W.D.; Hussain, M.H.; Gulley, J.L.; Arlen, P.M.; Aragon-Ching, J.B.; Petrylak, D.P.; Higano, C.S.; Steinberg, S.M.; Chatta, G.S.; Parnes, H.; et al. A double-blind randomized crossover study of oral thalidomide versus placebo for androgen dependent prostate cancer treated with intermittent androgen ablation. J. Urol. 2009 , 181 , 1104–1113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ghobrial, I.M.; Rajkumar, S.V. Management of thalidomide toxicity. J. Support. Oncol. 2003 , 1 , 194–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Fadul, C.E.; Kingman, L.S.; Meyer, L.P.; Cole, B.F.; Eskey, C.J.; Rhodes, C.H.; Roberts, D.W.; Newton, H.B.; Pipas, J.M. A phase II study of thalidomide and irinotecan for treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2008 , 90 , 229–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Penas-Prado, M.; Hess, K.R.; Fisch, M.J.; Lagrone, L.W.; Groves, M.D.; Levin, V.A.; De Groot, J.F.; Puduvalli, V.K.; Colman, H.; Volas-Redd, G.; et al. Randomized phase II adjuvant factorial study of dose-dense temozolomide alone and in combination with isotretinoin, celecoxib, and/or thalidomide for glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology 2015 , 17 , 266–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chapman-Shimshoni, D.; Yuklea, M.; Radnay, J.; Shapiro, H.; Lishner, M. Simvastatin induces apoptosis of B-CLL cells by activation of mitochondrial caspase 9. Exp. Hematol. 2003 , 31 , 779–783. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Pradelli, D.; Soranna, D.; Zambon, A.; Catapano, A.; Mancia, G.; La Vecchia, C.; Corrao, G. Statins use and the risk of all and subtype hematological malignancies: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Med. 2015 , 4 , 770–780. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yi, X.; Jia, W.; Jin, Y.; Zhen, S. Statin use is associated with reduced risk of haematological malignancies: Evidence from a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e87019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zhang, P.; Liu, B. Statin use and the risk of multiple myeloma: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Ann. Hematol. 2020 , 99 , 1805–1812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Longo, J.; Smirnov, P.; Li, Z.; Branchard, E.; van Leeuwen, J.E.; Licht, J.D.; Haibe-Kains, B.; Andrews, D.W.; Keats, J.J.; Pugh, T.J.; et al. The mevalonate pathway is an actionable vulnerability of t (4; 14)-positive multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2021 , 35 , 796–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Juarez, D.; Buono, R.; Matulis, S.M.; Gupta, V.A.; Duong, M.R.; Yudiono, J.; Paul, M.; Mallya, S.; Diep, G.; Hsin, P.; et al. Statin-induced mitochondrial priming sensitizes multiple myeloma cells to BCL2 and MCL1 inhibitors. Cancer Res. Commun. 2023 , 3 , 2497–2509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cetin, M.; Buyukberber, S.; Demir, M.; Sari, I.; Sari, I.; Deniz, K.; Eser, B.; Altuntas, F.; Camcı, C.; Öztürk, A.; et al. Overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 in multiple myeloma: Association with reduced survival. Am. J. Hematol. 2005 , 80 , 169–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ladetto, M.; Vallet, S.; Trojan, A.; Dell’Aquila, M.; Monitillo, L.; Rosato, R.; Santo, L.; Drandi, D.; Bertola, A.; Falco, P.; et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is frequently expressed in multiple myeloma and is an independent predictor of poor outcome. Blood 2005 , 105 , 4784–4791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Trojan, A.; Tinguely, M.; Vallet, S.; Seifert, B.; Jenni, B.; Zippelius, A.; Witzens-Harig, M.; Mechtersheimer, G.; Ho, A.; Goldschmidt, H.; et al. Clinical significance of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in multiple myeloma. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2006 , 136 , 400–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Jendrossek, V. Targeting apoptosis pathways by Celecoxib in cancer. Cancer Lett. 2013 , 332 , 313–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Steinbach, G.; Lynch, P.M.; Phillips, R.K.; Wallace, M.H.; Hawk, E.; Gordon, G.B.; Wakabayashi, N.; Saunders, B.; Shen, Y.; Fujimura, T.; et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000 , 342 , 1946–1952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Scilimati, A. Patient Bone Marrow Aspiration to Explore the Cyclooxygenases (COXs) Involvement in Multiple Myeloma. J. Cancer Res. Therap. Oncol. 2021 , 9 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
Roy, P.; Sarkar, U.A.; Basak, S. The NF-κB activating pathways in multiple myeloma. Biomedicines 2018 , 6 , 59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Fan, L.; Hong, J.; Huang, H.; Fu, D.; Wu, S.; Wang, Q.; Ye, Y.; Liu, Y. High expression of phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK1/2) is associated with poor prognosis in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Med. Sci. Monit. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2017 , 23 , 2636–2643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Liu, H.; Xiong, C.; Liu, J.; Sun, T.; Ren, Z.; Li, Y.; Geng, J.; Li, X. Aspirin exerts anti-tumor effect through inhibiting Blimp1 and activating ATF4/CHOP pathway in multiple myeloma. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020 , 125 , 110005. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sakamoto, M.; Mikasa, K.; Hamada, K.; Konishi, M.; Maeda, K.; Yoshimoto, E.; Ueda, K.; Majima, T.; Sawaki, M.; Kita, E.; et al. Effect of clarithromycin treatment of natural killer cell activity in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Gan Kagaku Ryoho. Cancer Chemother. 1998 , 25 , 2259–2266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Musto, P.; Falcone, A.; Sanpaolo, G.; Bodenizza, C.; Carotenuto, M.; Carella, A.M. Inefficacy of clarithromycin in advanced multiple myeloma: A definitive report. Haematologica 2002 , 87 , 658–659. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Durie, B. Clarithromycin (Biaxin) as primary treatment for myeloma. Blood 1997 , 90 , 579. [ Google Scholar ]
Stewart, A.; Trudel, S.; Al-Berouti, B.; Sutton, D.; Meharchand, J.; Shustik, C. Lack of response to short-term use of clarithromycin (BIAXIN) in multiple myeloma. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 1999 , 93 , 4441–4442. [ Google Scholar ]
Moreau, P.; Huynh, A.; Facon, T.; Bouilly, I.; Sotto, J.; Legros, L.; Milpied, N.; Attal, M.; Bataille, R.; Harousseau, J.; et al. Lack of efficacy of clarithromycin in advanced multiple myeloma. Leukemia 1999 , 13 , 490–491. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Morris, T.; Ranaghan, L.; Morrison, J.; Group, N.I.R.H. Phase II trial of clarithromycin and pamidronate therapy in myeloma. Med. Oncol. 2001 , 18 , 79–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Coleman, M.; Leonard, J.; Lyons, L.; Pekle, K.; Nahum, K.; Pearse, R.; Niesvizky, R.; Michaeli, J. BLT-D (clarithromycin [Biaxin], low-dose thalidomide, and dexamethasone) for the treatment of myeloma and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. Leuk. Lymphoma 2002 , 43 , 1777–1782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Morris, T.; Kettle, P.; Drake, M.; Jones, F.; Hull, D.; Boyd, K.; Morrison, A.; Clarke, P.; O’Reilly, P.; Quinn, J. Clarithromycin with low dose dexamethasone and thalidomide is effective therapy in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. 2008 , 143 , 349–354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Puig, N.; Hernández, M.T.; Rosiñol, L.; González, E.; de Arriba, F.; Oriol, A.; González-Calle, V.; Escalante, F.; de la Rubia, J.; Gironella, M.; et al. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone with or without clarithromycin in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous transplant: A randomized trial. Blood Cancer J. 2021 , 11 , 101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Klein, B.; Zhang, X.-G.; Lu, Z.-Y.; Bataille, R. Interleukin-6 in human multiple myeloma. Blood 1995 , 85 , 863–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Khan, A.; Slifer, T.; Araujo, F.; Remington, J. Effect of clarithromycin and azithromycin on production of cytokines by human monocytes. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 1999 , 11 , 121–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Moriya, S.; Komatsu, S.; Yamasaki, K.; Kawai, Y.; Kokuba, H.; Hirota, A.; Che, X.F.; Inazu, M.; Gotoh, A.; Hiramoto, M. Targeting the integrated networks of aggresome formation, proteasome, and autophagy potentiates ER stress-mediated cell death in multiple myeloma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 2015 , 46 , 474–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Takemori, N.; Ooi, H.-K.; Imai, G.; Hoshino, K.; Saio, M. Possible mechanisms of action of clarithromycin and its clinical application as a repurposing drug for treating multiple myeloma. Ecancermedicalscience 2020 , 14 , 1088. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sehgal, S.; Baker, H.; Vézina, C. Rapamycin (AY-22, 989), a new antifungal antibiotic II. Fermentation, isolation and characterization. J. Antibiot. 1975 , 28 , 727–732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Saunders, R.N.; Metcalfe, M.S.; Nicholson, M.L. Rapamycin in transplantation: A review of the evidence. Kidney Int. 2001 , 59 , 3–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Laplante, M.; Sabatini, D.M. mTOR signaling at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2009 , 122 , 3589–3594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ichiyama, T.; Okada, K.; Lipton, J.M.; Matsubara, T.; Hayashi, T.; Furukawa, S. Sodium valproate inhibits production of TNF-α and IL-6 and activation of NF-κB. Brain Res. 2000 , 857 , 246–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wang, Y.; Hao, C.-L.; Zhang, Z.-H.; Wang, L.-H.; Yan, L.-N.; Zhang, R.-J.; Lin, L.; Yang, Y. Valproic acid increased autophagic flux in human multiple myeloma cells in vitro. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020 , 127 , 110167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, R.; Li, H.; Wang, T.; Yan, L.; Gu, C.; Zhao, L.; Hao, C. Valproic acid activates autophagy in multiple myeloma cell lines RPMI8226 and U266. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Xueyexue Zazhi 2016 , 37 , 478–483. [ Google Scholar ]
Kitazoe, K.-I.; Abe, M.; Hiasa, M.; Oda, A.; Amou, H.; Harada, T.; Nakano, A.; Takeuchi, K.; Hashimoto, T.; Ozaki, S.; et al. Valproic acid exerts anti-tumor as well as anti-angiogenic effects on myeloma. Int. J. Hematol. 2009 , 89 , 45–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yang, Y.; Ikezoe, T.; Takeuchi, T.; Adachi, Y.; Ohtsuki, Y.; Takeuchi, S.; Koeffler, H.P.; Taguchi, H. HIV-1 protease inhibitor induces growth arrest and apoptosis of human prostate cancer LNCaP cells in vitro and in vivo in conjunction with blockade of androgen receptor STAT3 and AKT signaling. Cancer Sci. 2005 , 96 , 425–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kawabata, S.; Gills, J.; Mercado-Matos, J.; Lopiccolo, J.; Wilson, W.; Hollander, M.; Dennis, P. Synergistic effects of nelfinavir and bortezomib on proteotoxic death of NSCLC and multiple myeloma cells. Cell Death Dis. 2012 , 3 , e353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kalender, A.; Selvaraj, A.; Kim, S.Y.; Gulati, P.; Brûlé, S.; Viollet, B.; Kemp, B.E.; Bardeesy, N.; Dennis, P.; Schlager, J.J.; et al. Metformin, independent of AMPK, inhibits mTORC1 in a rag GTPase-dependent manner. Cell Metab. 2010 , 11 , 390–401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Del Barco, S.; Vazquez-Martin, A.; Cufí, S.; Oliveras-Ferraros, C.; Bosch-Barrera, J.; Joven, J.; Martin-Castillo, B.; Menendez, J.A. Metformin: Multi-faceted protection against cancer. Oncotarget 2011 , 2 , 896–917. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Greaves, D.; Calle, Y. Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) and Associated Invasive Adhesions in Solid and Haematological Tumours. Cells 2022 , 11 , 649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Noto, H.; Goto, A.; Tsujimoto, T.; Noda, M. Cancer risk in diabetic patients treated with metformin: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012 , 7 , e33411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bodmer, M.; Meier, C.; Krähenbühl, S.; Jick, S.S.; Meier, C.R. Long-term metformin use is associated with decreased risk of breast cancer. Diabetes Care 2010 , 33 , 1304–1308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Machado-Neto, J.A.; Fenerich, B.A.; Scopim-Ribeiro, R.; Eide, C.A.; Coelho-Silva, J.L.; Dechandt, C.R.P.; Fernandes, J.C.; Rodrigues Alves, A.P.N.; Scheucher, P.S.; Simões, B.P.; et al. Metformin exerts multitarget antileukemia activity in JAK2V617F-positive myeloproliferative neoplasms. Cell Death Dis. 2018 , 9 , 311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mishra, A.K.; Dingli, D. Metformin inhibits IL-6 signaling by decreasing IL-6R expression on multiple myeloma cells. Leukemia 2019 , 33 , 2695–2709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chang, S.-H.; Luo, S.; O’Brian, K.K.; Thomas, T.S.; Colditz, G.A.; Carlsson, N.P.; Carson, K.R. Association between metformin use and progression of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to multiple myeloma in US veterans with diabetes mellitus: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2015 , 2 , e30–e36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Boursi, B.; Mamtani, R.; Yang, Y.-X.; Weiss, B.M. Impact of metformin on the progression of MGUS to multiple myeloma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2017 , 58 , 1265–1267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
LeGrand, J.; Park, E.S.; Wang, H.; Gupta, S.; Owens, J.D., Jr.; Nelson, P.J.; DuBois, W.; Bair, T.; Janz, S.; Mushinski, J.F. Global gene expression profiling in mouse plasma cell tumor precursor and bystander cells reveals potential intervention targets for plasma cell neoplasia. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 2012 , 119 , 1018–1028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhao, Y.; Zhang, E.; Lv, N.; Ma, L.; Yao, S.; Yan, M.; Zi, F.; Deng, G.; Liu, X.; He, J. Metformin and FTY720 synergistically induce apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2018 , 48 , 785–800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Berenson, J.R. Antitumor effects of bisphosphonates: From the laboratory to the clinic. Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2011 , 5 , 233–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Weinstein, R.S.; Roberson, P.K.; Manolagas, S.C. Giant osteoclast formation and long-term oral bisphosphonate therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 , 360 , 53–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Huang, X.; Hou, Y.; Weng, X.; Pang, W.; Hou, L.; Liang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Du, L.; Wu, T.; Yao, M.; et al. Diethyldithiocarbamate-copper complex (CuET) inhibits colorectal cancer progression via miR-16-5p and 15b-5p/ALDH1A3/PKM2 axis-mediated aerobic glycolysis pathway. Oncogenesis 2021 , 10 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Suh, J.J.; Pettinati, H.M.; Kampman, K.M.; O’Brien, C.P. The status of disulfiram: A half of a century later. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2006 , 26 , 290–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kannappan, V.; Ali, M.; Small, B.; Rajendran, G.; Elzhenni, S.; Taj, H.; Wang, W.; Dou, Q.P. Recent advances in repurposing disulfiram and disulfiram derivatives as copper-dependent anticancer agents. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021 , 8 , 741316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Guo, W.; Wang, H.; Chen, P.; Shen, X.; Zhang, B.; Liu, J.; Peng, H.; Xiao, X. Identification and characterization of multiple myeloma stem cell-like cells. Cancers 2021 , 13 , 3523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Jin, N.; Zhu, X.; Cheng, F.; Zhang, L. Disulfiram/copper targets stem cell-like ALDH+ population of multiple myeloma by inhibition of ALDH1A1 and Hedgehog pathway. J. Cell. Biochem. 2018 , 119 , 6882–6893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chai, J.-Y.; Jung, B.-K.; Hong, S.-J. Albendazole and mebendazole as anti-parasitic and anti-cancer agents: An update. Korean J. Parasitol. 2021 , 59 , 189–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wang, L.-J.; Lee, Y.-C.; Huang, C.-H.; Shi, Y.-J.; Chen, Y.-J.; Pei, S.-N.; Chou, Y.-W.; Chang, L.-S. Non-mitotic effect of albendazole triggers apoptosis of human leukemia cells via SIRT3/ROS/p38 MAPK/TTP axis-mediated TNF-α upregulation. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2019 , 162 , 154–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Purpose	Resource	Refs.
Human pathways and protein–protein interaction (PPI)	BiGRID, STRING, HAPPI, KEGG, Reactome	[ , , , , ]
Molecular classification of more than 20,000 main cancers matched normal tissue from 33 types of cancer	Cancer Genome Atlas	[ ]
Protein expression in cancer, matched normal tissues, and human cancer cell lines	The Human Protein Atlas	[ , , ]
Drug sensitivity, gene expression, and genotype for human cancer cell lines	Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia	[ ]
Data of genome-wide transcription expression from cultured human cancer cells with many small compounds	Connectivity Map 02 (CMap)	[ , ]
Disease-specific gene curation and analysis	OMIM, GEO	[ , ]
Disease–disease connectivity; connectivity of two genes elaborated within the same disease	The human disease network	[ ]
Disease similarities as seen through the lens of gene regulatory mechanisms; comprehension of disease etiology and pathophysiology	Human Disease Network Database (DNetDB)	[ ]
Drug–drug interaction; comprehensive drug-target information on tens of thousands of drugs and targets	DrugBank	[ ]
Drug–drug interaction	SFINX	[ ]
Database of more than 270 non-cancer drugs for potential repurposing for anti-cancer therapy	Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO)	[ ]
Database of drugs and adverse drug reactions (ADRs)	Side Effect Resource (SIDER)	[ ]
Withdrawn or discontinued drugs	WITHDRAWN	[ , ]
An inventory of main and secondary uses for repurposed pharmaceuticals	RepurposeDB	[ ]
Chemical (including drugs)–protein interaction network	STITCH	[ ]
Data on the sensitivity of hundreds of compounds and over a thousand cancer cell lines	Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC)	[ ]
Gene expression pattern-based prediction of drug effectiveness against cancer	DeSigN	[ ]

Drug Name	Old-Indication	New-Indication	Mechanism of Action	Clinical Trials Status	Refs.
Thalidomide	Sedative, anti-nausea	MM	Inhibits IKK (also NF-κB); inhibits TNF; inhibits IL-1, IL-6, IL-12, VEGF	Approved in combination with dexamethasone	[ , ]
Statins	High Cholesterol	MM	HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, upregulation of PUMA and NOXA	Smouldering MM, phase II	[ , , , ]
Celecoxib	Anti- inflammatory	MM and drug-resistant MM	Inhibits COX-2, inhibits Mcl-1, Bcl-2, survivin, Akt	Not for MM, approved for FAP	[ , , ]
Aspirin	Anti- inflammatory	MM	Inhibits COX-1 and COX-2, suppresses cytokines and NF-κB, inhibits EKR and Blimp1, activates ATF4/CHOP	Preclinical	[ , ]
Artesunate	Malaria	MM and drug-resistant MM	Decreased expression of MYC and Bcl-2, triggers cleavage of caspase-3	Preclinical	[ , , , ]
Leflunomide	Rheumatism	MM	DHODH inhibitor, cyclin D2 and pRb inhibition	Phase II	[ , ]
Clarithromycin	Antibiotic	MM and drug-resistant MM	Inhibits IL-6 and MGFs	Phase III	[ , ]
Rapamycin	Fungal infections	MM	Antagonist of mTOR	Phase I	[ , , , ]
Valproic acid	Seizures, migraine, and epilepsy	MM	Blocks HDAC, inhibits NF-κB and cytokines	Preclinical	[ ]
Nelfinavir	HIV Infection	MM and drug-resistant MM	Inhibits 26S proteasome- disrupts Akt and STAT3, ERK1/2	Phase I	[ , , , ]
Metformin	Diabetes mellitus type 2	MM	Activates AMPK (suppresses mTORC1, activates p53), inhibits EMT, regulates cell cycle proteins (ERK1/2, JAK2/STAT), IL-6 suppression	Smoldering Myeloma and Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance phase II, MM phase I	[ , , , ]
Bisphosphonates	Osteoporosis	MM	HMG-CoA pathway suppression, osteoclast apoptosis	Preclinical	[ , ]
CuET	Alcohol-abuse drug disulfiram (DSF)	Drug-resistant MM	ALDH inhibition	Preclinical	[ ]
Albendazole	Parasitic infections	Drug-resistant MM	Microtubule system interference, p65/NF-κB pathway inhibition	Preclinical	[ ]

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Al-Odat, O.S.; Nelson, E.; Budak-Alpdogan, T.; Jonnalagadda, S.C.; Desai, D.; Pandey, M.K. Discovering Potential in Non-Cancer Medications: A Promising Breakthrough for Multiple Myeloma Patients. Cancers 2024 , 16 , 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132381

Al-Odat OS, Nelson E, Budak-Alpdogan T, Jonnalagadda SC, Desai D, Pandey MK. Discovering Potential in Non-Cancer Medications: A Promising Breakthrough for Multiple Myeloma Patients. Cancers . 2024; 16(13):2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132381

Al-Odat, Omar S., Emily Nelson, Tulin Budak-Alpdogan, Subash C. Jonnalagadda, Dhimant Desai, and Manoj K. Pandey. 2024. "Discovering Potential in Non-Cancer Medications: A Promising Breakthrough for Multiple Myeloma Patients" Cancers 16, no. 13: 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132381

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Inverted Classroom Teaching of Physiology in Basic Medical Education: Bibliometric Visual Analysis

Affiliations.

1 School of Basic Medicine and Public Health, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
2 Division of Life Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, HKSAR, China.
3 Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States.
4 School of Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
PMID: 38940629
DOI: 10.2196/52224

Background: Over the last decade, there has been growing interest in inverted classroom teaching (ICT) and its various forms within the education sector. Physiology is a core course that bridges basic and clinical medicine, and ICT in physiology has been sporadically practiced to different extents globally. However, students' and teachers' responses and feedback to ICT in physiology are diverse, and the effectiveness of a modified ICT model integrated into regular teaching practice in physiology courses is difficult to assess objectively and quantitatively.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the current status and development direction of ICT in physiology in basic medical education using bibliometric visual analysis of the related literature.

Methods: A bibliometric analysis of the ICT-related literature in physiology published between 2000 and 2023 was performed using CiteSpace, a bibliometric visualization tool, based on the Web of Science database. Moreover, an in-depth review was performed to summarize the application of ICT in physiology courses worldwide, along with identification of research hot spots and development trends.

Results: A total of 42 studies were included for this bibliometric analysis, with the year 2013 marking the commencement of the field. University staff and doctors working at affiliated hospitals represent the core authors of this field, with several research teams forming cooperative relationships and developing research networks. The development of ICT in physiology could be divided into several stages: the introduction stage (2013-2014), extensive practice stage (2015-2019), and modification and growth stage (2020-2023). Gopalan C is the author with the highest citation count of 5 cited publications and has published 14 relevant papers since 2016, with a significant surge from 2019 to 2022. Author collaboration is generally limited in this field, and most academic work has been conducted in independent teams, with minimal cross-team communication. Authors from the United States published the highest number of papers related to ICT in physiology (18 in total, accounting for over 43% of the total papers), and their intermediary centrality was 0.24, indicating strong connections both within the country and internationally. Chinese authors ranked second, publishing 8 papers in the field, although their intermediary centrality was only 0.02, suggesting limited international influence and lower overall research quality. The topics of ICT in physiology research have been multifaceted, covering active learning, autonomous learning, student performance, teaching effect, blended teaching, and others.

Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis and literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the history, development process, and future direction of the field of ICT in physiology. These findings can help to strengthen academic exchange and cooperation internationally, while promoting the diversification and effectiveness of ICT in physiology through building academic communities to jointly train emerging medical talents.

Keywords: academic; academic community; bibliometric; bibliometric analysis; bibliometric visual analysis; classroom-based; evolution trend; flipped classroom; flipped classroom teaching; frontier progress; hot topics; inverted classroom; medical education; physiology; scientific knowledge map; teaching method; visual analysis; visualization tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

JMIR Publications
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

IMAGES

Start
Literature Review Management Writing Guide
Stages in your literature review Part 1
Systematic literature review phases.
Introduction
Literature Review: What is and How to do it?

VIDEO

CONDUCTING SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Stages in your literature review Part 2
Literature Review Process (With Example)
Literature Review using Endnote Software Part-1
The Literature Review Process
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

COMMENTS

Steps in the Literature Review Process
Literature Review and Research Design by Dave Harris This book looks at literature review in the process of research design, and how to develop a research practice that will build skills in reading and writing about research literature--skills that remain valuable in both academic and professional careers. Literature review is approached as a process of engaging with the discourse of scholarly ...
Steps in Conducting 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.
Literature Review
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 ...
How to 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.
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
This article is organized as follows: The next section presents the methodology adopted by this research, followed by a section that discusses the typology of literature reviews and provides empirical examples; the subsequent section summarizes the process of literature review; and the last section concludes the paper with suggestions on how to improve the quality and rigor of literature ...
How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from ...
Step One: Decide on your areas of research: Before you begin to search for articles or books, decide beforehand what areas you are going to research. Make sure that you only get articles and books in those areas, even if you come across fascinating books in other areas. A literature review I am currently working on, for example, explores ...
Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review
The first step in the process involves exploring and selecting a topic. You may revise the topic/scope of your research as you learn more from the literature. Be sure to select a topic that you are willing to work with for a considerable amount of time. ... A literature review must include a thesis statement, which is your perception of the ...
Literature Review
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 ...
Literature review process
Select a topic you can manage in the time frame you have to complete your project.; Establish your research questions and organize your literature into logical categories around the subject/ topic areas of your questions.Your research questions must be specific enough to guide you to the relevant literature.; Make sure you understand the concept of 'broader' and 'narrower' terms.
LibGuides: How to Write a Literature Review: Writing the Review
Here is a general outline of steps to write a thematically organized literature review. Remember, though, that there are many ways to approach a literature review, depending on its purpose. Stage one: annotated bibliography. As you read articles, books, etc, on your topic, write a brief critical synopsis of each.
Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review
Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps. When seeking information for a literature review or for any purpose, it helps to understand information-seeking as a process that you can follow. 5 Each of the six (6) steps has its own section in this web page with more detail. Do (and re-do) the following six steps: ...
Research Guides: Literature Review: Structure and Development
Literature Review. The structure of a literature review should include the following: An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review, Division of works under review into themes or categories (e.g. works that support of a particular position, those against, and those offering ...
How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for
A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., articles, ... By process phases, stages: When analyzing a process or series of processes, an effective way to structure the data is to find a well-established framework of reference or architecture.
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
PDF Undertaking a literature review: a step'by-step approacii
literature review process. While reference is made to diflFerent types of literature reviews, the focus is on the traditional or narrative review that is undertaken, usually either as an academic assignment or part of the research process. Key words: Aneilysis and synthesis • Literature review • Literature searching • Writing a review T
The Literature Review Process
Remember, the literature review process is iterative. For more detailed information on forming and evaluating research questions, see these books available to order through ILL from OhioLINK. ... Note: This stage in the literature review process is as iterative and personal as any other. These steps offer a guideline, but do what works for you ...
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. ... New and improved graphics ideal for visualizing the process More explanations and tips, especially for writing in the early stages An expanded range of learning tools Additional reflection sections to direct metacognitive activities Four new reference ...
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and ...
The process of writing a literature review
The process of writing a literature review. Writing a literature review is a non-linear and iterative process. This means you'll be revisiting the different stages of developing your review. There are four stages in conducting a literature review. Click on each stage below for tips on the different strategies used to conduct the literature ...
Doing a literature review: an 8-step process
Step 8: The literature review in your thesis. This last step reveals what criteria are used to evaluate the literature review in your own thesis: synthesis, critical appraisal, and application to the research question. I also explain what your literature should not look like and why a good literature review helps you to get papers published.
Steps of a Systematic Review
Image by TraceyChandler. Steps to conducting a systematic review. Quick overview of the process: Steps and resources from the UMB HSHSL Guide. YouTube video (26 min); Another detailed guide on how to conduct and write a systematic review from RMIT University; A roadmap for searching literature in PubMed from the VU Amsterdam; Alexander, P. A. (2020).
6 Stages to Writing a Literature Review
Research Guides: Writing a Literature Review: 6 Stages to Writing a Literature Review
The three stages of effective literature review process
The process of systematic literature review, underlying the search for and analysis of the existing divisions of knowledge-based and ICT networks, was carried out in three stages (Anello & Fleiss ...
The dimensions of Lean-Green 4.0 readiness a Systematic literature review
A systematic literature review was conducted to investigate the literature on Lean, Green and Industry 4.0. ... approach for SLR. The SLR was carried out in 6 stages: the Planning Review, literature search method, defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, a quality assessment and review, and finally, conducting the review and analysis ...
Biden's presidential debate performance sends Democrats into a panic
Setting the stage for the fall. The first debate during the 2020 election cycle was in early September, meaning the first 2024 general election debate was significantly earlier than usual — more ...
IRS enters next stage of Employee Retention Credit work; review
IR-2024-169, June 20, 2024 — Following a detailed review to protect taxpayers and small businesses, the Internal Revenue Service today announced plans to deny tens of thousands of improper high-risk Employee Retention Credit claims while starting a new round of processing lower-risk claims to help eligible taxpayers.
Cancers
MM is a common type of cancer that unfortunately leads to a significant number of deaths each year. The majority of the reported MM cases are detected in the advanced stages, posing significant challenges for treatment. Additionally, all MM patients eventually develop resistance or experience relapse; therefore, advances in treatment are needed. However, developing new anti-cancer drugs ...
Political community entrepreneurship policy as an effort to reduce
The SLR process is divided into several stages, including: Identifying articles based on the title, abstract, and keywords related to 'policy politics; social entrepreneurship; infrastructure violence. ... Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of entrepreneurship policies by political communities explains that community entrepreneurship policies ...
Inverted Classroom Teaching of Physiology in Basic Medical ...
This bibliometric analysis and literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the history, development process, and future direction of the field of ICT in physiology. ... The development of ICT in physiology could be divided into several stages: the introduction stage (2013-2014), extensive practice stage (2015-2019), and modification ...
Who made it through from the EURO 2024 groups
With reference to article 21.03, the results of the third-placed teams are compared based on their three group stage matches, according to the following criteria:

Literature Reviews

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

Recommended Reading

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

APA7 Style resources

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

Review the literature

Research Process :: Step by Step

Ask yourself questions like these:

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

How to Write a Literature Review

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

How research content supports academic integrity

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

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

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

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

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

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

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

Effectively and Efficiently Creating your Paper

Literature Reviews

The Research Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

Literature Review

Academic Success Center

Ask yourself questions like these:

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

How to write a Literature Review: Literature review process

Step 1: Select a topic

Step 2: Identify the most relevant sources on your topic

Step 3 : Search and refine

Literature review process - an overview

How do I write a literature review

Step 4: Read and analyse

Step 5: Write the literature review

How to Write a Literature Review

Writing the Review

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

1. Define your topic.

2. Develop a strategy.

3. Locate the information.

4. Use and evaluate the information.

5. Synthesize.

6. Evaluate your work.

Literature Review

Literature Review Process

Development of the Literature Review

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:

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

By Publication:

Conceptual Categories:

Methodological:

Sections of Your Literature Review:

Writing Your Literature Review

Use Evidence: