literature review is not

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

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

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

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

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. 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 material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through 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 currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead 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.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are 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 instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• 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.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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?

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Neal Haddaway

October 19th, 2020, 8 common problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

3 comments | 315 shares

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Literature reviews are an integral part of the process and communication of scientific research. Whilst systematic reviews have become regarded as the highest standard of evidence synthesis, many literature reviews fall short of these standards and may end up presenting biased or incorrect conclusions. In this post, Neal Haddaway highlights 8 common problems with literature review methods, provides examples for each and provides practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

Enjoying this blogpost? 📨 Sign up to our  mailing list  and receive all the latest LSE Impact Blog news direct to your inbox.

Researchers regularly review the literature – it’s an integral part of day-to-day research: finding relevant research, reading and digesting the main findings, summarising across papers, and making conclusions about the evidence base as a whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between brief, narrative approaches to summarising a selection of studies and attempting to reliably and comprehensively summarise an evidence base to support decision-making in policy and practice.

So-called ‘evidence-informed decision-making’ (EIDM) relies on rigorous systematic approaches to synthesising the evidence. Systematic review has become the highest standard of evidence synthesis and is well established in the pipeline from research to practice in the field of health . Systematic reviews must include a suite of specifically designed methods for the conduct and reporting of all synthesis activities (planning, searching, screening, appraising, extracting data, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods synthesis, writing; e.g. see the Cochrane Handbook ). The method has been widely adapted into other fields, including environment (the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence ) and social policy (the Campbell Collaboration ).

Despite the growing interest in systematic reviews, traditional approaches to reviewing the literature continue to persist in contemporary publications across disciplines. These reviews, some of which are incorrectly referred to as ‘systematic’ reviews, may be susceptible to bias and as a result, may end up providing incorrect conclusions. This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or climate change.

These limitations with traditional literature review approaches could be improved relatively easily with a few key procedures; some of them not prohibitively costly in terms of skill, time or resources.

In our recent paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution , we highlight 8 common problems with traditional literature review methods, provide examples for each from the field of environmental management and ecology, and provide practical solutions for ways to mitigate them.

There is a lack of awareness and appreciation of the methods needed to ensure systematic reviews are as free from bias and as reliable as possible: demonstrated by recent, flawed, high-profile reviews. We call on review authors to conduct more rigorous reviews, on editors and peer-reviewers to gate-keep more strictly, and the community of methodologists to better support the broader research community. Only by working together can we build and maintain a strong system of rigorous, evidence-informed decision-making in conservation and environmental management.

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below

Image credit:  Jaeyoung Geoffrey Kang  via unsplash

About the author

Neal Haddaway is a Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, a Humboldt Research Fellow at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and a Research Associate at the Africa Centre for Evidence. He researches evidence synthesis methodology and conducts systematic reviews and maps in the field of sustainability and environmental science. His main research interests focus on improving the transparency, efficiency and reliability of evidence synthesis as a methodology and supporting evidence synthesis in resource constrained contexts. He co-founded and coordinates the Evidence Synthesis Hackathon (www.eshackathon.org) and is the leader of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence centre at SEI. @nealhaddaway

Why is mission creep a problem and not a legitimate response to an unexpected finding in the literature? Surely the crucial points are that the review’s scope is stated clearly and implemented rigorously, not when the scope was finalised.

• Pingback: Quick, but not dirty – Can rapid evidence reviews reliably inform policy? | Impact of Social Sciences

#9. Most of them are terribly boring. Which is why I teach students how to make them engaging…and useful.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

“But I’m not ready!” Common barriers to writing and how to overcome them

November 16th, 2020.

“Remember a condition of academic writing is that we expose ourselves to critique” – 15 steps to revising journal articles

January 18th, 2017.

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship

March 29th, 2021.

How common is academic plagiarism?

February 8th, 2024.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Citation Styles

• Chicago Style
• Annotated Bibliographies

What is a Lit Review?

How to write a lit review.

• Video Introduction to Lit Reviews

Main Objectives

Examples of lit reviews, additional resources.

• Zotero (Citation Management)

What is a literature review?

• Either a complete piece of writing unto itself or a section of a larger piece of writing like a book or article
• A thorough and critical look at the information and perspectives that other experts and scholars have written about a specific topic
• A way to give historical perspective on an issue and show how other researchers have addressed a problem
• An analysis of sources based on your own perspective on the topic
• Based on the most pertinent and significant research conducted in the field, both new and old

• A descriptive list or collection of summaries of other research without synthesis or analysis
• An annotated bibliography
• A literary review (a brief, critical discussion about the merits and weaknesses of a literary work such as a play, novel or a book of poems)
• Exhaustive; the objective is not to list as many relevant books, articles, reports as possible
• To convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic
• To explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and those ideas might be
• To learn how others have defined and measured key concepts    
• To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments and historical trends in a particular field or discipline
• To establish context for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
• To provide evidence that may be used to support your own findings
• To demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
• To suggest previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, and quantitative and qualitative strategies
• To identify gaps in previous studies and flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches in order to avoid replication of mistakes
• To help the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research
• To suggest unexplored populations
• To determine whether past studies agree or disagree and identify strengths and weaknesses on both sides of a controversy in the literature

• Choose a topic that is interesting to you; this makes the research and writing process more enjoyable and rewarding.
• For a literature review, you'll also want to make sure that the topic you choose is one that other researchers have explored before so that you'll be able to find plenty of relevant sources to review.

• Your research doesn't need to be exhaustive. Pay careful attention to bibliographies. Focus on the most frequently cited literature about your topic and literature from the best known scholars in your field. Ask yourself: "Does this source make a significant contribution to the understanding of my topic?"
• Reading other literature reviews from your field may help you get ideas for themes to look for in your research. You can usually find some of these through the library databases by adding literature review as a keyword in your search.
• Start with the most recent publications and work backwards. This way, you ensure you have the most current information, and it becomes easier to identify the most seminal earlier sources by reviewing the material that current researchers are citing.

The organization of your lit review should be determined based on what you'd like to highlight from your research. Here are a few suggestions:

• Chronology : Discuss literature in chronological order of its writing/publication to demonstrate a change in trends over time or to detail a history of controversy in the field or of developments in the understanding of your topic.  
• Theme: Group your sources by subject or theme to show the variety of angles from which your topic has been studied. This works well if, for example, your goal is to identify an angle or subtopic that has so far been overlooked by researchers.  
• Methodology: Grouping your sources by methodology (for example, dividing the literature into qualitative vs. quantitative studies or grouping sources according to the populations studied) is useful for illustrating an overlooked population, an unused or underused methodology, or a flawed experimental technique.

• Be selective. Highlight only the most important and relevant points from a source in your review.
• Use quotes sparingly. Short quotes can help to emphasize a point, but thorough analysis of language from each source is generally unnecessary in a literature review.
• Synthesize your sources. Your goal is not to make a list of summaries of each source but to show how the sources relate to one another and to your own work.
• Make sure that your own voice and perspective remains front and center. Don't rely too heavily on summary or paraphrasing. For each source, draw a conclusion about how it relates to your own work or to the other literature on your topic.
• Be objective. When you identify a disagreement in the literature, be sure to represent both sides. Don't exclude a source simply on the basis that it does not support your own research hypothesis.
• At the end of your lit review, make suggestions for future research. What subjects, populations, methodologies, or theoretical lenses warrant further exploration? What common flaws or biases did you identify that could be corrected in future studies?

• Double check that you've correctly cited each of the sources you've used in the citation style requested by your professor (APA, MLA, etc.) and that your lit review is formatted according to the guidelines for that style.

Your literature review should:

• Be focused on and organized around your topic.
• Synthesize your research into a summary of what is and is not known about your topic.
• Identify any gaps or areas of controversy in the literature related to your topic.
• Suggest questions that require further research.
• Have your voice and perspective at the forefront rather than merely summarizing others' work.
• Cyberbullying: How Physical Intimidation Influences the Way People are Bullied
• Use of Propofol and Emergence Agitation in Children
• Eternity and Immortality in Spinoza's 'Ethics'
• Literature Review Tutorials and Samples - Wilson Library at University of La Verne
• Literature Reviews: Introduction - University Library at Georgia State
• Literature Reviews - The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill
• Writing a Literature Review - Boston College Libraries
• Write a Literature Review - University Library at UC Santa Cruz
• << Previous: Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Zotero (Citation Management) >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 2:47 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.elac.edu/Citation

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 12 October 2020

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

• Neal R. Haddaway   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3902-2234 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Alison Bethel 4 ,
• Lynn V. Dicks 5 , 6 ,
• Julia Koricheva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-0171 7 ,
• Biljana Macura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4253-1390 2 ,
• Gillian Petrokofsky 8 ,
• Andrew S. Pullin 9 ,
• Sini Savilaakso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-8105 10 , 11 &
• Gavin B. Stewart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-1544 12  

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume  4 ,  pages 1582–1589 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

84 Citations

386 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Conservation biology
• Environmental impact

An Author Correction to this article was published on 19 October 2020

This article has been updated

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health

Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Change history, 19 october 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26 , 91–108 (2009).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R. & Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 444–447 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. Science informing policy–a health warning for the environment. Environ. Evid. 1 , 15 (2012).

Haddaway, N., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. & Collins, A. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conserv. Biol. 29 , 1596–1605 (2015).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018).

White, H. The twenty-first century experimenting society: the four waves of the evidence revolution. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 47 (2019).

O’Leary, B. C. et al. The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 64 , 75–82 (2016).

Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S. & Kaiser, M. J. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol. Conserv. 176 , 54–62 (2014).

Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines (Campbell Collaboration, 2014).

Higgins, J. P. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).

Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358 , j4008 (2017).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. “A little learning is a dangerous thing”: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environ. Int. 99 , 356–360 (2017).

Freeman, R. E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 6 , 11 (2017).

Land, M., Macura, B., Bernes, C. & Johansson, S. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ. Evid. 6 , 25 (2017).

Oliver, S. & Dickson, K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid. Policy 12 , 235–259 (2016).

Savilaakso, S. et al. Systematic review of effects on biodiversity from oil palm production. Environ. Evid. 3 , 4 (2014).

Savilaakso, S., Laumonier, Y., Guariguata, M. R. & Nasi, R. Does production of oil palm, soybean, or jatropha change biodiversity and ecosystem functions in tropical forests. Environ. Evid. 2 , 17 (2013).

Haddaway, N. R. & Crowe, S. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environ. Evid. 7 , 11 (2018).

Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 8–27 (2019).

Agarwala, M. & Ginsberg, J. R. Untangling outcomes of de jure and de facto community-based management of natural resources. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 1232–1246 (2017).

Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S. & Jones, M. H. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res. 32 , 199–247 (2001).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7 , 7 (2018).

Lwasa, S. et al. A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 13 , 68–73 (2015).

Pacifici, M. et al. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 205–208 (2017).

Owen-Smith, N. Ramifying effects of the risk of predation on African multi-predator, multi-prey large-mammal assemblages and the conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 51–58 (2019).

Prugh, L. R. et al. Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems. Biol. Conserv. 232 , 194–207 (2019).

Li, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application in forest ecosystems on soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions: a review. J. Soil Sediment. 18 , 546–563 (2018).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 , e1000097 (2009).

Bernes, C. et al. What is the influence of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 4 , 7 (2015).

McDonagh, M., Peterson, K., Raina, P., Chang, S. & Shekelle, P. Avoiding bias in selecting studies. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet] (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013).

Burivalova, Z., Hua, F., Koh, L. P., Garcia, C. & Putz, F. A critical comparison of conventional, certified, and community management of tropical forests for timber in terms of environmental, economic, and social variables. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 4–14 (2017).

Min-Venditti, A. A., Moore, G. W. & Fleischman, F. What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Glob. Environ. Change 47 , 21–27 (2017).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D. & Kramer, B. M. R. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst. Rev. 5 , 39 (2016).

Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M. R. & Anderson, P. F. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2 , 115 (2013).

Gusenbauer, M. & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 11 , 181–217 (2020).

Livoreil, B. et al. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ. Evid. 6 , 23 (2017).

Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. & Šupak Smolčić, V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. 27 , 447–452 (2017).

Lin, L. & Chu, H. Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 74 , 785–794 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. & Bayliss, H. R. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 191 , 827–829 (2015).

Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 , 1–48 (2010).

Bilotta, G. S., Milner, A. M. & Boyd, I. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ. Sci. Policy 42 , 67–77 (2014).

Englund, G., Sarnelle, O. & Cooper, S. D. The importance of data‐selection criteria: meta‐analyses of stream predation experiments. Ecology 80 , 1132–1141 (1999).

Burivalova, Z., Şekercioğlu, Ç. H. & Koh, L. P. Thresholds of logging intensity to maintain tropical forest biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 24 , 1893–1898 (2014).

Bicknell, J. E., Struebig, M. J., Edwards, D. P. & Davies, Z. G. Improved timber harvest techniques maintain biodiversity in tropical forests. Curr. Biol. 24 , R1119–R1120 (2014).

Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecol. Econ. 70 , 1211–1219 (2011).

Blomley, T. et al. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42 , 380–391 (2008).

Haddaway, N. R. et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 6 , 30 (2017).

Higgins, J. P. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343 , d5928 (2011).

Stewart, G. Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol. Lett. 6 , 78–81 (2010).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology. J. Ecol. 102 , 828–844 (2014).

Vetter, D., Ruecker, G. & Storch, I. Meta‐analysis: a need for well‐defined usage in ecology and conservation biology. Ecosphere 4 , 1–24 (2013).

Stewart, G. B. & Schmid, C. H. Lessons from meta-analysis in ecology and evolution: the need for trans-disciplinary evidence synthesis methodologies. Res. Synth. Methods 6 , 109–110 (2015).

Macura, B. et al. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ. Evid. 8 , 24 (2019).

Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. in Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution (eds Koricheva, J. et al.) Ch. 1 (Princeton Scholarship Online, 2013).

Britt, M., Haworth, S. E., Johnson, J. B., Martchenko, D. & Shafer, A. B. The importance of non-academic coauthors in bridging the conservation genetics gap. Biol. Conserv. 218 , 118–123 (2018).

Graham, L., Gaulton, R., Gerard, F. & Staley, J. T. The influence of hedgerow structural condition on wildlife habitat provision in farmed landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 220 , 122–131 (2018).

Delaquis, E., de Haan, S. & Wyckhuys, K. A. On-farm diversity offsets environmental pressures in tropical agro-ecosystems: a synthetic review for cassava-based systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251 , 226–235 (2018).

Popay, J. et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme Version 1 (Lancaster Univ., 2006).

Pullin, A. S. et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2 , 19 (2013).

Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S. & Pieper, D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 , 132 (2019).

Rallo, A. & García-Arberas, L. Differences in abiotic water conditions between fluvial reaches and crayfish fauna in some northern rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. Aquat. Living Resour. 15 , 119–128 (2002).

Glasziou, P. & Chalmers, I. Research waste is still a scandal—an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 363 , k4645 (2018).

Haddaway, N. R. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environ. Evid. 7 , 26 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Shortall from Rothamstead Research for useful discussions on the topic.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mercator Research Institute on Climate Change and Global Commons, Berlin, Germany

Neal R. Haddaway

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Neal R. Haddaway & Biljana Macura

Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

College of Medicine and Health, Exeter University, Exeter, UK

Alison Bethel

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Lynn V. Dicks

School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, UK

Julia Koricheva

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Gillian Petrokofsky

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, UK Centre, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

• Andrew S. Pullin

Liljus ltd, London, UK

Sini Savilaakso

Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Evidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

Gavin B. Stewart

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

N.R.H. developed the manuscript idea and a first draft. All authors contributed to examples and edited the text. All authors have read and approve of the final submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal R. Haddaway .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.S. is a co-founder of Liljus ltd, a firm that provides research services in sustainable finance as well as forest conservation and management. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary table.

Examples of literature reviews and common problems identified.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Haddaway, N.R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L.V. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 4 , 1582–1589 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 31 July 2020

Published : 12 October 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning.

• Hashem Dadashpoor
• Leyla Ghasempour

Landscape and Ecological Engineering (2024)

Synthesizing the relationships between environmental DNA concentration and freshwater macrophyte abundance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Toshiaki S. Jo

Hydrobiologia (2024)

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Multi-purpose Forest Management Practices on the Breeding Success of Forest Birds

• João M. Cordeiro Pereira
• Grzegorz Mikusiński
• Ilse Storch

Current Forestry Reports (2024)

Parasitism in viviparous vertebrates: an overview

• Juan J. Palacios-Marquez
• Palestina Guevara-Fiore

Parasitology Research (2024)

Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making

• Steven J. Cooke
• Carly N. Cook

Environmental Evidence (2023)

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., do plagiarism checkers detect ai content.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Understanding the influence of different proxy perspectives in explaining the difference between self-rated and proxy-rated quality of life in people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

• Open access
• Published: 24 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lidia Engel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7959-3149 1 ,
• Valeriia Sokolova 1 ,
• Ekaterina Bogatyreva 2 &
• Anna Leuenberger 2  

Proxy assessment can be elicited via the proxy-patient perspective (i.e., asking proxies to assess the patient’s quality of life (QoL) as they think the patient would respond) or proxy-proxy perspective (i.e., asking proxies to provide their own perspective on the patient’s QoL). This review aimed to identify the role of the proxy perspective in explaining the differences between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia.

A systematic literate review was conducted by sourcing articles from a previously published review, supplemented by an update of the review in four bibliographic databases. Peer-reviewed studies that reported both self-reported and proxy-reported mean QoL estimates using the same standardized QoL instrument, published in English, and focused on the QoL of people with dementia were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the mean differences between self- and proxy-report across different proxy perspectives.

The review included 96 articles from which 635 observations were extracted. Most observations extracted used the proxy-proxy perspective (79%) compared with the proxy-patient perspective (10%); with 11% of the studies not stating the perspective. The QOL-AD was the most commonly used measure, followed by the EQ-5D and DEMQOL. The standardized mean difference (SMD) between the self- and proxy-report was lower for the proxy-patient perspective (SMD: 0.250; 95% CI 0.116; 0.384) compared to the proxy-proxy perspective (SMD: 0.532; 95% CI 0.456; 0.609).

Different proxy perspectives affect the ratings of QoL, whereby adopting a proxy-proxy QoL perspective has a higher inter-rater gap in comparison with the proxy-patient perspective.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Quality of life (QoL) has become an important outcome for research and practice but obtaining reliable and valid estimates remains a challenge in people living with dementia [ 1 ]. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria [ 2 ], dementia, termed as Major Neurocognitive Disorder (MND), involves a significant decline in at least one cognitive domain (executive function, complex attention, language, learning, memory, perceptual-motor, or social cognition), where the decline represents a change from a patient's prior level of cognitive ability, is persistent and progressive over time, is not associated exclusively with an episode of delirium, and reduces a person’s ability to perform everyday activities. Since dementia is one of the most pressing challenges for healthcare systems nowadays [ 3 ], it is critical to study its impact on QoL. The World Health Organization defines the concept of QoL as “individuals' perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns” [ 4 ]. It is a broad ranging concept incorporating in a complex way the persons' physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs, and their relationships to salient features of the environment.

Although there is evidence that people with mild to moderate dementia can reliably rate their own QoL [ 5 ], as the disease progresses, there is typically a decline in memory, attention, judgment, insight, and communication that may compromise self-reporting of QoL [ 6 ]. Additionally, behavioral symptoms, such as agitation, and affective symptoms, such as depression, may present another challenge in obtaining self-reported QoL ratings due to emotional shifts and unwillingness to complete the assessment [ 7 ]. Although QoL is subjective and should ideally be assessed from an individual’s own perspective [ 8 ], the decline in cognitive function emphasizes the need for proxy-reporting by family members, health professionals, or care staff who are asked to report on behalf of the person with dementia. However, proxy-reports are not substitutable for self-reports from people with dementia, as they offer supplementary insights, reflecting the perceptions and viewpoints of people surrounding the person with dementia [ 9 ].

Previous research has consistently highlighted a disagreement between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia, with proxies generally providing lower ratings (indicating poorer QoL) compared with person’s own ratings [ 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Impairment in cognition associated with greater dementia severity has been found to be associated with larger difference between self-rating and proxy-rating obtained from family caregivers, as it becomes increasingly difficult for severely cognitively impaired individuals to respond to questions that require contemplation, introspection, and sustained attention [ 13 , 14 ]. Moreover, non-cognitive factors, such as awareness of disease and depressive symptoms play an important role when comparing QoL ratings between individuals with dementia and their proxies [ 15 ]. Qualitative evidence has also shown that people with dementia tend to compare themselves with their peers, whereas carers make comparisons with how the person used to be in the past [ 9 ]. The disagreement between self-reported QoL and carer proxy-rated QoL could be modulated by some personal, cognitive or relational factors, for example, the type of relationship or the frequency of contact maintained, person’s cognitive status, carer’s own feeling about dementia, carer’s mood, and perceived burden of caregiving [ 14 , 16 ]. Disagreement may also arise from the person with dementia’s problems to communicate symptoms, and proxies’ inability to recognize certain symptoms, like pain [ 17 ], or be impacted by the amount of time spent with the person with dementia [ 18 ]. This may also prevent proxies to rate accurately certain domains of QoL, with previous evidence showing higher level of agreement for observable domains, such as mobility, compared with less observable domains like emotional wellbeing [ 8 ]. Finally, agreement also depends on the type of proxy (i.e., informal/family carers or professional staff) and the nature of their relationship, for instance, proxy QoL scores provided by formal carers tend to be higher (reflecting better QoL) compared to the scores supplied by family members [ 19 , 20 ]. Staff members might associate residents’ QoL with the quality of care delivered or the stage of their cognitive impairment, whereas relatives often focus on comparison with the person’s QoL when they were younger, lived in their own home and did not have dementia [ 20 ].

What has been not been fully examined to date is the role of different proxy perspectives employed in QoL questionnaires in explaining disagreement between self-rated and proxy-rated scores in people with dementia. Pickard et al. (2005) have proposed a conceptual framework for proxy assessments that distinguish between the proxy-patient perspective (i.e., asking proxies to assess the patient’s QoL as they think the patient would respond) or proxy-proxy perspective (i.e., asking proxies to provide their own perspective on the patient’s QoL) [ 21 ]. In this context, the intra-proxy gap describes the differences between proxy-patient and proxy-proxy perspective, whereas the inter-rater gap is the difference between self-report and proxy-report [ 21 ].

Existing generic and dementia-specific QoL instruments specify the perspective explicitly in their instructions or imply the perspective indirectly in their wording. For example, the instructions of the Dementia Quality of Life Measure (DEMQOL) asks proxies to give the answer they think their relative would give (i.e., proxy-patient perspective) [ 22 ], whereas the family version of the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QOL-AD) instructs the proxies to rate their relative’s current situation as they (the proxy) see it (i.e., proxy-proxy perspective) [ 7 ]. Some instruments, like the EQ-5D measures, have two proxy versions for each respective perspective [ 23 , 24 ]. The Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit (ASCOT) proxy version, on the other hand, asks proxies to complete the questions from both perspectives, from their own opinion and how they think the person would answer [ 25 ].

QoL scores generated using different perspectives are expected to differ, with qualitative evidence showing that carers rate the person with dementia’s QoL lower (worse) when instructed to comment from their own perspective than from the perspective of the person with dementia [ 26 ]. However, to our knowledge, no previous review has fully synthesized existing evidence in this area. Therefore, we aimed to undertake a systematic literature review to examine the role of different proxy-assessment perspectives in explaining differences between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia. The review was conducted under the hypothesis that the difference in QoL estimates will be larger when adopting the proxy-proxy perspective compared with proxy-patient perspective.

The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022333542) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items System for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (see Appendix 1 ) [ 27 ].

Search strategy

This review used two approaches to obtain literature. First, primary articles from an existing review by Roydhouse et al. were retrieved [ 28 ]. The review included studies published from inception to February 2018 that compared self- and proxy-reports. Studies that focused explicitly on Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia were retrieved for the current review. Two reviewers conducted a full-text review to assess whether the eligibility criteria listed below for the respective study were met. An update of the Roydhouse et al. review was undertaken to capture more recent studies. The search strategy by Roydhouse et al. was amended and covered studies published after January 1, 2018, and was limited to studies within the context of dementia. The original search was undertaken over a three-week period (17/11/2021–9/12/2021) and then updated on July 3, 2023. Peer-reviewed literature was sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases via EBSCOHost as well as EMBASE. Four main search term categories were used: (1) proxy terms (i.e., care*-report*), (2) QoL/ outcome terms (i.e., ‘quality of life’), (3) disease terms (i.e., ‘dementia’), and (4) pediatric terms (i.e., ‘pediatric*’) (for exclusion). Keywords were limited to appear in titles and abstracts only, and MeSH terms were included for all databases. A list of search strategy can be found in Appendix 2 . The first three search term categories were searched with AND, and the NOT function was used to exclude pediatric terms. A limiter was applied in all database searches to only include studies with human participants and articles published in English.

Selection criteria

Studies from all geographical locations were included in the review if they (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal (conference abstracts, dissertations, a gray literature were excluded); (2) were primary studies (reviews were excluded); (3) clearly defined the disease of participants, which were limited to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia; (4) reported separate QoL scores for people with dementia (studies that included mixed populations had to report a separate QoL score for people with dementia to be considered); (5) were using a standardized and existing QoL instrument for assessment; and (6) provided a mean self-reported and proxy-reported QoL score for the same dyads sample (studies that reported means for non-matched samples were excluded) using the same QoL instrument.

Four reviewers (LE, VS, KB, AL) were grouped into two groups who independently screened the 179 full texts from the Roydhouse et. al (2022) study that included Alzheimer’s disease or dementia patients. If a discrepancy within the inclusion selection occurred, articles were discussed among all the reviewers until a consensus was reached. Studies identified from the database search were imported into EndNote [ 29 ]. Duplicates were removed through EndNote and then uploaded to Rayyan [ 30 ]. Each abstract was reviewed by two independent reviewers (any two from four reviewers). Disagreements regarding study inclusions were discussed between all reviewers until a consensus was reached. Full-text screening of each eligible article was completed by two independent reviewers (any two from four reviewers). Again, a discussion between all reviewers was used in case of disagreements.

Data extraction

A data extraction template was created in Microsoft Excel. The following information were extracted if available: country, study design, study sample, study setting, dementia type, disease severity, Mini-Mental Health State Exam (MMSE) score details, proxy type, perspective, living arrangements, QoL assessment measure/instrument, self-reported scores (mean, SD), proxy-reported scores (mean, SD), and agreement statistics. If a study reported the mean (SD) for the total score as well as for specific QoL domains of the measure, we extracted both. If studies reported multiple scores across different time points or subgroups, we extracted all scores. For interventional studies, scores from both the intervention group and the control group were recorded. In determining the proxy perspective, we relied on authors’ description in the article. If the perspective was not explicitly stated, we adopted the perspective of the instrument developers; where more perspectives were possible (e.g., in the case of the EQ-5D measures) and the perspective was not explicitly stated, it was categorized as ‘undefined.’ For agreement, we extracted the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), a reliability index that reflects both degree of correlation and agreement between measurements of continuous variables. While there are different forms of ICC based on the model (1-way random effects, 2-wy random effects, or 2-way fixed effects), the type (single rater/measurement or the mean k raters/measurements), and definition of relationship [ 31 ], this level of information was not extracted due to insufficient information provided in the original studies. Values for ICC range between 0 and 1, with values interpreted as poor (less than 0.5), moderate (0.5–0.75), good (0.75–0.9), and excellent (greater than 0.9) reliability between raters [ 31 ].

Data synthesis and analysis

Characteristics of studies were summarized descriptively. Self-reported and proxy-reported means and SD were extracted from the full texts and the mean difference was calculated (or extracted if available) for each pair. Studies that reported median values instead of mean values were converted using the approach outlined by Wan et al. (2014) [ 32 ]. Missing SDs (5 studies, 20 observations) were obtained from standard errors or confidence intervals reported following the Cochrane guidelines [ 33 ]. Missing SDs (6 studies, 29 observations) in studies that only presented the mean value without any additional summary statistics were imputed using the prognostic method [ 34 ]. Thereby, we predicted the missing SDs by calculating the average SDs of observed studies with full information by the respective measure and source (self-report versus proxy-report).

A meta-analysis was performed in Stata (17.1 Stata Corp LLC, College Station, TX) to synthesize mean differences between self- and proxy-reported scores across different proxy perspectives. First, the pooled raw mean differences were calculated for each QoL measure separately, given differences in scales between measures. Secondly, we calculated the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for all studies stratified by proxy type (family carer, formal carers, mixed), dementia severity (mild, moderate, severe), and living arrangement (residential/institutional care, mixed). SMD accounts for the use of different measurement scales, where effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d. Random-effects models were used to allow for unexplained between-study variability based on the restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) estimator. The percentage of variability attributed to heterogeneity between the studies was assessed using the I 2 statistic; an I 2 of 0%-40% represents possibly unimportant heterogeneity, 30–60% moderate heterogeneity, 50–90% substantial heterogeneity, and 75%-100% considerable heterogeneity [ 35 ]. Chi-squared statistics (χ 2 ) provided evidence of heterogeneity, where a p -value of 0.1 was used as significance level. For studies that reported agreement statistics, based on ICC, we also ran a forest plot stratified by the study perspective. We also calculated Q statistic (Cochran’s test of homogeneity), which assesses whether observed differences in results are compatible with chance alone.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

The quality of studies was assessed using the using a checklist for assessing the quality of quantitative studies developed by Kmet et al. (2004) [ 36 ]. The checklist consists of 14 items and items are scored as ‘2’ (yes, item sufficiently addressed), ‘1’ (item partially addressed), ‘0’ (no, not addressed), or ‘not applicable.’ A summary score was calculated for each study by summing the total score obtained across relevant items and dividing by the total possible score. Scores were adjusted by excluding items that were not applicable from the total score. Quality assessment was undertaken by one reviewer, with 25% of the papers assessed independently by a second reviewer.

The PRISMA diagram in Fig.  1 shows that after the abstract and full-text screening, 38 studies from the database search and 58 studies from the Roydhouse et al. (2022) review were included in this review—a total of 96 studies. A list of all studies included and their characteristics can be found in Appendix 3.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram

General study characteristics

The 96 articles included in the review were published between 1999 and 2023 from across the globe; most studies (36%) were conducted in Europe. People with dementia in these studies were living in the community (67%), residential/institutional care (15%), as well as mixed dwelling settings (18%). Most proxy-reports were provided by family carers (85%) and only 8 studies (8%) included formal carers. The mean MMSE score for dementia and Alzheimer’s participants was 18.77 (SD = 4.34; N  = 85 studies), which corresponds to moderate cognitive impairment [ 37 ]. Further characteristics of studies included are provided in Table  1 . The quality of studies included (see Appendix 4) was generally very good, scoring on average 91% (SD: 9.1) with scores ranging from 50 to 100%.

Quality of life measure and proxy perspective used

A total of 635 observations were recorded from the 96 studies. The majority of studies and observations extracted assumed the proxy-proxy perspective (77 studies, 501 observations), followed by the proxy-patient perspective (18 studies, 62 observations), with 18 studies (72 observations) not clearly defining the perspective. Table 2 provides a detailed overview of number of studies and observations across the respective QoL measures and proxy perspectives. Two studies (14 observations) adopted both perspectives within the same study design: one using the QOL-AD measure [ 5 ] and the second study exploring the EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS [ 38 ]. Overall, the QOL-AD was the most often used QoL measure, followed by the EQ-5D and DEMQOL. Mean scores for specific QoL domains were accessible for the DEMQOL and QOL-AD. However, only the QOL-AD provided domain-specific mean scores from both proxy perspectives.

Mean scores and mean differences by proxy perspective and QoL measure

The raw mean scores for self-reported and proxy-reported QoL scores are provided in the Supplementary file 2. The pooled raw mean difference by proxy perspective and measure is shown in Table  3 . Regardless of the perspective adopted and the QoL instrument used, self-reported scores were higher (indicating better QoL) compared with proxy-reported scores, except for the DEMQOL, where proxies reported better QoL than people with dementia themselves. Most instruments were explored from one perspective, except for the EQ-5D-3L, EQ VAS, and QOL-AD, for which mean differences were available for both perspectives. For these three measures, mean differences were smaller when adopting the proxy-patient perspective compared with proxy-proxy perspective, although mean scores for the QOL-AD were slightly lower from the proxy-proxy perspective. I 2 statistics indicate considerable heterogeneity (I 2  > 75%) between studies. Mean differences by specific QoL domains are provided in Appendix 5, but only for the QOL-AD measure that was explored from both perspectives. Generally, mean differences appeared to be smaller for the proxy-proxy perspective than the proxy-patient perspective across all domains, except for ‘physical health’ and ‘doing chores around the house.’ However, results need to be interpreted carefully as proxy-patient perspective scores were derived from only one study.

Standardized mean differences by proxy perspective, stratified by proxy type, dementia severity, and living arrangement

Table 4 provides the SMD by proxy perspective, which adjusts for the different QoL measurement scales. Findings suggest that adopting the proxy-patient perspective results in lower SMDs (SMD: 0.250; 95% CI 0.116; 0.384) compared with the proxy-proxy perspective (SMD: 0.532; 95% CI 0.456; 0.609). The largest SMD was recorded for studies that did not define the study perspective (SMD: 0.594; 95% CI 0.469; 0.718). A comparison by different proxy types (formal carers, family carers, and mixed proxies) revealed some mixed results. When adopting the proxy-proxy perspective, the largest SMD was found for family carers (SMD: 0.556; 95% CI 0.465; 0.646) compared with formal carers (SMD: 0.446; 95% CI 0.305; 0.586) or mixed proxies (SMD: 0.335; 95% CI 0.211; 0.459). However, the opposite relationship was found when the proxy-patient perspective was used, where the smallest SMD was found for family carers compared with formal carers and mixed proxies. The SMD increased with greater level of dementia severity, suggesting a greater disagreement. However, compared with the proxy-proxy perspective, where self-reported scores were greater (i.e., better QoL) than proxy-reported scores across all dementia severity levels, the opposite was found when adopting the proxy-patient perspective, where proxies reported better QoL than people with dementia themselves, except for the severe subgroup. No clear trend was observed for different living settings, although the SMD appeared to be smaller for people with dementia living in residential care compared with those living in the community.

Direct proxy perspectives comparison studies

Two studies assessed both proxy perspectives within the same study design. Bosboom et al. (2012) found that compared with self-reported scores (mean: 34.7; SD: 5.3) using the QOL-AD, proxy scores using the proxy-patient perspective were closer to the self-reported scores (mean: 32.1; SD: 6.1) compared with the proxy-proxy perspective (mean: 29.5; SD: 5.4) [ 5 ]. Similar findings were reported by Leontjevas et al. (2016) using the EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ VAS, showing that the inter-proxy gap between self-report (EQ-5D-3L: 0.609; EQ VAS: 65.37) and proxy-report was smaller when adopting the proxy-patient perspective (EQ-5D-3L: 0.555; EQ VAS: 65.15) compared with the proxy-proxy perspective (EQ-5D-3L: 0.492; EQ VAS: 64.42) [ 38 ].

Inter-rater agreement (ICC) statistics

Six studies reported agreement statistics based on ICC, from which we extracted 17 observations that were included in the meta-analysis. Figure  2 shows the study-specific and overall estimates of ICC by the respective study perspective. The heterogeneity between studies was high ( I 2  = 88.20%), with a Q test score of 135.49 ( p  < 0.001). While the overall ICC for the 17 observations was 0.3 (95% CI 0.22; 0.38), indicating low agreement, the level of agreement was slightly better when adopting a proxy-patient perspective (ICC: 0.36, 95% CI 0.23; 0.49) than a proxy-proxy perspective (ICC: 0.26, 95% CI 0.17; 0.35).

Forest plot depicting study-specific and overall ICC estimates by study perspective

While previous studies highlighted a disagreement between self-rated and proxy-rated QoL in people living with dementia, this review, for the first time, assessed the role of different proxy perspectives in explaining the inter-rater gap. Our findings align with the baseline hypothesis and indicate that QoL scores reported from the proxy-patient perspective are closer to self-reported QoL scores than the proxy-proxy perspective, suggesting that the proxy perspective does impact the inter-rater gap and should not be ignored. This finding was observed across different analyses conducted in this review (i.e., pooled raw mean difference, SMD, ICC analysis), which also confirms the results of two previous primary studies that adopted both proxy perspectives within the same study design [ 5 , 38 ]. Our findings emphasize the need for transparency in reporting the proxy perspective used in future studies, as it can impact results and interpretation. This was also noted by the recent ISPOR Proxy Task Force that developed a checklist of considerations when using proxy-reporting [ 39 ]. While consistency in proxy-reports is desirable, it is crucial to acknowledge that each proxy perspective holds significance in future research, depending on study objectives. It is evident that both proxy perspectives offer distinct insights—one encapsulating the perspectives of people with dementia, and the other reflecting the viewpoints of proxies. Therefore, in situations where self-report is unattainable due to advanced disease severity and the person’s perspective on their own QoL assessment is sought, it is recommended to use the proxy-patient perspective. Conversely, if the objective of future research is to encompass the viewpoints of proxies, opting for the proxy-proxy perspective is advisable. However, it is important to note that proxies may deviate from instructed perspectives, requiring future qualitative research to examine the adherence to proxy perspectives. Additionally, others have argued that proxy-reports should not substitute self-reports, and only serve as supplementary sources alongside patient self-reports whenever possible [ 9 ].

This review considered various QoL instruments, but most instruments adopted one specific proxy perspective, limiting detailed analyses. QoL instruments differ in their scope (generic versus disease-specific) as well as coverage of QoL domains. The QOL-AD, an Alzheimer's Disease-specific measure, was commonly used. Surprisingly, for this measure, the mean differences between self-reported and proxy-reported scores were smaller using the proxy-proxy perspective, contrary to the patterns observed with all other instruments. This may be due to the lack of studies reporting QOL-AD proxy scores from the proxy-patient perspective, as the study by Bosboom et al. (2012) found the opposite [ 5 ]. Previous research has also suggested that the inter-rater gap is dependent on the QoL domains and that the risk of bias is greater for more ‘subjective’ (less observable) domains such as emotions, feelings, and moods in comparison with observable, objective areas such as physical domains [ 8 , 40 ]. However, this review lacks sufficient observations for definitive results on QoL dimensions and their impact on self-proxy differences, emphasizing the need for future research in this area.

With regard to proxy type, there is an observable trend suggesting a wider inter-rater gap when family proxies are employed using the proxy-proxy perspective, in contrast to formal proxies. This variance might be attributed to the use of distinct anchoring points; family proxies tend to assess the individual's QoL in relation to their past self before having dementia, while formal caregivers may draw comparisons with other individuals with dementia under their care [ 41 ]. However, the opposite was found when the proxy-patient perspective was used, where family proxies scores seemed to align more closely with self-reported scores, resulting in lower SMD scores. This suggests that family proxies might possess a better ability to empathize with the perspective of the person with dementia compared to formal proxies. Nonetheless, it is important to interpret these findings cautiously, given the relatively small number of observations for formal caregiver reports. Additionally, other factors such as emotional connection, caregiver burden, and caregiver QoL may also impact proxy-reports by family proxies [ 14 , 16 ] that have not been explored in this review.

Our review found that the SMD between proxy and self-report increased with greater level of dementia severity, contrasting a previous study, which showed that cognitive impairment was not the primary factor that accounted for the differences in the QoL assessments between family proxies and the person with dementia [ 15 ]. However, it is noteworthy that different interpretations and classifications were used across studies to define mild, moderate, and severe dementia, which needs to be considered. Most studies used MMSE to define dementia severity levels. Given the MMSE’s role as a standard measure of cognitive function, the study findings are considered generalizable and clinically relevant for people with dementia across different dementia severity levels. When examining the role of the proxy perspective by level of severity, we found that compared with the proxy-proxy perspective, where self-reported scores were greater than proxy-reported scores across all dementia severity levels, the proxy-patient perspective yielded the opposite results, and proxies reported better QoL than people with dementia themselves, except for the severe subgroup. It is possible that in the early stages of dementia, the person with dementia has a greater awareness of increasing deficits, coupled with denial and lack of acceptance, leading to a more critical view of their own QoL than how proxies think they would rate their QoL. However, future studies are warranted, given the small number of observations adopting the proxy-patient perspective in our review.

The heterogeneity observed in the studies included was high, supporting the use of random-effects meta-analysis. This is not surprising given the diverse nature of studies included (i.e., RCTs, cross-sectional studies), differences in the population (i.e., people living in residential care versus community-dwelling people), mixed levels of dementia severity, and differences between instruments. While similar heterogeneity was observed in another review on a similar topic [ 42 ], our presentation of findings stratified by proxy type, dementia severity, and living arrangement attempted to account for such differences across studies.

Limitations and recommendations for future studies

Our review has some limitations. Firstly, proxy perspectives were categorized based on the authors' descriptions, but many papers did not explicitly state the perspective, which led to the use of assumptions based on instrument developers. Some studies may have modified the perspective's wording without reporting it. Due to lack of resources, we did not contact the authors of the original studies directly to seek clarification around the proxy perspective adopted. Regarding studies using the EQ-5D, which has two proxy perspectives, some studies did not specify which proxy version was used, suggesting the potential use of self-reported versions for proxies. In such cases, the proxy perspective was categorized as undefined. Despite accounting for factors like QoL measure, proxy type, setting, and dementia severity, we could not assess the impact of proxy characteristics (e.g., carer burden) or dementia type due to limited information provided in the studies. We also faced limitations in exploring the proxy perspective by QoL domains due to limited information. Further, not all studies outlined the data collection process in full detail. For example, it is possible that the proxy also assisted the person with dementia with their self-report, which could have resulted in biased estimates and the need for future studies applying blinding. Although we assessed the risk of bias of included studies, the checklist was not directly reflecting the purpose of our study that looked into inter-rater agreement. No checklist for this purpose currently exists. Finally, quality appraisal by a second reviewer was only conducted for the first 25% of the studies due to resource constraints and a low rate of disagreement between the two assessors. However, an agreement index between reviewers regarding the concordance in selecting full texts for inclusion and conducting risk of bias assessments was not calculated.

This review demonstrates that the choice of proxy perspective impacts the inter-rater gap. QoL scores from the proxy-patient perspective align more closely with self-reported scores than the proxy-proxy perspective. These findings contribute to the broader literature investigating factors influencing differences in QoL scores between proxies and individuals with dementia. While self-reported QoL is the gold standard, proxy-reports should be viewed as complements rather than substitutes. Both proxy perspectives offer unique insights, yet QoL assessments in people with dementia are complex. The difference in self- and proxy-reports can be influenced by various factors, necessitating further research before presenting definitive results that inform care provision and policy.

Data availability

All data associated with the systematic literature review are available in the supplementary file.

Moyle, W., & Murfield, J. E. (2013). Health-related quality of life in older people with severe dementia: Challenges for measurement and management. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes, 13 (1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.12.84

Article   Google Scholar  

Sachdev, P. S., Blacker, D., Blazer, D. G., Ganguli, M., Jeste, D. V., Paulsen, J. S., & Petersen, R. C. (2014). Classifying neurocognitive disorders: The DSM-5 approach. Nature reviews Neurology, 10 (11), 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.181

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Health, The Lancet Regional., & – Europe. (2022). Challenges for addressing dementia. The Lancet Regional Health . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100504

The WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41 (10), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K

Bosboom, P. R., Alfonso, H., Eaton, J., & Almeida, O. P. (2012). Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: Different factors associated with complementary ratings by patients and family carers. International Psychogeriatrics, 24 (5), 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610211002493

Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J., Rikkert, M. G., Adang, E. M., & Krabbe, P. F. (2009). The challenges of accurate measurement of health-related quality of life in frail elderly people and dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57 (12), 2356–2357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02586.x

Logsdon, R. G., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., & Teri, L. (2002). Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64 (3), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200205000-00016

Hutchinson, C., Worley, A., Khadka, J., Milte, R., Cleland, J., & Ratcliffe, J. (2022). Do we agree or disagree? A systematic review of the application of preference-based instruments in self and proxy reporting of quality of life in older people. Social Science & Medicine, 305 , 115046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115046

Smith, S. C., Hendriks, A. A. J., Cano, S. J., & Black, N. (2020). Proxy reporting of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: A psychometric solution. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18 (1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01396-y

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Andrieu, S., Coley, N., Rolland, Y., Cantet, C., Arnaud, C., Guyonnet, S., Nourhashemi, F., Grand, A., Vellas, B., & group, P. (2016). Assessing Alzheimer’s disease patients’ quality of life: Discrepancies between patient and caregiver perspectives. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 12 (4), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.09.003

Jönsson, L., Andreasen, N., Kilander, L., Soininen, H., Waldemar, G., Nygaard, H., Winblad, B., Jonhagen, M. E., Hallikainen, M., & Wimo, A. (2006). Patient- and proxy-reported utility in Alzheimer disease using the EuroQoL. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 20 (1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wad.0000201851.52707.c9

Zucchella, C., Bartolo, M., Bernini, S., Picascia, M., & Sinforiani, E. (2015). Quality of life in Alzheimer disease: A comparison of patients’ and caregivers’ points of view. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 29 (1), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000050

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Buckley, T., Fauth, E. B., Morrison, A., Tschanz, J., Rabins, P. V., Piercy, K. W., Norton, M., & Lyketsos, C. G. (2012). Predictors of quality of life ratings for persons with dementia simultaneously reported by patients and their caregivers: The Cache County (Utah) study. International Psychogeriatrics, 24 (7), 1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610212000063

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Schiffczyk, C., Romero, B., Jonas, C., Lahmeyer, C., Muller, F., & Riepe, M. W. (2010). Generic quality of life assessment in dementia patients: A prospective cohort study. BMC Neurology, 10 , 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-10-48

Sousa, M. F., Santos, R. L., Arcoverde, C., Simoes, P., Belfort, T., Adler, I., Leal, C., & Dourado, M. C. (2013). Quality of life in dementia: The role of non-cognitive factors in the ratings of people with dementia and family caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics, 25 (7), 1097–1105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213000410

Arons, A. M., Krabbe, P. F., Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J., van der Wilt, G. J., & Rikkert, M. G. (2013). Quality of life in dementia: A study on proxy bias. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13 , 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-110

Gomez-Gallego, M., Gomez-Garcia, J., & Ato-Lozano, E. (2015). Addressing the bias problem in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with dementia: Determinants of the accuracy and precision of the proxy ratings. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 19 (3), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-014-0564-7

Moon, H., Townsend, A. L., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Whitlatch, C. J. (2016). Predictors of discrepancy between care recipients with mild-to-moderate dementia and their caregivers on perceptions of the care recipients’ quality of life. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 31 (6), 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317516653819

Crespo, M., Bernaldo de Quiros, M., Gomez, M. M., & Hornillos, C. (2012). Quality of life of nursing home residents with dementia: A comparison of perspectives of residents, family, and staff. The Gerontologist, 52 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr080

Griffiths, A. W., Smith, S. J., Martin, A., Meads, D., Kelley, R., & Surr, C. A. (2020). Exploring self-report and proxy-report quality-of-life measures for people living with dementia in care homes. Quality of Life Research, 29 (2), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02333-3

Pickard, A. S., & Knight, S. J. (2005). Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: A conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Medical Care, 43 (5), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160419.27642.a8

Smith, S. C., Lamping, D. L., Banerjee, S., Harwood, R. H., Foley, B., Smith, P., Cook, J. C., Murray, J., Prince, M., Levin, E., Mann, A., & Knapp, M. (2007). Development of a new measure of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: DEMQOL. Psychological Medicine, 37 (5), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706009469

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37 (1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20 (10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

Rand, S., Caiels, J., Collins, G., & Forder, J. (2017). Developing a proxy version of the adult social care outcome toolkit (ASCOT). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15 (1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0682-0

Engel, L., Bucholc, J., Mihalopoulos, C., Mulhern, B., Ratcliffe, J., Yates, M., & Hanna, L. (2020). A qualitative exploration of the content and face validity of preference-based measures within the context of dementia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18 (1), 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01425-w

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372 , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Roydhouse, J. K., Cohen, M. L., Eshoj, H. R., Corsini, N., Yucel, E., Rutherford, C., Wac, K., Berrocal, A., Lanzi, A., Nowinski, C., Roberts, N., Kassianos, A. P., Sebille, V., King, M. T., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Force, I. P. T., & the, I. B. o. D. (2022). The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: A report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force. Quality of Life Research, 31 (2), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02937-8

The EndNote Team. (2013). EndNote (Version EndNote X9) [64 bit]. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate.

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15 (2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

Wan, X., Wang, W., Liu, J., & Tong, T. (2014). Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14 , 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135

Higgins JPT and Green S (editors). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Retrieved 20 Jan 2023, from https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_7_3_2_obtaining_standard_deviations_from_standard_errors_and.htm

Ma, J., Liu, W., Hunter, A., & Zhang, W. (2008). Performing meta-analysis with incomplete statistical information in clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8 , 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-56

Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. (2023). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In J. Higgins & J. Thomas (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.4.

Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields: Health and technology assessment unit. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research.

Lewis, T. J., & Trempe, C. L. (2017). Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s: Standard-of-care . USA: Elsevier Science & Technology.

Google Scholar  

Leontjevas, R., Teerenstra, S., Smalbrugge, M., Koopmans, R. T., & Gerritsen, D. L. (2016). Quality of life assessments in nursing homes revealed a tendency of proxies to moderate patients’ self-reports. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 80 , 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.009

Lapin, B., Cohen, M. L., Corsini, N., Lanzi, A., Smith, S. C., Bennett, A. V., Mayo, N., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Mitchell, S. A., Rutherford, C., & Roydhouse, J. (2023). Development of consensus-based considerations for use of adult proxy reporting: An ISOQOL task force initiative. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 7 (1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00588-6

Li, M., Harris, I., & Lu, Z. K. (2015). Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7

Robertson, S., Cooper, C., Hoe, J., Lord, K., Rapaport, P., Marston, L., Cousins, S., Lyketsos, C. G., & Livingston, G. (2020). Comparing proxy rated quality of life of people living with dementia in care homes. Psychological Medicine, 50 (1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718003987

Khanna, D., Khadka, J., Mpundu-Kaambwa, C., Lay, K., Russo, R., Ratcliffe, J., & Quality of Life in Kids: Key Evidence to Strengthen Decisions in Australia Project, T. (2022). Are We Agreed? Self- versus proxy-reporting of paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) Using generic preference-based measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PharmacoEconomics, 40 (11), 1043–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01177-z

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. This study was conducted without financial support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Monash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 4, 553 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

Lidia Engel & Valeriia Sokolova

School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia

Ekaterina Bogatyreva & Anna Leuenberger

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LE contributed to the study conception and design. The original database search was performed by AL and later updated by VS. All authors were involved in the screening process, data extraction, and data analyses. Quality assessment was conducted by VS and LE. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LE and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lidia Engel .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Lidia Engel is a member of the EuroQol Group.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent to publish, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 67 KB)

Supplementary file2 (docx 234 kb), rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Engel, L., Sokolova, V., Bogatyreva, E. et al. Understanding the influence of different proxy perspectives in explaining the difference between self-rated and proxy-rated quality of life in people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Qual Life Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03660-w

Download citation

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03660-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Quality of Life
• Outcome measurement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 19 April 2024

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties

• Lluna Maria Bru-Luna 1 ,
• Manuel Martí-Vilar 2 ,
• César Merino-Soto 3 ,
• José Livia-Segovia 4 ,
• Juan Garduño-Espinosa 5 &
• Filiberto Toledano-Toledano 5 , 6 , 7  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  217 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

305 Accesses

Metrics details

The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the “Standards” as a frame of reference.

First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the “Standards” framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review.

A total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences.

The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the “Standards” are. This can affect clinical practice because people’s health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.

Peer Review reports

Person-centered care (PCC)

Quality care for people with chronic diseases, functional limitations, or both has become one of the main objectives of medical and care services. The person-centered care (PCC) approach is an essential element not only in achieving this goal but also in providing high-quality health maintenance and medical care [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In addition to guaranteeing human rights, PCC provides numerous benefits to both the recipient and the provider [ 4 , 5 ]. Additionally, PCC includes a set of necessary competencies for healthcare professionals to address ongoing challenges in this area [ 6 ]. PCC includes the following elements [ 7 ]: an individualized, goal-oriented care plan based on individuals’ preferences; an ongoing review of the plan and the individual’s goals; support from an interprofessional team; active coordination among all medical and care providers and support services; ongoing information exchange, education and training for providers; and quality improvement through feedback from the individual and caregivers.

There is currently a growing body of literature on the application of PCC. A good example of this is McCormack’s widely known mid-range theory [ 8 ], an internationally recognized theoretical framework for PCC and how it is operationalized in practice. This framework forms a guide for care practitioners and researchers in hospital settings. This framework is elaborated in PCC and conceived of as “an approach to practice that is established through the formation and fostering of therapeutic relationships between all care providers, service users, and others significant to them, underpinned by values of respect for persons, [the] individual right to self-determination, mutual respect, and understanding” [ 9 ].

Thus, as established by PCC, it is important to emphasize that reference to the person who is the focus of care refers not only to the recipient but also to everyone involved in a care interaction [ 10 , 11 ]. PCC ensures that professionals are trained in relevant skills and methodology since, as discussed above, carers are among the agents who have the greatest impact on the quality of life of the person in need of care [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Furthermore, due to the high burden of caregiving, it is essential to account for caregivers’ well-being. In this regard, studies on professional caregivers are beginning to suggest that the provision of PCC can produce multiple benefits for both the care recipient and the caregiver [ 15 ].

Despite a considerable body of literature and the frequent inclusion of the term in health policy and research [ 16 ], PCC involves several complications. There is no standard consensus on the definition of this concept [ 17 ], which includes problematic areas such as efficacy assessment [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition, the difficulty of measuring the subjectivity involved in identifying the dimensions of the CPC and the infrequent use of standardized measures are acute issues [ 20 ]. These limitations and purposes motivated the creation of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT; [ 21 ]), which emerged from the need for a brief, economical, easily applied, versatile and comprehensive assessment instrument to provide valid and reliable measures of PCC for research purposes [ 21 ].

Person-centered care assessment tool (P-CAT)

There are several instruments that can measure PCC from different perspectives (i.e., the caregiver or the care recipient) and in different contexts (e.g., hospitals and nursing homes). However, from a practical point of view, the P-CAT is one of the shortest and simplest tools and contains all the essential elements of PCC described in the literature. It was developed in Australia to measure the approach of long-term residential settings to older people with dementia, although it is increasingly used in other healthcare settings, such as oncology units [ 22 ] and psychiatric hospitals [ 23 ].

Due to the brevity and simplicity of its application, the versatility of its use in different medical and care contexts, and its potential emic characteristics (i.e., constructs that can be cross-culturally applicable with reasonable and similar structure and interpretation; [ 24 ]), the P-CAT is one of the most widely used tests by professionals to measure PCC [ 25 , 26 ]. It has expanded to several countries with cultural and linguistic differences. Since its creation, it has been adapted in countries separated by wide cultural and linguistic differences, such as Norway [ 27 ], Sweden [ 28 ], China [ 29 ], South Korea [ 30 ], Spain [ 25 ], and Italy [ 31 ].

The P-CAT comprises 13 items rated on a 5-point ordinal scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”), with high scores indicating a high degree of person-centeredness. The scale consists of three dimensions: person-centered care (7 items), organizational support (4 items) and environmental accessibility (2 items). In the original study ( n  = 220; [ 21 ]), the internal consistency of the instrument yielded satisfactory values for the total scale ( α  = 0.84) and good test-retest reliability ( r  =.66) at one-week intervals. A reliability generalization study conducted in 2021 [ 32 ] that estimated the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyzed possible factors that could affect the it revealed that the mean α value for the 25 meta-analysis samples (some of which were part of the validations included in this study) was 0.81, and the only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. With respect to internal structure validity, three factors (56% of the total variance) were obtained, and content validity was assessed by experts, literature reviews and stakeholders [ 33 ].

Although not explicitly stated, the apparent commonality between validation studies of different versions of the P-CAT may be influenced by an influential decades-old validity framework that differentiates three categories: content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity [ 34 , 35 ]. However, a reformulation of the validity of the P-CAT within a modern framework, which would provide a different definition of validity, has not been performed.

Scale validity

Traditionally, validation is a process focused on the psychometric properties of a measurement instrument [ 36 ]. In the early 20th century, with the frequent use of standardized measurement tests in education and psychology, two definitions emerged: the first defined validity as the degree to which a test measures what it intends to measure, while the second described the validity of an instrument in terms of the correlation it presents with a variable [ 35 ].

However, in the past century, validity theory has evolved, leading to the understanding that validity should be based on specific interpretations for an intended purpose. It should not be limited to empirically obtained psychometric properties but should also be supported by the theory underlying the construct measured. Thus, to speak of classical or modern validity theory suggests an evolution in the classical or modern understanding of the concept of validity. Therefore, a classical approach (called classical test theory, CTT) is specifically differentiated from a modern approach. In general, recent concepts associated with a modern view of validity are based on (a) a unitary conception of validity and (b) validity judgments based on inferences and interpretations of the scores of a measure [ 37 , 38 ]. This conceptual advance in the concept of validity led to the creation of a guiding framework to for obtaining evidence to support the use and interpretation of the scores obtained by a measure [ 39 ].

This purpose is addressed by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (“Standards”), a guide created by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) in 2014 with the aim of providing guidelines to assess the validity of the interpretations of scores of an instrument based on their intended use. Two conceptual aspects stand out in this modern view of validity: first, validity is a unitary concept centered on the construct; second, validity is defined as “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” [ 37 ]. Thus, the “Standards” propose several sources that serve as a reference for assessing different aspects of validity. The five sources of valid evidence are as follows [ 37 ]: test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences of testing. According to AERA et al. [ 37 ], test content validity refers to the relationship of the administration process, subject matter, wording and format of test items to the construct they are intended to measure. It is measured predominantly with qualitative methods but without excluding quantitative approaches. The validity of the responses is based on analysis of the cognitive processes and interpretation of the items by respondents and is measured with qualitative methods. Internal structure validity is based on the interrelationship between the items and the construct and is measured by quantitative methods. Validity in terms of the relationship with other variables is based on comparison between the variable that the instrument intends to measure and other theoretically relevant external variables and is measured by quantitative methods. Finally, validity based on the results of the test analyses consequences, both intended and unintended, that may be due to a source of invalidity. It is measured mainly by qualitative methods.

Thus, although validity plays a fundamental role in providing a strong scientific basis for interpretations of test scores, validation studies in the health field have traditionally focused on content validity, criterion validity and construct validity and have overlooked the interpretation and use of scores [ 34 ].

“Standards” are considered a suitable validity theory-based procedural framework for reviewing the validity of questionnaires due to its ability to analyze sources of validity from both qualitative and quantitative approaches and its evidence-based method [ 35 ]. Nevertheless, due to a lack of knowledge or the lack of a systematic description protocol, very few instruments to date have been reviewed within the framework of the “Standards” [ 39 ].

Current study

Although the P-CAT is one of the most widely used instruments by professionals and has seven validations [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 40 ], no analysis has been conducted of its validity within the framework of the “Standards”. That is, empirical evidence of the validity of the P-CAT has not been obtained in a way that helps to develop a judgment based on a synthesis of the available information.

A review of this type is critical given that some methodological issues seem to have not been resolved in the P-CAT. For example, although the multidimensionality of the P-CAT was identified in the study that introduced it, Bru-Luna et al. [ 32 ] recently stated that in adaptations of the P-CAT [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 ], the total score is used for interpretation and multidimensionality is disregarded. Thus, the multidimensionality of the original study was apparently not replicated. Bru-Luna et al. [ 32 ] also indicated that the internal structure validity of the P-CAT is usually underreported due to a lack of sufficiently rigorous approaches to establish with certainty how its scores are calculated.

The validity of the P-CAT, specifically its internal structure, appears to be unresolved. Nevertheless, substantive research and professional practice point to this measure as relevant to assessing PCC. This perception is contestable and judgment-based and may not be sufficient to assess the validity of the P-CAT from a cumulative and synthetic angle based on preceding validation studies. An adequate assessment of validity requires a model to conceptualize validity followed by a review of previous studies of the validity of the P-CAT using this model.

Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence provided by P-CAT validation studies while taking the “Standards” as a framework.

The present study comprises two distinct but interconnected procedures. First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method ( [ 41 ]; Additional file 1; Additional file 2) with the aim of collecting all validations of the P-CAT that have been developed. Second, a systematic description of the validity evidence for each of the P-CAT validations found in the systematic review was developed following the “Standards” framework [ 37 ]. The work of Hawkins et al. [ 39 ], the first study to review validity sources according to the guidelines proposed by the “Standards”, was also used as a reference. Both provided conceptual and pragmatic guidance for organizing and classifying validity evidence for the P-CAT.

The procedure conducted in the systematic review is described below, followed by the procedure for examining the validity studies.

Systematic review

Search strategy and information sources.

Initially, the Cochrane database was searched with the aim of identifying systematic reviews of the P-CAT. When no such reviews were found, subsequent preliminary searches were performed in the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. These databases play a fundamental role in recent scientific literature since they are the main sources of published articles that undergo high-quality content and editorial review processes [ 42 ]. The search formula was as follows. The original P-CAT article [ 21 ] was located, after which all articles that cited it through 2021 were identified and analyzed. This approach ensured the inclusion of all validations. No articles were excluded on the basis of language to avoid language bias [ 43 ]. Moreover, to reduce the effects of publication bias, a complementary search in Google Scholar was also performed to allow the inclusion of “gray” literature [ 44 ]. Finally, a manual search was performed through a review of the references of the included articles to identify other articles that met the search criteria but were not present in any of the aforementioned databases.

This process was conducted by one of the authors and corroborated by another using the Covidence tool [ 45 ]. A third author was consulted in case of doubt.

Eligibility criteria and selection process

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, and the search was conducted according to these criteria. The identification code is CRD42022335866.

The articles had to meet the following criteria for inclusion in the systematic review: (a) a methodological approach to P-CAT validations, (b) an experimental or quasiexperimental studies, (c) studies with any type of sample, and (d) studies in any language. We discarded studies that met at least one of the following exclusion criteria: (a) systematic reviews or bibliometric reviews of the instrument or meta-analyses or (b) studies published after 2021.

Data collection process

After the articles were selected, the most relevant information was extracted from each article. Fundamental data were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet for each of the sections: introduction, methodology, results and discussion. Information was also recorded about the limitations mentioned in each article as well as the practical implications and suggestions for future research.

Given the aim of the study, information was collected about the sources of validity of each study, including test content (judges’ evaluation, literature review and translation), response processes, internal structure (factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings), and relationships with other variables (convergent, divergent, concurrent and predictive validity) and consequences of measurement.

Description of the validity study

To assess the validity of the studies, an Excel table was used. Information was recorded for the seven articles included in the systematic review. The data were extracted directly from the texts of the articles and included information about the authors, the year of publication, the country where each P-CAT validation was produced and each of the five standards proposed in the “Standards” [ 37 ].

The validity source related to internal structure was divided into three sections to record information about dimensionality (e.g., factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings), reliability expression (i.e., internal consistency and test-retest) and the study of factorial invariance according to the groups into which it was divided (e.g., sex, age, profession) and the level of study (i.e., metric, intercepts). This approach allowed much more information to be obtained than relying solely on source validity based on internal structure. This division was performed by the same researcher who performed the previous processes.

Study selection and study characteristics

The systematic review process was developed according to the PRISMA methodology [ 41 ].

The WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched on February 12, 2022 and yielded a total of 485 articles. Of these, 111 were found in WoS, 114 in Scopus, 43 in PubMed and 217 in Google Scholar. In the first phase, the title and abstracts of all the articles were read. In this first screening, 457 articles were eliminated because they did not include studies with a methodological approach to P-CAT validation and one article was excluded because it was the original P-CAT article. This resulted in a total of 27 articles, 19 of which were duplicated in different databases and, in the case of Google Scholar, within the same database. This process yielded a total of eight articles that were evaluated for eligibility by a complete reading of the text. In this step, one of the articles was excluded due to a lack of access to the full text of the study [ 31 ] (although the original manuscript was found, it was impossible to access the complete content; in addition, the authors of the manuscript were contacted, but no reply was received). Finally, a manual search was performed by reviewing the references of the seven studies, but none were considered suitable for inclusion. Thus, the review was conducted with a total of seven articles.

Of the seven studies, six were original validations in other languages. These included Norwegian [ 27 ], Swedish [ 28 ], Chinese (which has two validations [ 29 , 40 ]), Spanish [ 25 ], and Korean [ 30 ]. The study by Selan et al. [ 46 ] included a modification of the Swedish version of the P-CAT and explored the psychometric properties of both versions (i.e., the original Swedish version and the modified version).

The item selection and screening process are illustrated in detail in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews including database searches

Validity analysis

To provide a clear overview of the validity analyses, Table  1 descriptively shows the percentages of items that provide information about the five standards proposed by the “Standards” guide [ 37 ].

The table shows a high number of validity sources related to test content and internal structure in relation to dimensionality and internal consistency, followed by a moderate number of sources for test-retest and relationship with other variables. A rate of 0% is observed for validity sources related to response processes, invariance and test consequences. Below, different sections related to each of the standards are shown, and the information is presented in more detail.

Evidence based on test content

The first standard, which focused on test content, was met for all items (100%). Translation, which refers to the equivalence of content between the original language and the target language, was met in the six articles that conducted validation in another language and/or culture. These studies reported that the validations were translated by bilingual experts and/or experts in the area of care. In addition, three studies [ 25 , 29 , 40 ] reported that the translation process followed International Test Commission guidelines, such as those of Beaton et al. [ 47 ], Guillemin [ 48 ], Hambleton et al. [ 49 ], and Muñiz et al. [ 50 ]. Evaluation by judges, who referred to the relevance, clarity and importance of the content, was divided into two categories: expert evaluation (a panel of expert judges for each of the areas to consider in the evaluation instrument) and experiential evaluation (potential participants testing the test). The first type of evaluation occurred in three of the articles [ 28 , 29 , 46 ], while the other occurred in two [ 25 , 40 ]. Only one of the items [ 29 ] reported that the scale contained items that reflected the dimension described in the literature. The validity evidence related to the test content presented in each article can be found in Table  2 .

Evidence based on response processes

The second standard, related to the validity of the response process, was obtained according to the “Standards” from the analysis of individual responses: “questioning test takers about their performance strategies or response to particular items (…), maintaining records that monitor the development of a response to a writing task (…), documentation of other aspects of performance, like eye movement or response times…” [ 37 ] (p. 15). According to the analysis of the validity of the response processes, none of the articles complied with this evidence.

Evidence based on internal structure

The third standard, validity related to internal structure, was divided into three sections. First, the dimensionality of each study was examined in terms of factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings. Le et al. [ 40 ] conducted an exploratory-confirmatory design while Sjögren et al. [ 28 ] conducted a confirmatory-exploratory design to assess construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and investigated it further using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The remaining articles employed only a single form of factor analysis: three employed EFA, and two employed CFA. Regarding the next point, only three of the articles reported the factor extraction method used, including Kaiser’s eigenvalue, criterion, scree plot test, parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Instrument validations yielded a total of two factors in five of the seven articles, while one yielded a single dimension [ 25 ] and the other yielded three dimensions [ 29 ], as in the original instrument. The interfactor R was reported only in the study by Zhong and Lou [ 29 ], whereas in the study by Martínez et al. [ 25 ], it could be easily obtained since it consisted of only one dimension. Internal replication was also calculated in the Spanish validation by randomly splitting the sample into two to test the correlations between factors. The effectiveness of the method was not reported in any of the articles. This information is presented in Table  3 in addition to a summary of the factor loadings.

The second section examined reliability. All the studies presented measures of internal consistency conducted in their entirety with Cronbach’s α coefficient for both the total scale and the subscales. The ω coefficient of McDonald was not used in any case. Four of the seven articles performed a test-retest test. Martínez et al. [ 25 ] conducted a test-retest after a period of seven days, while Le et al. [ 40 ] and Rokstad et al. [ 27 ] performed it between one and two weeks later and Sjögren et al. [ 28 ] allowed approximately two weeks to pass after the initial test.

The third section analyzes the calculation of invariance, which was not reported in any of the studies.

Evidence based on relationships with other variables

In the fourth standard, based on validity according to the relationship with other variables, the articles that reported it used only convergent validity (i.e., it was hypothesized that the variables related to the construct measured by the test—in this case, person-centeredness—were positively or negatively related to another construct). Discriminant validity hypothesizes that the variables related to the PCC construct are not correlated in any way with any other variable studied. No article (0%) measured discriminant evidence, while four (57%) measured convergent evidence [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 46 ]. Convergent validity was obtained through comparisons with instruments such as the Person-Centered Climate Questionnaire–Staff Version (PCQ-S), the Staff-Based Measures of Individualized Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia (IC), the Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior Scale (CPEAB), the Organizational Climate (CLIOR) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). In the case of Selan et al. [ 46 ], convergent validity was assessed on two items considered by the authors as “crude measures of person-centered care (i.e., external constructs) giving an indication of the instruments’ ability to measure PCC” (p. 4). Concurrent validity, which measures the degree to which the results of one test are or are not similar to those of another test conducted at more or less the same time with the same participants, and predictive validity, which allows predictions to be established regarding behavior based on comparison between the values of the instrument and the criterion, were not reported in any of the studies.

Evidence based on the consequences of testing

The fifth and final standard was related to the consequences of the test. It analyzed the consequences, both intended and unintended, of applying the test to a given sample. None of the articles presented explicit or implicit evidence of this.

The last two sources of validity can be seen in Table  4 .

Table  5 shows the results of the set of validity tests for each study according to the described standards.

The main purpose of this article is to analyze the evidence of validity in different validation studies of the P-CAT. To gather all existing validations, a systematic review of all literature citing this instrument was conducted.

The publication of validation studies of the P-CAT has been constant over the years. Since the publication of the original instrument in 2010, seven validations have been published in other languages (taking into account the Italian version by Brugnolli et al. [ 31 ], which could not be included in this study) as well as a modification of one of these versions. The very unequal distribution of validations between languages and countries is striking. A recent systematic review [ 51 ] revealed that in Europe, the countries where the PCC approach is most widely used are the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and Norway. It has also been shown that the neighboring countries seem to exert an influence on each other due to proximity [ 52 ] such that they tend to organize healthcare in a similar way, as is the case for Scandinavian countries. This favors the expansion of PCC and explains the numerous validations we found in this geographical area.

Although this approach is conceived as an essential element of healthcare for most governments [ 53 ], PCC varies according to the different definitions and interpretations attributed to it, which can cause confusion in its application (e.g., between Norway and the United Kingdom [ 54 ]). Moreover, facilitators of or barriers to implementation depend on the context and level of development of each country, and financial support remains one of the main factors in this regard [ 53 ]. This fact explains why PCC is not globally widespread among all territories. In countries where access to healthcare for all remains out of reach for economic reasons, the application of this approach takes a back seat, as does the validation of its assessment tools. In contrast, in a large part of Europe or in countries such as China or South Korea that have experienced decades of rapid economic development, patients are willing to be involved in their medical treatment and enjoy more satisfying and efficient medical experiences and environments [ 55 ], which facilitates the expansion of validations of instruments such as the P-CAT.

Regarding validity testing, the guidelines proposed by the “Standards” [ 37 ] were followed. According to the analysis of the different validations of the P-CAT instrument, none of the studies used a structured validity theory-based procedural framework for conducting validation. The most frequently reported validity tests were on the content of the test and two of the sections into which the internal structure was divided (i.e., dimensionality and internal consistency).

In the present article, the most cited source of validity in the studies was the content of the test because most of the articles were validations of the P-CAT in other languages, and the authors reported that the translation procedure was conducted by experts in all cases. In addition, several of the studies employed International Test Commission guidelines, such as those by Beaton et al. [ 47 ], Guillemin [ 48 ], Hambleton et al. [ 49 ], and Muñiz et al. [ 50 ]. Several studies also assessed the relevance, clarity and importance of the content.

The third source of validity, internal structure, was the next most often reported, although it appeared unevenly among the three sections into which this evidence was divided. Dimensionality and internal consistency were reported in all studies, followed by test-retest consistency. In relation to the first section, factor analysis, a total of five EFAs and four CFAs were presented in the validations. Traditionally, EFA has been used in research to assess dimensionality and identify key psychological constructs, although this approach involves a number of inconveniences, such as difficulty testing measurement invariance and incorporating latent factors into subsequent analyses [ 56 ] or the major problem of factor loading matrix rotation [ 57 ]. Studies eventually began to employ CFA, a technique that overcame some of these obstacles [ 56 ] but had other drawbacks; for example, the strict requirement of zero cross-loadings often does not fit the data well, and misspecification of zero loadings tends to produce distorted factors [ 57 ]. Recently, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) has been proposed. This technique is widely recommended both conceptually and empirically to assess the internal structure of psychological tools [ 58 ] since it overcomes the limitations of EFA and CFA in estimating their parameters [ 56 , 57 ].

The next section, reliability, reports the total number of items according to Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient. Reliability is defined as a combination of systematic and random influences that determine the observed scores on a psychological test. Reporting the reliability measure ensures that item-based scores are consistent, that the tool’s responses are replicable and that they are not modified solely by random noise [ 59 , 60 ]. Currently, the most commonly employed reliability coefficient in studies with a multi-item measurement scale (MIMS) is Cronbach’s α [ 60 , 61 ].

Cronbach’s α [ 62 ] is based on numerous strict assumptions (e.g., the test must be unidimensional, factor loadings must be equal for all items and item errors should not covary) to estimate internal consistency. These assumptions are difficult to meet, and their violation may produce small reliability estimates [ 60 ]. One of the alternative measures to α that is increasingly recommended by the scientific literature is McDonald’s ω [ 63 ], a composite reliability measure. This coefficient is recommended for congeneric scales in which tau equivalence is not assumed. It has several advantages. For example, estimates of ω are usually robust when the estimated model contains more factors than the true model, even with small samples, or when skewness in univariate item distributions produces lower biases than those found when using α [ 59 ].

The test-retest method was the next most commonly reported internal structure section in these studies. This type of reliability considers the consistency of the scores of a test between two measurements separated by a period [ 64 ]. It is striking that test-retest consistency does not have a prevalence similar to that of internal consistency since, unlike internal consistency, test-retest consistency can be assessed for practically all types of patient-reported outcomes. It is even considered by some measurement experts to report reliability with greater relevance than internal consistency since it plays a fundamental role in the calculation of parameters for health measures [ 64 ]. However, the literature provides little guidance regarding the assessment of this type of reliability.

The internal structure section that was least frequently reported in the studies in this review was invariance. A lack of invariance refers to a difference between scores on a test that is not explained by group differences in the structure it is intended to measure [ 65 ]. The invariance of the measure should be emphasized as a prerequisite in comparisons between groups since “if scale invariance is not examined, item bias may not be fully recognized and this may lead to a distorted interpretation of the bias in a particular psychological measure” [ 65 ].

Evidence related to other variables was the next most reported source of validity in the studies included in this review. Specifically, the four studies that reported this evidence did so according to convergent validity and cited several instruments. None of the studies included evidence of discriminant validity, although this may be because there are currently several obstacles related to the measurement of this type of validity [ 66 ]. On the one hand, different definitions are used in the applied literature, which makes its evaluation difficult; on the other hand, the literature on discriminant validity focuses on techniques that require the use of multiple measurement methods, which often seem to have been introduced without sufficient evidence or are applied randomly.

Validity related to response processes was not reported by any of the studies. There are several methods to analyze this validity. These methods can be divided into two groups: “those that directly access the psychological processes or cognitive operations (think aloud, focus group, and interviews), compared to those which provide indirect indicators which in turn require additional inference (eye tracking and response times)” [ 38 ]. However, this validity evidence has traditionally been reported less frequently than others in most studies, perhaps because there are fewer clear and accepted practices on how to design or report these studies [ 67 ].

Finally, the consequences of testing were not reported in any of the studies. There is debate regarding this source of validity, with two main opposing streams of thought. On the one hand [ 68 , 69 ]) suggests that consequences that appear after the application of a test should not derive from any source of test invalidity and that “adverse consequences only undermine the validity of an assessment if they can be attributed to a problem of fit between the test and the construct” (p. 6). In contrast, Cronbach [ 69 , 70 ] notes that adverse social consequences that may result from the application of a test may call into question the validity of the test. However, the potential risks that may arise from the application of a test should be minimized in any case, especially in regard to health assessments. To this end, it is essential that this aspect be assessed by instrument developers and that the experiences of respondents be protected through the development of comprehensive and informed practices [ 39 ].

This work is not without limitations. First, not all published validation studies of the P-CAT, such as the Italian version by Brugnolli et al. [ 31 ], were available. These studies could have provided relevant information. Second, many sources of validity could not be analyzed because the studies provided scant or no data, such as response processes [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], relationships with other variables [ 27 , 28 , 40 ], consequences of testing [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], or invariance [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] in the case of internal structure and interfactor R [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], internal replication [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] or the effect of the method [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] in the case of dimensionality. In the future, it is hoped that authors will become aware of the importance of validity, as shown in this article and many others, and provide data on unreported sources so that comprehensive validity studies can be performed.

The present work also has several strengths. The search was extensive, and many studies were obtained using three different databases, including WoS, one of the most widely used and authoritative databases in the world. This database includes a large number and variety of articles and is not fully automated due to its human team [ 71 , 72 , 73 ]. In addition, to prevent publication bias, gray literature search engines such as Google Scholar were used to avoid the exclusion of unpublished research [ 44 ]. Finally, linguistic bias was prevented by not limiting the search to articles published in only one or two languages, thus avoiding the overrepresentation of studies in one language and underrepresentation in others [ 43 ].

Conclusions

Validity is understood as the degree to which tests and theory support the interpretations of instrument scores for their intended use [ 37 ]. From this perspective, the various validations of the P-CAT are not presented in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the “Standards” are. After integration and analysis of the results, it was observed that these validation reports offer a high number of sources of validity related to test content, internal structure in dimensionality and internal consistency, a moderate number of sources for internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables, and a very low number of sources for response processes, internal structure in terms of invariance, and test consequences.

Validity plays a fundamental role in ensuring a sound scientific basis for test interpretations because it provides evidence of the extent to which the data provided by the test are valid for the intended purpose. This can affect clinical practice as people’s health may depend on it. In this sense, the “Standards” are considered a suitable and valid theory-based procedural framework for studying this modern conception of questionnaire validity, which should be taken into account in future research in this area.

Although the P-CAT is one of the most widely used instruments for assessing PCC, as shown in this study, PCC has rarely been studied. The developers of measurement tests applied to the health care setting, on which the health and quality of life of many people may depend, should use this validity framework to reflect the clear purpose of the measurement. This approach is important because the equity of decision making by healthcare professionals in daily clinical practice may depend on the source of validity. Through a more extensive study of validity that includes the interpretation of scores in terms of their intended use, the applicability of the P-CAT, an instrument that was initially developed for long-term care homes for elderly people, could be expanded to other care settings. However, the findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on traditionally studied types of validity and overlook the interpretation of scores in terms of their intended use.

Data availability

All data relevant to the study were included in the article or uploaded as additional files. Additional template data extraction forms are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

American Educational Research Association

American Psychological Association

Confirmatory factor analysis

Organizational Climate

Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior Scale

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory structural equation modeling

Staff-based Measures of Individualized Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia

Maslach Burnout Inventory

Multi-item measurement scale

Maximum likelihood

National Council on Measurement in Education

Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

• Person-centered care

Person-Centered Climate Questionnaire–Staff Version

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

International Register of Systematic Review Protocols

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

weighted least square mean and variance adjusted

Web of Science

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy; 2001.

Google Scholar  

International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations. What is patient-centred healthcare? A review of definitions and principles. 2nd ed. London, UK: International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations; 2007.

World Health Organization. WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services: interim report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.

Britten N, Ekman I, Naldemirci Ö, Javinger M, Hedman H, Wolf A. Learning from Gothenburg model of person centred healthcare. BMJ. 2020;370:m2738.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Van Diepen C, Fors A, Ekman I, Hensing G. Association between person-centred care and healthcare providers’ job satisfaction and work-related health: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e042658.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ekman N, Taft C, Moons P, Mäkitalo Å, Boström E, Fors A. A state-of-the-art review of direct observation tools for assessing competency in person-centred care. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103634.

American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-centered care: a definition and essential elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:15–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

McCormack B, McCance TV. Development of a framework for person-centred nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:472–9.

McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: theory and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2016.

Nolan MR, Davies S, Brown J, Keady J, Nolan J. Beyond person-centred care: a new vision for gerontological nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:45–53.

McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred nursing: theory, models and methods. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

Book   Google Scholar  

Abraha I, Rimland JM, Trotta FM, Dell’Aquila G, Cruz-Jentoft A, Petrovic M, et al. Systematic review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to treat behavioural disturbances in older patients with dementia. The SENATOR-OnTop series. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012759.

Anderson K, Blair A. Why we need to care about the care: a longitudinal study linking the quality of residential dementia care to residents’ quality of life. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;91:104226.

Bauer M, Fetherstonhaugh D, Haesler E, Beattie E, Hill KD, Poulos CJ. The impact of nurse and care staff education on the functional ability and quality of life of people living with dementia in aged care: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;67:27–45.

Smythe A, Jenkins C, Galant-Miecznikowska M, Dyer J, Downs M, Bentham P, et al. A qualitative study exploring nursing home nurses’ experiences of training in person centred dementia care on burnout. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102745.

McCormack B, Borg M, Cardiff S, Dewing J, Jacobs G, Janes N, et al. Person-centredness– the ‘state’ of the art. Int Pract Dev J. 2015;5:1–15.

Wilberforce M, Challis D, Davies L, Kelly MP, Roberts C, Loynes N. Person-centredness in the care of older adults: a systematic review of questionnaire-based scales and their measurement properties. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:63.

Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.

Sharma T, Bamford M, Dodman D. Person-centred care: an overview of reviews. Contemp Nurse. 2016;51:107–20.

Ahmed S, Djurkovic A, Manalili K, Sahota B, Santana MJ. A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts. Health Sci Rep. 2019;2:e140.

Edvardsson D, Fetherstonhaugh D, Nay R, Gibson S. Development and initial testing of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22:101–8.

Tamagawa R, Groff S, Anderson J, Champ S, Deiure A, Looyis J, et al. Effects of a provincial-wide implementation of screening for distress on healthcare professionals’ confidence and understanding of person-centered care in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:1259–66.

Degl’ Innocenti A, Wijk H, Kullgren A, Alexiou E. The influence of evidence-based design on staff perceptions of a supportive environment for person-centered care in forensic psychiatry. J Forensic Nurs. 2020;16:E23–30.

Hulin CL. A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: fidelity across languages. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1987;18:115–42.

Martínez T, Suárez-Álvarez J, Yanguas J, Muñiz J. Spanish validation of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Aging Ment Health. 2016;20:550–8.

Martínez T, Martínez-Loredo V, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Assessment of person-centered care in gerontology services: a new tool for healthcare professionals. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2020;20:62–70.

Rokstad AM, Engedal K, Edvardsson D, Selbaek G. Psychometric evaluation of the Norwegian version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18:99–105.

Sjögren K, Lindkvist M, Sandman PO, Zingmark K, Edvardsson D. Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:406–15.

Zhong XB, Lou VW. Person-centered care in Chinese residential care facilities: a preliminary measure. Aging Ment Health. 2013;17:952–8.

Tak YR, Woo HY, You SY, Kim JH. Validity and reliability of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool in long-term care facilities in Korea. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2015;45:412–9.

Brugnolli A, Debiasi M, Zenere A, Zanolin ME, Baggia M. The person-centered Care Assessment Tool in nursing homes: psychometric evaluation of the Italian version. J Nurs Meas. 2020;28:555–63.

Bru-Luna LM, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Livia J. Reliability generalization study of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool. Front Psychol. 2021;12:712582.

Edvardsson D, Innes A. Measuring person-centered care: a critical comparative review of published tools. Gerontologist. 2010;50:834–46.

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Nolte S, Osborne RH. Validity arguments for patient-reported outcomes: justifying the intended interpretation and use of data. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:64.

Sireci SG. On the validity of useless tests. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2016;23:226–35.

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice: a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030753.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association. National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

Padilla JL, Benítez I. Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 2014;26:136–44.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Hoban E, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice within a theoretical framework: a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035974.

Le C, Ma K, Tang P, Edvardsson D, Behm L, Zhang J, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e031580.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338–42.

Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.

Arias MM. Aspectos metodológicos Del metaanálisis (1). Pediatr Aten Primaria. 2018;20:297–302.

Covidence. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Australia. 2014. https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

Selan D, Jakobsson U, Condelius A. The Swedish P-CAT: modification and exploration of psychometric properties of two different versions. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017;31:527–35.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91.

Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24:61–3.

Hambleton R, Merenda P, Spielberger C. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.

Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK. International test commission guidelines for test translation and adaptation: second edition. Psicothema. 2013;25:151–7.

Rosengren K, Brannefors P, Carlstrom E. Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse in Europe: a systematic literature review. J Health Organ Manag. 2021;35:265–80.

Alharbi T, Olsson LE, Ekman I, Carlström E. The impact of organizational culture on the outcome of hospital care: after the implementation of person-centred care. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42:104–10.

Bensbih S, Souadka A, Diez AG, Bouksour O. Patient centered care: focus on low and middle income countries and proposition of new conceptual model. J Med Surg Res. 2020;7:755–63.

Stranz A, Sörensdotter R. Interpretations of person-centered dementia care: same rhetoric, different practices? A comparative study of nursing homes in England and Sweden. J Aging Stud. 2016;38:70–80.

Zhou LM, Xu RH, Xu YH, Chang JH, Wang D. Inpatients’ perception of patient-centered care in Guangdong province, China: a cross-sectional study. Inquiry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580211059482 .

Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85–110.

Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009;16:397–438.

Cabedo-Peris J, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Ortiz-Morán M. Basic empathy scale: a systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis. Healthc (Basel). 2022;10:29–62.

Flora DB. Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2020;3:484–501.

McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23:412–33.

Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… Commun Methods Meas. 2020;14:1–24.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

McDonald R. Test theory: a unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999.

Polit DF. Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1713–20.

Ceylan D, Çizel B, Karakaş H. Testing destination image scale invariance for intergroup comparison. Tour Anal. 2020;25:239–51.

Rönkkö M, Cho E. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ Res Methods. 2022;25:6–14.

Hubley A, Zumbo B. Response processes in the context of validity: setting the stage. In: Zumbo B, Hubley A, editors. Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. pp. 1–12.

Messick S. Validity of performance assessments. In: Philips G, editor. Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 1996. pp. 1–18.

Moss PA. The role of consequences in validity theory. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1998;17:6–12.

Cronbach L. Five perspectives on validity argument. In: Wainer H, editor. Test validity. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum; 1988. pp. 3–17.

Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1:363–76.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.

Web of Science Group. Editorial selection process. Clarivate. 2024. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/%20editorial-selection-process/ . Accessed 12 Sept 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the casual helpers for their aid in information processing and searching.

This work is one of the results of research project HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”. Main researcher: Filiberto Toledano-Toledano Ph.D. The present research was funded by federal funds for health research and was approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. The source of federal funds did not control the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or decisions regarding publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Educación, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain

Lluna Maria Bru-Luna

Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universitat de València, Blasco Ibáñez Avenue, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

Manuel Martí-Vilar

Departamento de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación de Psicología, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Tomás Marsano Avenue 242, Lima 34, Perú

César Merino-Soto

Instituto Central de Gestión de la Investigación, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Carlos Gonzalez Avenue 285, 15088, San Miguel, Perú

José Livia-Segovia

Unidad de Investigación en Medicina Basada en Evidencias, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez Instituto Nacional de Salud, Dr. Márquez 162, 06720, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico

Juan Garduño-Espinosa & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria en Salud, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, México-Xochimilco 289, Arenal de Guadalupe, 14389, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico

Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Dirección de Investigación y Diseminación del Conocimiento, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias e Innovación para la Formación de Comunidad Científica, INDEHUS, Periférico Sur 4860, Arenal de Guadalupe, 14389, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

L.M.B.L. conceptualized the study, collected the data, performed the formal anal- ysis, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. M.M.V. collected the data and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. C.M.S. collected the data, performed the formal analysis, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.L.S. collected the data, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.G.E. collected the data and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. F.T.T. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. L.M.B.L. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. M.M.V. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. C.M.S. reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.G.E. reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. F.T.T. conceptualized the study; provided resources, software, and supervision; wrote the original draft; and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filiberto Toledano-Toledano .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bru-Luna, L.M., Martí-Vilar, M., Merino-Soto, C. et al. Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties. BMC Psychol 12 , 217 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7

Download citation

Received : 17 May 2023

Accepted : 07 April 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Person-centered care assessment tool

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 16 April 2024

Review on epidemiology, disease burden, and treatment patterns of IgA nephropathy in select APAC countries

• Omer Zaidi 1 ,
• Zhaoli Tang 2 ,
• Sandipan Bhattacharjee 3 &
• Kristin Pareja 3  

BMC Nephrology volume  25 , Article number:  136 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

327 Accesses

Metrics details

Immunoglobulin type A (IgA) nephropathy is the most common primary glomerulonephritis (GN) worldwide with higher rates in East and Pacific Asia compared to North America and Europe. Despite high reported prevalence of IgAN in these countries, the overall disease prevalence across Asia is not available. Treatment patterns of IgAN patients across Asian countries have also not been summarized. The aim of this study was to review and summarize evidence on IgA nephropathy prevalence, treatment patterns, and humanistic and economic burden in mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Australia.

A targeted literature review was conducted in PubMed and local databases in China (including Taiwan), South Korea, Japan, and Australia between January 2010-December 2021. Website literature searches were conducted using Google Scholar and Baidu.

Sixty-nine publications and 3 clinical guidelines were included. Incidence ranged from 0 to 10.7 per 100 000 people per year in Australia, Japan, and Taiwan, and ranged from 6.3 to 24.70% among patients who underwent renal biopsy in mainland China. Prevalence and diagnosis rates ranged from 0 to 72.1% in mainland China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Australia. Mortality rates in mainland China, South Korea, and Japan varied widely. The top 3 commonly used therapies were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (0.9-99.6%), corticosteroids (3.5-100%), and immunosuppressants (1.6-85.5%) in Japan, mainland China, and South Korea. Patient quality of life was measured by different tools, and annual hospitalization costs ranged from $1 284.73 to $2 252.12 (2015–2018) in China.

Conclusions

The prevalence of IgA nephropathy among the general population in select countries/regions is not commonly available, despite evidence from studies and clinical guidelines. In addition, it is observed across geographic regions that heterogeneity exists in prevalence rates, and large variations exist in treatment patterns. There is need to fill in these gaps to understand the contributing factors behind the differences through population-based, multi-center, and real-world studies.

Peer Review reports

Immunoglobulin type A nephropathy (IgAN), also known as Berger’s disease, is a kidney disease caused by kidney deposition of immunoglobulin type A (IgA) complexes involving galactose-deficient IgA [ 1 ] and resulting in inflammatory tissue damage [ 2 ]. IgAN affects the kidneys by attacking the glomeruli and is characterized by persistent urinary abnormalities including microscopic hematuria, gross hematuria, and/or proteinuria [ 2 , 3 ]. IgAN is the most common form of biopsy-proven primary glomerulonephritis (PGN) worldwide [ 3 ] and is one of the leading causes of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) [ 4 ].

Primary treatments for IgAN include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants [ 1 , 4 ]. These treatments aim to address symptoms and manifestations of IgAN but not the underlying cause. Nearly one-third of IgAN patients develop ESRD within 10 years [ 5 ]. On average, patients with IgAN die 6 years earlier than the general population [ 6 ]. In addition, patients’ quality of life (QoL) is greatly impacted due to pain, fatigue, and poor mental health [ 4 ], and indirect caregiver burden is high due to time spent caring for patients who progress to ESRD. Thus, caregivers’ QoL and psychological well-being can also be negatively impacted [ 7 ].

IgAN prevalence is highest in Asia, intermediate in Europe and the US, and lower in African countries [ 8 ]. The overall global incidence is approximately 2.5 per 100,000 people per year [ 2 ]. A higher prevalence of IgAN is seen in countries where routine screening is practiced [ 4 ]. While geographic variations of IgAN have been studied previously [ 3 , 9 ], few recent studies have focused on regional disease burden differences and treatment patterns in among IgAN patients across Asian countries/regions and Australia.

This review aimed to summarize the disease burden and treatment patterns of IgAN in select countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region, specifically mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Australia.

Data sources and search strategy

A targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to identify relevant literature published from January 2010 to December 2021 for mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and Japan. The earliest year of publication was expanded from 2010 to 2001 to capture evidence more comprehensively on outcomes of interest. Medline and Embase were the primary databases for publications in English. For publications in local languages, WANFANG and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched for publications in Chinese, Korean Medical Database and Korean Information Service System (KISS) databases were searched for publications in Korean, and Scholarly and Academic Information Navigator (CiNii) was searched for publications in Japanese. Supplementary searches for clinical guidelines, conference proceedings, and websites of governmental and non-governmental organizations were conducted using Google, Baidu (for Chinese sources), and Naver (for Korean sources). Publications cited as references were also considered for screening.

Search terms included IgA nephropathy, Berger’s disease, incidence, prevalence, mortality, quality of life, cost, burden, and treatment. Observational studies, reviews, and registry studies were included in the search. Publications that reported prevalence, incidence, mortality, treatment patterns, guidelines, economic, and humanistic burden were included for data extraction. Search terms in English and local languages are listed in Supplementary Table S1 .

Study selection and data extraction

After the search was conducted and duplicates were removed, the title, abstract, and full texts of the remaining publications were screened. A second reviewer conducted the validation and finalization for publications to be included in the data extraction phase. During screening, the inclusion and exclusion criteria mainly focused on outcomes. Systematic reviews, observational studies including registry/database studies and other real-world studies, annual reports were considered for inclusion. Publications that reported evidence regarding epidemiology (incidence, prevalence, and mortality), humanistic and economic burden, and treatment patterns (treatment guidelines, duration, adherence, persistence, switching, and discontinuation) were included for data extraction. Studies that did not include outcomes of interest were excluded, as were studies with a small sample size (< 25). Strict predefined population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) selection criteria and a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram were not used in this study. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, epidemiological outcomes, disease burden, and treatment patterns were extracted.

Study quality assessment

All eligible studies went through a quality assessment (QA) using a recommended checklist, according to the Center for Reviews and Dissemination Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care recommendations [ 10 ]. Quality assessment was performed for all eligible articles by two reviewers. The checklist consisted of 9 items excluding basic information for the included studies. Because all publications included in this study were observational studies or reviews, only the non-randomized clinical trial checklist was used for observational studies.

Sixty-nine publications were included for this review, among which 38 were from mainland China (2015–2021) [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ], 15 from Japan (2003–2021) [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ], 10 from South Korea (2010–2020) [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ], 3 from Taiwan (2014–2019) [ 74 , 75 , 76 ], and 3 from Australia (2001–2021) [ 77 , 78 , 79 ]; characteristics of the studies are shown in Supplementary Table S2 . Approximately 83% the publications reported a retrospective study design ( n  = 57). For publications from mainland China, sample sizes ranged from 74 [ 37 ] to 4,367,829 [ 47 ], and male percentages ranged from 37.5% [ 17 ] to 97.3% [ 32 ]. For publications from Japan, sample sizes ranged from 52 [ 53 ] to 270,902 [ 63 ]; the male percentage ranged from 37.1% [ 58 ] to 56.96% [ 52 ]. For publications from South Korea, sample sizes ranged from 25 [ 64 ] to 5,114 [ 67 ]; the male percentage ranged from 36% [ 64 ] to 66.6% [ 73 ]. For publications from Taiwan, sample sizes ranged from 91 [ 75 ] to 7,073 [ 76 ]; the male percentage ranged from 45.9% [ 76 ] to 52.7% [ 75 ]. For publications from Australia, sample sizes ranged from 1,147 [ 78 ] to 2,457 [ 79 ]; the male percentage ranged from 60% [ 77 ] to 69.7% [ 79 ]. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline [ 1 ] and 2 country-specific guidelines [ 80 , 81 ] were also included for evidence on treatment patterns.

Sixty-eight journal articles were assessed for study quality (all details of the quality assessment are shown in Supplementary Table S3 ); one white paper was not included in the study quality assessment. Approximately 75% (51/68 articles) were deemed to be of good quality (i.e., without inherent flaws). Few studies reported the incidence/prevalence of IgAN directly and percentage of IgAN were extracted from included studies. The appropriateness of the statistical analysis conducted was not clear or not specified in 5 studies, as they did not define P values and the level of significance for all observations. Across studies, outcome measures were generally considered reliable. However, 33 articles stated that the results could be generalized to routine practice. In one case-control study, the similarity of both groups at the outset of the study was not clear.

Six publications provided evidence on IgAN incidence [ 30 , 61 , 63 , 74 , 77 , 78 ] in Australia ( n  = 2), Japan ( n  = 2), mainland China ( n  = 1), and Taiwan ( n  = 1). Most were cross-sectional observational studies ( n  = 4), and sample sizes ranged from 156 [ 74 ] to 270,902 [ 63 ].

In Australia, IgAN incidence was estimated to be 1.41–10.5 per 100,000 people per year [ 77 , 78 ]. According to Briganti 2001 [ 78 ], IgAN incidence in Australia was lowest (0.0 per 100,000 per year) among male children and highest (10.7 per 100,000 per year) among male adults [ 78 ]. In Japan, only 2 studies reporting incidence data among children were identified. Utsunomiya 2003 [ 63 ] reported an incidence rate of 4.5 per 100,000 per year among 270,902 junior high and elementary school students; Kajiwara 2020 [ 61 ] reported a rate of 3.3 per 100,000 per year among 60,816 junior high and elementary school students. Both publications collected urine samples through a school urinary screening system in students 6 to 15 years old. In mainland China, the incidence rate of IgAN was estimated to be 6.3% among elderly patients who underwent renal biopsy and 24.7% among non-elderly patients who underwent renal biopsy [ 30 ]. In Taiwan, IgAN incidence was estimated to be 5.5 per million per year among the general population (around 23.5 million between 2014 and 2016), based on 1,445 renal biopsy records from a registry database [ 74 ]. In general, IgAN incidence was higher in males (5.7 per 100,000 per year) compared with females (2.9 per 100,000 per year) [ 78 ]. IgAN incidence was not reported in Korean populations.

Prevalence and diagnosis rate

IgAN prevalence among the general population was not reported in the included publications. But one cross-sectional study ( n  = 3,623) reported an IgAN prevalence rate of 0.03% among the general Chinese pediatric population [ 34 ]. Thirty-five publications were identified with diagnosis rates among 2 populations: patients who received renal biopsies and PGN patients [ 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 59 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 79 ]. Twenty-one publications were from mainland China [ 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ], 6 from South Korea [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ], 3 from Taiwan [ 74 , 75 , 76 ], 3 from Japan [ 52 , 55 , 59 ], and 1 from Australia [ 79 ]. The majority (88%) were cohort studies ( n  = 17) [ 13 , 21 , 31 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 52 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ] and cross-sectional studies ( n  = 13) [ 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 34 , 37 , 47 , 59 , 67 , 72 , 74 , 79 ], with the remainder being an annual report [ 76 ], a registry study [ 55 ] and a chart review [ 75 ]. Sample sizes ranged from 33 [ 70 ] to 43,67,829 [ 47 ].

In mainland China, the mean diagnosis rate of IgAN was estimated to be 24.1% among patients undergoing renal biopsies (median: 23.0%; range: 6.3-40.9%) [ 13 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 30 , 46 ] and 27.3% (median: 27.9%; range: 0-72.1%) [ 14 , 19 , 21 , 33 , 36 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 48 ] among PGN patients (Fig.  1 a); The mean IgAN diagnosis rate was estimated to be 21.7% (median: 17.5%; 17-30.4%) among children who underwent renal biopsy [ 17 , 18 , 35 ]. In Taiwan, the mean diagnosis rate of IgAN was 12.1% (median: 12.2%; range: 10.8-13.2%) among patients undergoing renal biopsies [ 74 , 75 ] and was reported similar (26%) among PGN patients [ 74 , 76 ] (Fig.  1 b). In South Korea, the mean diagnosis rate was 41% (median: 38.1%; range: 25.8-61.9%) among patients undergoing renal biopsies [ 67 , 69 , 71 , 72 ] and around 51.6% (average of 51.3% and 51.9%) among PGN patients [ 68 , 70 ] (Fig.  1 c). In Japan, Hattori 2016 reported a mean estimated IgAN diagnosis rate of 23% (median: 22.9%) among CKD patients [ 59 ]. In addition, the reported IgAN diagnosis rate among patients who underwent renal biopsy was 31%, with 6.9% in patients aged 65 to 80 years old and 10.5% in patients aged 80 years or older [ 52 , 55 ]. In Australia, Lee 2020 reported an IgAN diagnosis rate of 13% among patients undergoing renal biopsy [ 79 ].

IgAN Prevalence in Mainland China, Taiwan and South Korea (Abbreviation: ANS, acute nephritic syndrome; CNS, chronic nephrotic syndrome; NHRI, National Health Research Institute & Taiwan Society of Nephrology; NS, nephritis syndrome(e; PGN, primary glomerulonephritis; RPG, rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis)

Disease progression and mortality

Among included studies, all-cause mortality was mainly reported as deaths due to ESRD. Seven publications from mainland China [ 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 41 , 42 ], 7 from Korea [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 73 ], 4 from Japan [ 50 , 51 , 57 , 62 ], and 1 from Taiwan [ 75 ] reported rate of progression to ESRD in IgAN. These studies varied in the definition of endpoint, patient characteristics, and follow-up duration. In China, the median rate of progression to ESRD was 4.1% [ 28 ] over 6 months, ranged from 1.3 to 15.8% (median: 1.3%) over 40–45 months [ 29 , 41 ], ranged from 6.6 to 15% (median: 8.3%) over 4–10 years [ 23 , 27 , 42 ], and 33% over 15 years [ 42 ]. In Korea, the median rate of progression to ESRD ranged from 2.5 to 39.7% (median: 19%) from 60 to 100 months [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 73 ].

Regarding direct reports on mortality, in mainland China, 0.7% of adult IgAN patients progressed to death according to 1 study of 944 patients from 2003 to 2014 with a median follow-up of 4.2 years [ 23 ]. In South Korea, the median death rate was 5.3% (range: 4.4-5.9%) [ 65 , 66 , 68 ] for 1,364 IgAN patients with a median follow-up of 100 months. In addition, 2 publications reported a standard mortality ratio (expressed as the ratio between the observed and the expected number of deaths in the general population) of 1.43 (95% confidence interval:1.04–1.92) among 1,364 IgAN patients in relation to the general population [ 65 , 68 ]. In Japan, IgAN mortality was estimated to be 0.3 per 100 person-years among non-smokers [ 51 ], 1.3 per 100 person-years among smokers [ 51 ] and 1.2 per 100 person-years among patients who received kidney replacement therapy [ 53 ] based on 2 retrospective studies [ 51 , 53 ]. No mortality data was found among IgAN patients in Taiwan or Australia.

• Treatment patterns

Twenty publications [ 1 , 11 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 42 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 64 , 68 , 71 , 73 , 81 ] and 3 clinical guidelines reported treatment patterns. Nine from mainland China [ 11 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 41 , 42 ], 8 from Japan [ 49 , 50 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 ], and 4 from South Korea [ 64 , 68 , 71 , 73 ]. 80% publications were retrospective studies ( n  = 16) [ 11 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 42 , 49 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 64 , 68 , 71 , 73 ]. Sample sizes ranged from 25 [ 64 ] to 2,283 [ 50 ]. The KDIGO [ 1 ] and 2 country-specific treatment guidelines, 1 from mainland China [ 80 ] and 1 from Japan [ 81 ], were identified. No treatment guidelines were identified in Taiwan, South Korea, or Australia.

The KDIGO guidelines (2021 version) provide treatment recommendations for adults and children with IgAN [ 1 ]. The guidelines state that the management of IgAN should be multifaceted, optimized with supportive care, and include ACEIs/ARBs as tolerated or allowed, control blood pressure, minimize cardiovascular risk, and adherence to lifestyle changes including dietary counseling, smoking cessation, weight control, and exercise, as appropriate. The guidelines provide specific treatment recommendations according to the variant forms of IgAN, the level of proteinuria, and high-risk rate for progression after maximal supportive care. The main treatment regimens include ACEIs and ARBs, immunosuppressants, cyclophosphamide, tonsillectomy, and lifestyle modification [ 1 ]. Similar to the KDIGO guidelines, the primary treatment recommendations in the Chinese 2017 guidelines for children with IgAN were glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants, and ACEIs/ARBs [ 80 ]. Japanese 2020 guidelines covered children and adults, with different treatment recommendations based on symptoms and subtype of IgAN (the subgroup classification for adults was based on estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria; symptoms among children were classified as mild or severe) [ 81 ].

In mainland China, 6 studies investigated adult populations [ 15 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 42 ] (Table  1 ) and 3 investigated pediatric populations [ 11 , 27 , 41 ] (Table  2 ). For drug usage among adult patients, ACEIs/ARBs had the largest median percentage at 66.7% (range: 38-90%) [ 15 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 42 ], followed by steroids, with median of 36% (corticosteroids/prednisone/intravenous methylprednisolone injection, range: 10-100%) [ 15 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 42 ] and immunosuppressants (including in combination with steroids), with median of 25.9% (cyclophosphamide, tacrolimus and tripterygium wilfordii, range: 1.6-72%) [ 15 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 42 ]. Among pediatric patients, immunosuppressants (cyclophosphamide/mycophenolate /Tripterygium wilfordii /leflunomide) were the common drugs recommended, with a median of 64% (range: 1.7–72.2%) [ 11 , 27 , 41 ], followed by ACEIs/ARBs, with a median of 49.5% (range: 2.5-70%) [ 11 , 27 , 41 ] and steroids with a median of 45% (range: 25.3-69.3% as sum of oral prednisone and intravenous methylprednisolone) [ 11 , 27 , 41 ].

In South Korea, 3 publications on adult IgAN patients [ 64 , 68 , 71 ] (Table  1 ) and 1 publication among pediatric patients [ 73 ] (Table  2 ) were identified. Among adults, ACEIs/ARBs were the most common treatments (27.7-83.4%) [ 68 , 71 , 73 ], followed by ACEIs/ARBs and corticosteroid combinations (33.9%) [ 64 ] and corticosteroids alone (12.4-28.8%) [ 68 , 71 , 73 ]. Among pediatric patients, the frequency of immunosuppressant use was 50.2% [ 73 ].

In Japan, 7 publications reported IgAN treatment patterns among adults [ 50 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 ] (Table  1 ) and 2 publications [ 49 , 54 ] among pediatric patients (Table  2 ). Among adults, ACEIs/ARBs were the most common treatment (25-99.6%) [ 50 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 ], followed by antiplatelet agents (58.1-96.8%) [ 54 ] and corticosteroid-immunosuppressant combination therapy (1.5-74%) [ 62 ]. Notably, the rate of administering steroid-immunosuppressant combination was only 1.5% in a retrospective cohort study that sampled 1,012 IgAN patients with a mean age of 32.96 ± 12 years [ 56 ]. Among pediatric patients, ACEIs/ARBs were the most frequently administered treatments (0.9-95.7%) [ 49 , 54 ], followed by antiplatelet agents (range: 1.2-82.6%) [ 49 , 54 ] and immunosuppressants (range: 4.6-68.5%) [ 49 ]. The frequency of administering treatments varied greatly across different subgroups. For example, the frequency of administering ACEIs/ARBs ranged from 0.9% for the diffuse mesangial proliferation subgroup ( n  = 108) to 50.9% for the focal mesangial proliferation subgroup ( n  = 173) in 1 retrospective study in Japanese children with IgAN from 1990 to 2004 [ 49 ]. Tonsillectomy or tonsillectomy combined with steroid was mostly reported in Japanese studies, with frequencies ranging from 1 to 66.2% across publications (Table  1 ). This is in accordance with the KDIGO 2021 guidelines’ evidence that supports the routine use of tonsillectomy in Japanese high-risk patients with IgAN [ 1 ]. No publications reporting IgAN treatment patterns were identified for Taiwan or Australia.

Humanistic burden

Four publications in China reported QoL, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) [ 16 , 25 ], Daily Living Ability Rating Scale (DLARS) [ 37 ], and QoL scale (QOLs) combined with Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) [ 38 ]. SF-36 scores reflect physical and mental health based on 8 health concepts, including physical and social functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, mental health, vitality, bodily pain, and general health (GH) perception [ 82 ]. Two publications evaluated the effects of individualized nursing intervention (INI, one improved nursing intervention which costs more time than routine nursing intervention [RNI]) on the psychological mood and QoL among IgAN patients [ 16 , 25 ]. There were two subgroups, the patients in the control group received RNI and patients in the intervention group received INI [ 16 , 25 ]. The mean GH score was 32.16 [ 16 ] among total IgAN patients ( n  = 98; mean age: 32.74 years; male percentage: 50%) in 2017 and 80.15 increasing from 69.93 at baseline [ 25 ] after intervention among total IgAN patients ( n  = 84; mean age: 33.57 years; male percentage: 60.7%) in 2019. In both publications, the intervention groups had higher mean GH scores than that in the control groups (39.47 vs. 24.84 [ 16 ] and 85.73 vs. 74.56 [ 25 ], respectively). Two other prospective studies assessed the effect of INI for IgAN patients [ 37 , 38 ]. Results showed that both mean DLARS and QOLs scores were higher among the intervention group compared to the control group (88.5 vs. 75.7 and 39.5 vs. 24.8, respectively) [ 37 , 38 ]. SAS and SDS scores were also evaluated by Qi 2021 [ 38 ], the mean SAS score decreased more in the intervention group (49.2 ± 6.3 decreased from 62.1 ± 5.8) than that in the control group (57 ± 4.9 decreased from 62.4 ± 6.1) from baseline. Similarly, the mean SDS score decreased more in the intervention group (43.3 ± 5.2 decreased from 56.2 ± 6) than in the control group (52.6 ± 6.4 decreased from 57 ± 6.2) from baseline [ 38 ].

Economic burden

No publications reported indirect costs, but 3 retrospective studies reported hospitalization costs for IgAN patients in China (see Supplementary Figure S1 ) [ 12 , 20 , 47 ]. Hospitalization cost per patient per year is ¥14,900 ($2,252.12; exchange rate of Chinese Yuan [CNY] and US dollar in 2018 was 6.616 [ 83 ]) as reported by Zheng 2018 [ 20 ], and between ¥9,618 ($1,532.26; exchange rate of CNY and US dollar in 2015 is 6.227 [ 83 ]) and ¥10,019 ($1,608.96) as reported by Peng 2015 [ 12 ]. One large database study covering 54.1% of tertiary hospitals in 31 Chinese provinces from 2010 to 2015 reported a hospitalization cost of ¥8,000/$1,284.73 (¥6,000-¥12,000) [ 47 ]. Drug costs accounted for 28.39% of total hospitalization costs, followed by diagnostic testing costs [ 12 ]. Length of stay per patient per year in China ranged from 10 to 14.3 days across 3 publications [ 12 , 20 , 47 ].

To our knowledge, this is the first TLR to summarize the evidence on IgAN disease burden and treatment patterns in mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Australia. The findings of this review revealed evidence gaps in IgAN epidemiology and humanistic and economic burden. No incidence data was identified in South Korea; no mortality data was identified in Taiwan and Australia; no country/region-specific treatment guidelines were found for Taiwan, South Korea, or Australia; no evidence on treatment patterns from the publications was identified for Taiwan or Australia; and no humanistic burden or economic data was identified except for mainland China.

The IgAN incidence rates among Japanese, Taiwanese, and Australian populations ranged from 0 to 10.7 per 100,000 people per year, higher than the incidence rate reported in a recent systematic literature review (SLR) by Kwon 2021 [ 84 ] (1.29 per 100,000 people per year). Kwon 2021 [ 84 ] is an SLR focusing on US epidemiology, health-related QoL, and the economic burden of IgAN (the included studies were published from January 2010 to June 2020), similar to our study’s objective. Incidence rates among children and teenagers (0-4.5 per 100,000 per year) were similar to the incidence rate in Venezuela (0.03 per 100,000 per year) [ 85 ] and in Italy (0.31 per 100,000 per year) [ 86 ]. The overall prevalence and diagnosis rates of IgAN were similar across selected countries/regions. The diagnosis rates in this review differed from those found in PGN patients and patients who received renal biopsy in Kwon 2021 [ 84 ]; diagnosis rates of IgAN from our results were higher in PGN patients compared with patients who received renal biopsies since renal biopsies were often performed on PGN patients before diagnosis. This applied to both adult and pediatric populations. Compared to the US population in Kwon 2021 [ 84 ], the diagnosis rate among PGN populations in this review was higher (26-72.1% vs. 9.4-19.7%). The diagnosis rate among populations with renal biopsies was also higher (6.3-61.9% vs. 6.3-14.3%). Notably, though not covered by this review, the pathological profile such as Oxford Classification/MEST classification could also shed light upon disease burden, which could be further explored by future studies.

IgAN treatments primarily consisted of ACEIs/ARBs, and high utilization of steroids was found despite mixed evidence on their benefits and safety. There is limited data on IgAN treatment patterns from Taiwan and Australia. Among the publications that reported treatment patterns, few specified drugs’ generic names. The primary treatment patterns reported among select countries/regions in this study are similar to those in US as reported by Kwon 2021 (frequently used therapies were immunosuppressives, corticosteroids, and ACEIs/ARBs) [ 84 ]. Immunosuppressives were used more by children than adults based on data from mainland China, South Korea, and Japan. According to the KDIGO guideline regarding glomerular diseases, the immunosuppressive therapies including azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, calcineurin inhibitors, and rituximab are not recommended for treating IgAN. Mycophenolate mofetil is recommended in Chinese patients and tonsillectomy is recommended to be used in Japanese IgAN patients [ 1 ]. Only Chinese studies reporting SF-36 scores and other metrics were identified. Therefore, more studies on QoL in IgAN patients and caregivers in other regions are warranted.

Evidence of economic burden was identified only from studies in mainland China; Li 2018 was one retrospective national inpatient database study, which included the major hospitals that covers multiple geographic locations [ 47 ], other two studies used the data from one hospital. The mean cost per patient per year reported by Li 2018 is $1,284.73, while one Canadian retrospective study for costs and healthcare resource utilization reported a mean outpatient medication cost per patient per year of Canadian dollar (CAD) $221 in 2016 [ 87 ]. To control medical costs, hospitals in China are undergoing clinical pathway optimization programs [ 12 ].

Publications reported heterogeneous sample populations where IgAN prevalence/diagnosis rates were evaluated. Among 22 publications that reported IgAN prevalence/diagnosis rates, 15 measured IgAN prevalence for patients who underwent renal biopsy and 9 measured IgAN prevalence for patients diagnosed with PGN. Heterogeneity in IgAN prevalence/diagnosis rates may be attributed to differences in study years, patient race/ethnicity, patient age, treatment method, risk factors, diagnosis, and follow-up duration. Other study design–related factors that could introduce bias include sample size and gender composition.

Finally, differences in IgAN prevalence across regions should be noted. County/region-specific healthcare infrastructure and policies influence the epidemiological evidence of IgAN. systematic urine screening programs among individuals with asymptomatic, persistent microscopic hematuria with/without mild proteinuria are commonly implemented in certain countries/regions. These programs facilitate detection of IgAN patients who would otherwise receive a delayed diagnosis or none at all. Countries/regions where screening programs are performed may therefore have higher reported IgAN prevalence. Screening programs play a crucial role in early diagnosis and early treatment [ 88 ].

To our knowledge, this is the first TLR for IgAN in mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Australia. However, several limitations should be noted. Due to the targeted nature of this review, the search focused on the most relevant literature, and the publications included in this study were prioritized, which potentially have led to an incomplete picture of IgAN-related epidemiology, treatment patterns and disease burden. Across included publications, the sample sizes varied widely and were not always reported. Additionally, this TLR did not weigh the data from included publications; therefore, biases should be considered when comparing outcomes. Studies came from primarily single institutions, and national-level data was not always available for the selected countries/regions. Moreover, this review only covered select Asia-Pacific countries/regions; future reviews and studies in other countries and regions within Asia-Pacific are therefore warranted. Despite these limitations, the evidence gathered in this literature review may help provide a preliminary understanding of the disease burden of IgAN in the Asia-Pacific region.

This TLR summarized evidence on Immunoglobulin type A nephropathy (IgAN) prevalence, treatment patterns, and humanistic and economic burden. Our results suggest that despite the overall scarcity of information in general, evidence on disease burden and treatment patterns has been reported by some studies and several clinical guidelines. The prevalence of IgAN among the general population is not commonly available, while that among patients receiving renal biopsies and diagnosed with PGN is more frequently reported. Heterogeneity in prevalence rates across geographic regions might be explained by differences in initial diagnosis in some regions due to variation in local screening policy and disease management. There is a need to understand how the disease progression differs by those practices. Treatment patterns have been reported mainly in studies from some Asia areas, but geographic variations are noticeable. There is also a need to generate more evidence to shed light upon the possible explanation to the differences in the treatment patterns across geographic regions. In sum, more real-world studies at national levels across select countries/regions are warranted to fill the evidence gaps, particularly regarding incidence, humanistic burden, and economic burden.

The prevalence of IgA nephropathy among the general population in select APAC countries/regions is not commonly available, despite evidence from studies and clinical guidelines. In addition, it is observed across geographic regions that heterogeneity exists in prevalence rates, and large variations exist in treatment patterns. Future studies are needed to fill in these gaps to understand the contributing factors behind the differences through population-based, multi-center, and real-world studies.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

Acute nephritic syndrome

Asia Pacific

Angiotensin receptor blockers

Canadian dollar

Chronic kidney disease

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

Chronic nephrotic syndrome

Chinese Yuan

Cyclophosphamide

Daily Living Ability Rating Scale

Diffuse mesangial proliferation

Excerpta Medica Database

End-stage kidney failure

Focal mesangial proliferation

General health

Individualized nursing intervention

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes

Korean Information Service System

Mycophenolate mofetil

Not reported

Nephritis syndrome

Primary glomerulonephritis

Population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and study design

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Quality assessment

Routine nursing intervention

Rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis

Self-Rating Anxiety Scale

Standard deviation

Self-Rating Depression Scale

36-Item Short Form Health Survey

Systematic literature review

Targeted literature review

Taiwan Society of Nephrology

Working Group for National Survey on Status of Diagnosis and Treatment of Childhood Renal Diseases

Kidney Disease. Improving global outcomes (KDIGO) Glomerular Diseases Work Group. KDIGO 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of glomerular diseases. Kidney Int. 2021;100(4S):S1–276.

Google Scholar  

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. IgA nephropathy [Available from: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/kidney-disease/iga-nephropathy .

Schena FP, Nistor I. Epidemiology of IgA nephropathy: a global perspective. Semin Nephrol. 2018;38(5):435–42.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hassler JR. IgA nephropathy: a brief review. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2020;37(3):143–7.

Zhang H. KDIGO Zhinan Jiedu: IgA shenbing zhiliao[KDIGO guideline interpretation: treatment of IgA nephropathy. Chin J Practical Intern Medicine]. 2012;32(12):925–7.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Jarrick S, Lundberg S, Welander A, Carrero JJ, Hoijer J, Bottai M, et al. Mortality in IgA nephropathy: a nationwide population-based cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(5):866–76.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adejumo OA, Iyawe IO, Akinbodewa AA, Abolarin OS, Alli EO. Burden, psychological well-being and quality of life of caregivers of end stage renal disease patients. Ghana Med J. 2019;53(3):190–6.

Woo KT, Chan CM, Mooi CY, LC H, Tan HK, Foo M, et al. The changing pattern of primary glomerulonephritis in Singapore and other countries over the past 3 decades. Clin Nephrol. 2010;74(5):372–83.

Coppo R. Pediatric IgA Nephropathy in Europe. Kidney Dis (Basel). 2019;5(3):182–8.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 2009.

Working Group for National Survey on Status Diagnosis and Treatment of Childhood Renal Diseases. [Multicenter investigation of therapeutic status of children with IgA nephropathy in China]. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2013;51(7):486–90.

Peng Q, Xu G, Zhang C, Fang P. Wuhan Mou sanjia Yiyuan IgA shenbing Shen Chuanci huojian huanzhe linchuang lujing shishi xiaoguo pingjia[Evaluation of clinical pathway implementation effect in patients with IgA nephropathy renal puncture biopsy in a tertiary hospital in Wuhan]. Med Soc. 2015;28(10):18–20.

Zhu Z, Zou Q, Chen Y, Hu F, Bai J, Chao Q, et al. 224 Li Shen Huoti Zuzhi Jiancha De Linchuang lujing Yu Bingli fenxi[Analysis of the clinical pathway and pathologic features of 224 cases of renal biopsy]. Huaxi Med. 2016;31(5):845–9.

Tang L, Yao J, Kong X, Sun Q, Wang Z, Zhang Y, et al. Increasing prevalence of membranous nephropathy in patients with primary glomerular diseases: a cross-sectional study in China. Nephrol (Carlton). 2017;22(2):168–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Zhou S, Fu J, Liu M, Yang S, Zhou Q, Yu X, et al. The prevalence and risk factors of abnormal circadian blood pressure in patients with IgA nephropathy. Clin Nephrol. 2017;88(12):344–53.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lu H, Xiao L, Lu X, Liang J. Gexinghua huli moshi dui IgA shenbing huanzhe qingxu ji shenghuo zhiliang yingxiang de yanjiu [The effect of personalized nursing mode on the emotion and quality of life of patients with IgA nephropathy]. Contemp Med. 2017;23(5):30–3.

Wang N, Zhu T, Tao Y. Clinicopathological features of pediatric renal biopsies in the plateau regions of China. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(11):4539–46.

Nie S, He W, Huang T, Liu D, Wang G, Geng J, et al. The spectrum of biopsy-proven glomerular diseases among children in China: a national, cross-sectional survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(7):1047–54.

Zhou Q, Yang X, Wang M, Wang H, Zhao J, Bi Y, et al. Changes in the diagnosis of glomerular diseases in east China: a 15-year renal biopsy study. Ren Fail. 2018;40(1):657–64.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zheng X, Zhang J, Lu C. Xinjiang Weiwuerzu Zizhiqu renmin Yiyuan 2012 ~ 2017nian manxing shenzangbing huanzhe de jibing goucheng ji yiliao feiyong de hengduanmian diaocha [Disease composition and medical expenses of chronic kidney disease in people’s hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region from 2012 to 2017: a cross-sectional survey]. Chin J Evid-Based Med. 2018;18(9):903–6.

Nie P, Chen R, Luo M, Dong C, Chen L, Liu J et al. Clinical and pathological analysis of 4910 patients who received renal biopsies at a single center in Northeast China. Biomed Res Int 26 Mar 2019;2019:6869179.

Su S, Yu J, Wang Y, Wang Y, Li J, Xu Z. Clinicopathologic correlations of renal biopsy findings from northeast China: a 10-year retrospective study. Med (Baltim). 2019;98(23):e15880.

Cai Q, Shi S, Wang S, Ren Y, Hou W, Liu L, et al. Microangiopathic lesions in IgA nephropathy: a cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;74(5):629–39.

Chen L, Luodelete M, Dong C, Li B, Zhang W, Nie P, et al. Pathological spectrum of glomerular disease in patients with renal insufficiency: a single-center study in northeastern China. Ren Fail. 2019;41(1):473–80.

Huang L. Tanjiu dui huanyou butong dengji IgAshenbing de huanzhe yuyi gexinghua huli ganyu duiyu xinli qingxu ji shenghuo zhiliang de yingxiang [Investigation of the effect of personalized nursing interventions on psychological, emotional and quality of life in patients with different grades of IgA nephropathy (IgAN)]. J Gen Pract Dentistry (Electronic Version). 2019;6(25):110–4.

Tian S, Yang X, Luo J, Guo H. Clinical and prognostic significance of C1q deposition in IgAN patients-a retrospective study. Int Immunopharmacol. 2020;88:106896.

Wu H, Xia Z, Gao C, Zhang P, Yang X, Wang R, et al. The correlation analysis between the Oxford classification of Chinese IgA nephropathy children and renal outcome– a retrospective cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):247.

Liu Y, Wei W, Yu C, Xing L, Wang M, Liu R, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for progression in Chinese patients with IgA nephropathy. Med Clin (Barc). 2021;157(6):267–73.

Wen D, Tang Y, Tan L, Tan J, Chen D, Zhang Y, et al. Sex disparities in IgA nephropathy: a retrospective study in Chinese patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53(2):315–23.

Nie P, Lou Y, Wang Y, Bai X, Zhang L, Jiang S, et al. Clinical and pathological analysis of renal biopsies of elderly patients in Northeast China: a single-center study. Ren Fail. 2021;43(1):851–9.

Feng S, Wang L, Liu X, Luo W, Xie M, Yang Q. 1002 li manxing shenzangbing huaner linchuang Ji Bingli fenxi[Clinical and pathological analysis of 1002 children with chronic kidney disease]. J Clin Pediatr. 2021;39(02):87–90.

Zhu L, Huang X, Zhang J, Li W, Chen E, Guo N. 102 Li Yizhishen IgA shenbing de huli tihui [Nursing experience of 102 cases of IgA nephropathy in transplanted kidneys]. Gen Pract Nurs. 2021;19(04):513–5.

Xu Z, Xiong Z. 3554 li shenzang bingli yu linchuang xiangguanxing fenxi [Analysis of renal pathology and clinical correlation in 3554 cases] [Shuoshi, https://doi.org/10.26921/d.cnki.ganyu.2021.001127] : M.S., Anhui Medical University; 2021.

Zhang P, Chen Z, Liu M. Huizhoushi dayawan diqu xuelingqian ertong niaoye shaicha fenxi [Analysis of urine screening in preschool children in Dayawan, Huizhou]. World’s Newest Med Inform Digest. 2021;21(84).

Yang D, Xie Y, He Z, Li Y, Li C. Qinhuangdaoshi 1459 Li xueling ertong shenzang jibing linchuang Yu Bingli fenxi [Clinical and pathological analysis of 1459 cases of renal disease in school-age children in Qinhuangdao]. Chin Healing Med. 2021;30(06):640–3.

Shang R, Zhu Y, Lin Z, Ma D, Ma Y, Ji M, et al. Yu Qiong liangdi yuanfaxing shenxiaoqiubing bingli leixing de bianqian duibi ji linchuang fenxi[Comparison and clinical analysis of pathological types of primary glomerular diseases in North Henan and Hainan]. J Clin Nephrol. 2021;21(2):111–8.

Lu X. Zhendui butong fenji IgA shenbing huanzhe kaizhan gexinghua huli moshi de linchuang xiaoguo guancha [Clinical effects of personalized care model for patients with different grades of IgA nephropathy]. Essent Health Readings. 2021;8:125.

Qi S. Zhendui butong fenji IgA shenbing kaizhan gexinghua huli moshi de linchuang xiaoguo guancha [Clinical effects of personalized care model for patients with different grades of IgA nephropathy]. Diet Health Care. 2021;8.

Pan Q, Ye Z, Zeng C, Ning W. Feishenbingxing tefaxing moxing shenbing Yu feishenbingxing IgA shenbing de linchuang tedian bijiao [Clinical comparative analysis of non-nephrotic idiopathic membranous nephropathy and non-nephrotic IgA nephropathy]. Anhui Med. 2021;25(2):268–70.

Xiao L, Wang J, Zhang M, He X, Gao J, Xi C. Yufangxing kangning zai budui guanbing shenbing zonghezheng zhiliao zhong de yingyong xiaoguo yanjiu [Study on the effect of preventive anticoagulation in the treatment of nephrotic syndrome in army officers and soldiers]. Northwest J De?F Med. 2021;42(01):30–6.

Zhao JL, Wang JJ, Huang GP, Feng CY. Primary IgA nephropathy with nephrotic-range proteinuria in Chinese children. Med (Baltim). 2021;100(21):e26050.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Le W, Liang S, Deng K, Hu Y, Zeng C, Liu D. 1126 li zhongguo hanzu chengren IgA shenbing huanzhe de changqi yuhou ji weixian yinsu fenxi [Long-term prognosis and risk factor analysis of 1126 Chinese Han adult patients with IgA nephropathy]. J Nephrol Dialysis Ren Transplantation. 2011;20(02):101–8.

Cen J, Hu H, Cheng Y, Liu Y, Wu S, Qin W, et al. Guangxi duominzu juju diqu dan zhongxin shenhuojian bingli ziliao ji minzu tedian fenxi [Pathological data of single-center kidney biopsy and analysis of ethnic characteristics in a multi-ethnic area of Guangxi]. J Chengdu Med Coll. 2021;16(04):482–5.

Yang J, Zhang L, Wang Y. Manxing Shenzangbing Shen Chuanci huojian bingli tezheng fenxi [Analysis of pathological features of renal puncture biopsy in chronic kidney disease]. Tibetan Med. 2021;42(05):49–51.

Duan Y, Lie C, Zhang L, AYiJiaKen K, Guo W, Li Y, et al. Xinjiang Weiwuer Zizhiqu 10 684 Li Shen huojian bingli ziliao Yu Liuxingbingxue tedian fenxi [Analysis of pathological data and epidemiological characteristics of 10 684 kidney biopsies in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region]. Chin J Nephrol. 2021;37(06):490–8.

Gu C, Li Q, Liang W, Bi H, Xie M, Wu D. Guilin he jining liangsuo yiyuan 1370 Li Shen huojian jibing fenbu tezheng [Characteristics of disease distribution in 1370 kidney biopsies from two hospitals in Guilin and Jining]. J Cent South Univ (Medical Edition). 2021;46(09):974–82.

Li J, Cui Z, Long J, Huang W, Wang J, Zhang H, et al. Primary glomerular nephropathy among hospitalized patients in a national database in China. Nephrology, Dialysis, transplantation: Official Publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association -. Eur Ren Association. 2018;33(12):2173–81.

Chen S, Tang Z, Xiang H, Li X, Chen H, Zhang H, et al. Etiology and outcome of crescentic glomerulonephritis from a single center in China: a 10-year review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(3):376–83.

Yata N, Nakanishi K, Shima Y, Togawa H, Obana M, Sako M, et al. Improved renal survival in Japanese children with IgA nephropathy. Pediatr Nephrol. 2008;23(6):905–12.

Goto M, Wakai K, Kawamura T, Ando M, Endoh M, Tomino Y. A scoring system to predict renal outcome in IgA nephropathy: a nationwide 10-year prospective cohort study. Nephrology, Dialysis, transplantation: Official Publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association -. Eur Ren Association. 2009;24(10):3068–74.

Yamamoto R, Nagasawa Y, Shoji T, Iwatani H, Hamano T, Kawada N, et al. Cigarette smoking and progression of IgA nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;56(2):313–24.

Yokoyama H, Sugiyama H, Sato H, Taguchi T, Nagata M, Matsuo S, et al. Renal disease in the elderly and the very elderly Japanese: analysis of the Japan Renal Biopsy Registry (J-RBR). Clin Exp Nephrol. 2012;16(6):903–20.

Komatsu H, Kikuchi M, Nakagawa H, Fukuda A, Iwakiri T, Toida T, et al. Long-term survival of patients with IgA nephropathy after dialysis therapy. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2013;37(6):649–56.

Matsuzaki K, Suzuki Y, Nakata J, Sakamoto N, Horikoshi S, Kawamura T, et al. Nationwide survey on current treatments for IgA nephropathy in Japan. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2013;17(6):827–33.

Sugiyama H, Yokoyama H, Sato H, Saito T, Kohda Y, Nishi S, et al. Japan Renal Biopsy Registry and Japan kidney Disease Registry: Committee Report for 2009 and 2010. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2013;17(2):155–73.

Moriyama T, Tanaka K, Iwasaki C, Oshima Y, Ochi A, Kataoka H, et al. Prognosis in IgA nephropathy: 30-year analysis of 1,012 patients at a single center in Japan. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e91756.

Sato R, Joh K, Komatsuda A, Ohtani H, Okuyama S, Togashi M, et al. Validation of the Japanese histologic classification 2013 of immunoglobulin A nephropathy for prediction of long-term prognosis in a Japanese single-center cohort. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2015;19(3):411–8.

Oshima Y, Moriyama T, Itabashi M, Takei T, Nitta K. Characteristics of IgA nephropathy in advanced-age patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(1):137–45.

Hattori M, Iwano M, Sako M, Honda M, Okada H, Akioka Y, et al. Transition of adolescent and young adult patients with childhood-onset chronic kidney disease from pediatric to adult renal services: a nationwide survey in Japan. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2016;20(6):918–25.

Kaihan AB, Yasuda Y, Katsuno T, Kato S, Imaizumi T, Ozeki T, et al. The Japanese histologic classification and T-score in the Oxford classification system could predict renal outcome in Japanese IgA nephropathy patients. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2017;21(6):986–94.

Kajiwara N, Hayashi K, Fujiwara M, Nakayama H, Ozaki Y. Identification of children with chronic kidney disease through school urinary screening using urinary protein/creatinine ratio measurement: an observational study. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2020;24(5):450–7.

Miyabe Y, Karasawa K, Akiyama K, Ogura S, Takabe T, Sugiura N, et al. Grading system utilising the total score of Oxford classification for predicting renal prognosis in IgA nephropathy. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):3584.

Utsunomiya Y, Koda T, Kado T, Okada S, Hayashi A, Kanzaki S, et al. Incidence of pediatric IgA nephropathy. Pediatr Nephrol. 2003;18(6):511–5.

Lee S, Choi S, Se-bin S, Kyunghwan J, Taewon L. Relative risk factors of prognosis in IgA nephropathy patients with depressed renal functions. Korean J Nephrol. 2010;29(2):198–207.

Lee H, Kim DK, Oh KH, Joo KW, Kim YS, Chae DW, et al. Mortality of IgA nephropathy patients: a single center experience over 30 years. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e51225.

Lee Ha-Jung. Long-term patient and renal survivals and their predictable factor analyses in IgA nephropathy patients [Thesis]: College of Medicine, Seoul National University; 2012.

Cho BS, Hahn WH, Cheong HI, Lim I, Ko CW, Kim SY, et al. A nationwide study of mass urine screening tests on Korean school children and implications for chronic kidney disease management. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2013;17(2):205–10.

Lee H, Kim DK, Oh KH, Joo KW, Kim YS, Chae DW, et al. Mortality and renal outcome of primary glomerulonephritis in Korea: observation in 1,943 biopsied cases. Am J Nephrol. 2013;37(1):74–83.

Bae HJ, Moon KR, Kim YJ, Choi DE, Na KR, Lee KW, et al. Clinical and histopathological analysis of the kidney biopsies of 2,450 patients seen over 30 years at Chungnam National University Hospital. Korean J Med. 2015;84(3):379–88.

Jeong EG, Hyoun S, Lee SM, An WS, Kim SE, Son YK. Clinical outcomes of nephrotic syndrome in immunoglobulin a nephropathy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplantation. 2017;28(6):1314–20.

Kee YK, Yoon CY, Kim SJ, Moon SJ, Kim CH, Park JT, et al. Determination of the optimal target level of proteinuria in the management of patients with glomerular diseases by using different definitions of proteinuria. Med (Baltim). 2017;96(44):e8154.

Shin HS, Cho DH, Kang SK, Kim HJ, Kim SY, Yang JW, et al. Patterns of renal disease in South Korea: a 20-year review of a single-center renal biopsy database. Ren Fail. 2017;39(1):540–6.

Suh JS, Jang KM, Hyun H, Cho MH, Lee JH, Park YS, et al. Remission of proteinuria may protect against progression to chronic kidney disease in pediatric-onset IgA nephropathy. J Clin Med. 2020;9(7):2058.

Chiu HF, Chen HC, Lu KC, Shu KH. Taiwan Society of Nephrology. Distribution of glomerular diseases in Taiwan: preliminary report of National Renal Biopsy Registry-publication on behalf of Taiwan Society of Nephrology. BMC Nephrol. 2018;19(1):6.

Yu MC, Lee F, Huang WH, Hsueh S. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided renal biopsy in children: the need for renal biopsy in pediatric patients with persistent asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. Biomedical J. 2014;37(6):391–7.

National Health Research Institute & Taiwan Society of Nephrology. 2019 Annual Report on Kidney Disease in Taiwan.

Jegatheesan D, Nath K, Reyaldeen R, Sivasuthan G, John GT, Francis L, et al. Epidemiology of biopsy-proven glomerulonephritis in Queensland adults. Nephrol (Carlton). 2016;21(1):28–34.

Briganti EM, Dowling J, Finlay M, Hill PA, Jones CL, Kincaid-Smith PS, et al. The incidence of biopsy-proven glomerulonephritis in Australia. Nephrology, Dialysis, transplantation: Official Publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association. - Eur Ren Association. 2001;16(7):1364–7.

Lee AYS, Lin M-W. Do IgA nephropathy presentations display any seasonality? J Nephropathology. 2021;10(3):e33–e.

Subspecialty Group of Renal Diseases of the Society of Pediatrics Chinese Medical Association. [Evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of primary IgA nephropathy (2016)]. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2017;55(9):643–6.

[Health, Labor and Welfare Scientific Research Grant Policy Research Project for Intractable Diseases. (Intractable Disease Policy Research Project)].[IgA Nephropathy 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines].[Tokyo Igakusha]. 2021.

LoMartire R, Ang BO, Gerdle B, Vixner L. Psychometric properties of short Form-36 Health Survey, EuroQol 5-dimensions, and hospital anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with chronic pain. Pain. 2020;161(1):83–95.

OECD. Conversion rates - Exchange rates - OECD Data [Available from: http://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm .

Kwon CS, Daniele P, Forsythe A, Ngai C. A systematic literature review of the epidemiology, health-related quality of life impact, and economic burden of immunoglobulin A nephropathy. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2021;8(2):36–45.

Orta-Sibu N, Lopez M, Moriyon JC, Chavez JB. Renal diseases in children in Venezuela, South America. Pediatr Nephrol. 2002;17(7):566–9.

Coppo R, Gianoglio B, Porcellini MG, Maringhini S. Frequency of renal diseases and clinical indications for renal biopsy in children (report of the Italian National Registry of Renal biopsies in Children). Group of Renal Immunopathology of the Italian Society of Pediatric Nephrology and Group of Renal Immunopathology of the Italian Society of Nephrology. Nephrology, Dialysis, transplantation: Official Publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association -. Eur Ren Association. 1998;13(2):293–7.

Barbour S, Lo C, Espino-Hernandez G, Sajjadi S, Feehally J, Klarenbach S, et al. The population-level costs of immunosuppression medications for the treatment of glomerulonephritis are increasing over time due to changing patterns of practice. Nephrology, Dialysis, transplantation: Official Publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association -. Eur Ren Association. 2018;33(4):626–34.

Shen P, He L, Li Y, Wang Y, Chan M. Natural history and prognostic factors of IgA nephropathy presented with isolated microscopic hematuria in Chinese patients. Nephron Clin Pract. 2007;106(4):c157–61.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was presented as an abstract at the ISN World Congress of Nephrology 2022 meeting.

This work was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

OPEN Health, Boston, MA, USA

OPEN Health, Shanghai, China

Fen Du & Zhaoli Tang

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., NJ, Princeton, USA

Sandipan Bhattacharjee & Kristin Pareja

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Research conception and/or design: Kristin Pareja, Sandipan Bhattacharjee, Omer Zaidi, Fen Du, and Zhaoli Tang; Literature searching strategy: Omer Zaidi, Fen Du, and Zhaoli Tang; literature screening and data extraction and analysis: Fen Du and Zhaoli Tang; All authors were involved in the drafting and /or substantial revision of manuscript; All authors accept accountability for their contributions and agree as a condition of authorship to ensure resolution of questions about the work. All authors approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Pareja .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Kristin Pareja and Sandipan Bhattacharjee are employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ, United States. Omer Zaidi, Fen Du, and Zhaoli Tang are employees of OPEN Health and were paid consultants by Otsuka.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Additional information, publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zaidi, O., Du, F., Tang, Z. et al. Review on epidemiology, disease burden, and treatment patterns of IgA nephropathy in select APAC countries. BMC Nephrol 25 , 136 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03555-5

Download citation

Received : 21 April 2023

Accepted : 21 March 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03555-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• IgA nephropathy
• Epidemiology
• Disease burden

BMC Nephrology

ISSN: 1471-2369

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

Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination and Intramuscular Vaccine Administration

Vaccines are a public health success story, as they have prevented or lessened the effects of many infectious diseases. To address concerns around potential vaccine injuries, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provide compensation to those who assert that they were injured by routine vaccines or medical countermeasures, respectively. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have contributed to the scientific basis for VICP compensation decisions for decades.

HRSA asked the National Academies to convene an expert committee to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence about the relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and specific adverse events, as well as intramuscular administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. This report outlines the committee findings and conclusions.

Read Full Description

• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of the Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination
• Digital Resource: Evidence Review of Shoulder Injuries from Intramuscular Administration of Vaccines
• Press Release

Recent News

Space Environmentalism: Toward a Circular Economy Approach for Orbital Space

The Challenge of Predicting Climate Migration

Celebrating Earth Day with the National Academies

Rohr Named U.S. Winner of Frontiers Planet Prize

• Load More...

• Case Report
• Open access
• Published: 24 April 2024

Congenital dislocation of the knee complicated with bilateral hip dislocation: a case report and literature review

• Bohai Qi   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-0097-9804 1 , 2 ,
• Qiang Jie 1 , 2 ,
• Xiaowei Wang 1 , 2 ,
• Qingda Lu 1 , 2 ,
• Fei Su 1 , 2 &
• Yating Yang 1 , 2  

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume  25 , Article number:  327 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Congenital dislocation of the knee is characterised by excessive knee extension or dislocation and anterior subluxation of the proximal tibia, and this disease can occur independently or coexist with different systemic syndromes. Nevertheless, significant controversy surrounds treating this disease when combined with hip dislocation. This paper presents a case of a 4-month-old patient diagnosed with bilateral hip dislocation combined with this disease. The study discusses the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment methods and reviews relevant literature.

Case presentation

We reported a case of a 4-month-old female infant with congenital dislocation of the right knee joint, which presented as flexion deformity since birth. Due to limitations in local medical conditions, she did not receive proper and effective diagnosis and treatment. Although the flexion deformity of her right knee joint partially improved without treatment, it did not fully recover to normal. When she was 4 months old, she came to our hospital for consultation, and we found that she also had congenital dislocation of both hip joints and atrial septal defect. We performed staged treatment for her, with the first stage involving surgical intervention and plaster orthosis for her congenital dislocation of the right knee joint, and the second stage involving closed reduction and plaster fixation orthosis for her congenital hip joint dislocation. Currently, the overall treatment outcome is satisfactory, and she is still under follow-up observation.

Conclusions

Early initiation of treatment is generally advised, as nonsurgical methods prove satisfactory for mild cases. However, surgical intervention should be considered in cases with severe stiffness, unresponsive outcomes to conservative treatment, persistent deformities, or diagnoses and treatments occurring beyond the first month after birth.

Peer Review reports

Congenital dislocation of the knee (CDK) is an uncommon congenital malformation. The clinical manifestations of this disease were initially documented by a 19th-century French surgeon, Guillaume Dupuytren, in 1834, identifying it as a condition characterized by congenital knee dislocation. The estimated incidence of this condition is approximately 1/100,000 [ 1 , 2 ]; prenatal ultrasound can confirm the diagnosis at approximately 20 weeks of gestation [ 3 ].

The patient is a female infant aged 4 months and 17 days, presenting limited movement and reverse flexion of the right knee joint since birth. On physical examination, bilateral asymmetry was observed in the thigh folds, approximately equal length of lower extremities, and bilateral prominent tuberosity of the femur moving outward and upward in the posterior iliac region. Both hips demonstrated an adduction and abduction range of approximately 30°-0°-45°, with regular flexion and extension activities. Ottolani’s and Barlow’s signs were negative in both hips. The right knee exhibits hyperextension, external rotation deformity, and notable soft tissue contracture. There was no local redness, swelling, or tenderness. A stress test on both knees yields negative results for inside and outside movements. There is an observable restriction in proper knee movement, with a range of motion showing flexion of 45°, dorsal extension of -30°, and external rotation of 90°. The left knee and ankle joint display normal movement, as does bilateral toe activity (Fig.  1 ). Laboratory tests showed normal results.

Right knee joint ultrasound, lower extremity X-rays, and MRI of the right knee revealed right knee dislocation (Fig.  2 A-B). MRI of the hip demonstrated bilateral hip dislocation (Fig.  2 C). Cardiac ultrasound shows the presence of congenital heart disease, including an atrial septal defect. Diagnosis upon admission: (1) Type 2 congenital right knee dislocation, (2) Bilateralcongenital dislocation of the hip(CDH), (3) Congenital heart disease. Right quadriceps muscle lengthening (V-Y plasty), knee dislocation reduction, and postoperative right knee flexion 83° cast-type casting were performed under general anaesthesia (Fig.  3 ). The cast was removed five weeks after surgery, the flexion of both knees was close to 90°, and the flexion angle of the right knee was increased to continue fixation during bilateral hip dislocation closed reduction cast. The patient underwent two hip cast replacements over a period of four months in order to achieve hips stability and promote acetabular development. No specific complications were observed during the entire treatment course.Presently, the patient has been undergoing follow-up for 14 months and has begun learning to walk independently. It is worth noting that the right dislocation of knee has significantly cured. Despite the successful reduction of both hips, residual dysplasia of hip remains present. Overall, the treatment has produced satisfactory outcomes with no observed recurrence. Subsequently, further follow-up will be conducted.

Photos documenting the appearance of the extremities. The right tibia exhibits external rotation of approximately 90° ( A and B ), while the right knee presents hyperextension of approximately 30° ( C ) and flexion of approximately 45° ( D )

The full-length X-ray of the lower extremity revealed subluxation of the right knee joint, anterior shifting of the tibia, and external rotation ( A ). MRI of the right knee displayed significant anterior movement of the tibia in the right knee joint and a low and flat anterior cruciate ligament ( B ). MRI of the hip joint demonstrated superficial and flat bilateral acetabular development, with the bilateral femoral heads fully detached and displaced outward from the acetabular fossa ( C )

A longitudinal incision was made directly anterior to the distal right thigh, enabling the release and V-Y lengthening of the quadriceps muscle ( A ). Following quadriceps lengthening, the right knee achieved passive flexion of 90° ( B ). The right knee joint was repositioned with the proximal tibia in good alignment with the distal femur, and the right lower limb was immobilized in a tubular cast after flexion of the knee at 83°. ( C ); Removal of the cast at five weeks postoperatively, with the right knee flexed close to 90°, in closed resurfacing of bilateral developmental hip dislocation ( D ); Increase the angle of flexion of the right knee by approximately 20° and continue cast immobilization. ( E )

There is currently some controversy regarding the classification of CDK; in earlier studies [ 4 , 5 , 6 ], CDK was classified into three types by scholars based on the anatomical relationship between the distal femur and proximal tibia: type 1 represents congenital knee hyperextension, type 2 involves congenital knee hyperextension combined with anterior subluxation of the tibia relative to the femur, and type 3 encompasses congenital knee hyperextension deformity accompanied by complete anterior dislocation of the tibia relative to the femur (Fig.  4 ). Following birth, the diagnosis can be confirmed by assessing the distinctive deformity appearance and conducting standard lateral knee radiographs. Furthermore, CDK frequently presents with additional skeletal abnormalities in the limbs, including hip dysplasia or dislocation [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. There is another method of classification based on the degree of knee flexion. When the degree of knee flexion exceeds 90°, it is classified as Type I; when the degree of flexion is between 30° and 90°, it is classified as Type II; and when the degree of flexion is less than 30°, it is classified as Type III [ 10 ].

Moreover, Mehrafshan et al. [ 1 ] introduced a classification method that categorizes CDK into three types based on the criteria of reducibility and stability. Type I represents cases that are easily reducible and exhibit flexion stability, while Type II corresponds to stubborn dislocations that are reducible but unstable. Type III refers to irreducible dislocations.

Based on the anatomical relationship between the femur and tibia, our case is categorized as Type II; however, considering the challenges in reduction and stability, it may fall into Type I.

Note: Type 1: congenital knee hyperextension; Type 2: congenital knee subluxation; Type 3: congenital knee dislocation

The precise cause of CDK is currently unknown. However, contributing factors can be categorized into extrinsic factors resulting from abnormal intrauterine pressure caused by fetal malposition and intrinsic factors arising from genetic variations and neuromuscular imbalances [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. These viewpoints are supported by the consistent identification of quadriceps fibrosis in all cases. Bilateral CDK is predominantly linked to associated syndromes, including Larsen’s syndrome, Beals syndrome, Marfan’s syndrome, Ehlers‒Danlos syndrome, and myelomeningocele [ 1 , 13 , 14 ]. Several studies have reported that the likelihood of concurrent ipsilateral developmental hip dysplasia is 70%, while the probability of coexisting congenital clubfoot malformation is 50% [ 15 – 17 ].

Previous studies have indicated that isolated CDK is a rare anomaly, and most isolated cases exhibit a favorable prognosis, with excellent motor function of the lower limbs and ambulatory ability. Conversely, complex cases involving genetic syndromes or multiple anomalies generally have poor prognoses [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Moreover, there is a tendency for numerous malformations accompanied by developmental abnormalities affecting the upper extremities, face, digestive tract, and reproductive system. It is advisable to prioritize the treatment of CDK [ 19 ]. We report a case of unilateral CDK combined with bilateral CDH. In addition to the concurrent congenital atrial septal defect, no other abnormalities were identified. Hence, the potential accompanying syndrome has not been assessed, and no relevant genetic testing has been performed. In addition, we consider that hip dislocation may be congenital rather than developmental.

Research studies have indicated that the extent of ligament laxity in CDK cases is variable, particularly the cruciate ligament of the knee, which can be excessively elongated, shortened, or absent [ 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 ]. Specifically, in cases associated with laxity-related syndromes, bilateral absence of the cruciate ligament in the knee is more prevalent. Conversely, in isolated cases of CDK, unilateral absence of the knee cruciate ligament is commonly observed, and the knee joint experiences gradual stabilization following joint dislocation reduction. CDK involves various pathoanatomical relationships, such as those related to the posterolateral and posteromedial knee structures, hamstring tendons, and anterior subluxation of the iliotibial band [ 10 , 22 ]. In addition, there can be suprapatellar capsule atrophy, patellar dysplasia, and adhesions of the iliotibial band. Based on the combination of preoperative MRI and intraoperative observations, our case illustrates patellar infrapatellar contracture, adhesion of the iliotibial band, and shortening of the cruciate ligaments in the knee joint.

Before birth, the diagnosis can be confirmed through prenatal 3D or 4D ultrasound, typically performed around the 20th week of gestation [ 3 ]. By employing prenatal diagnosis, swiftly referring to adept pediatric orthopedic surgeons, and initiating early conservative treatment, the necessity of surgery can be significantly reduced and the efficacy of the treatment enhanced [ 18 ]. Following birth, the diagnosis is typically confirmed based on observing distinctive deformities, a physical examination, and conventional knee X-rays [ 23 ]. However, Type 1 (Type 2 in the reported case) may lack identifiable findings on X-rays, necessitating caution in the diagnosis [ 4 ].

Nonsurgical treatment is recommended for newborn cases whenever possible. Nonsurgical treatment involves gentle manual reduction and the application of continuous casting, starting with knee extension and gradually transitioning to knee flexion. The cast was changed every two weeks for 2–3 months. In cases of combined CDH, the Pavlik harness can be utilized concurrently [ 24 ]. The treatment should be prioritized in cases involving concurrent hip and foot deformities. This prioritization can lead to improved outcomes for hip and foot deformities [ 19 ].

Surgical intervention is typically deemed necessary when nonsurgical treatment proves ineffective, and it is crucial to complete the surgical procedure between 1.5 and 2 years of age [ 21 ]. However, there is a belief among some doctors that surgical intervention should occur before the baby initiates standing, ideally at approximately six months of age [ 4 ]. The classic procedure involves V-Y lengthening of the quadriceps muscle and release of the anterior joint capsule and surrounding adhesion tissue, enabling the affected knee joint to achieve a partial range of motion that may not be entirely normal [ 6 ]. Osteotomy of the femur or tibia may be necessary in confident older children. Furthermore, an alternative treatment approach has been proposed by another physician, involving the minimally invasive release of the quadriceps muscle through a small incision and subsequent casting. While short-term follow-up has shown promising corrective potential, the lack of long-term follow-up limits the assessment of its efficacy [ 25 ]. After a comprehensive evaluation, we used a series of soft tissue releases, such as quadriceps V-Y lengthening and plaster fixation, to achieve the orthopedic goal. To date, there is an effective correction of knee dislocation, a flexion angle of more than 90°, and no signs of redislocation.

CDK is a rare condition that typically exhibits a favorable prognosis in isolated cases but presents a generally poor prognosis when accompanied by multiple deformities [ 18 ]. However, a retrospective study involving 9 patients with at least 9 years of follow-up ,it was demonstrated that timely diagnosis and prompt initiation of suitable conservative treatment resulted in favorable long-term functional outcomes in the affected limbs, with few occurrences of complications and recurrence [ 26 ]. A retrospective study was conducted on 24 patients who received surgical treatment more than six months after birth. The knee was dislocated in 45 limbs; the hip was dislocated in 40 instances. It revealed that most cases with concurrent dislocation of the knee and hip joints achieved positive treatment outcomes through surgical intervention. Notably, patients presenting with ligament laxity exhibited even better efficacy. Furthermore, in a small number of cases, spontaneous reduction of hip dislocation was observed following corrective surgery for knee dislocation and subsequent recovery of knee flexion function [ 27 ].

We present a case report of delayed diagnosis with unilateral CDK (right) combined with bilateral CDH. The patient achieved favorable outcomes following surgical intervention for right knee.She is undergoing closed reduction and immobilization using a hip spica orthosis to address the bilateral hip dislocation. CDK can be readily detected in affected children at birth, as consistently reported by most researchers. Timely intervention proves effective in managing this condition. A comprehensive assessment of the newborn and any accompanying deformities upon delivery holds utmost importance, particularly in evaluating isolated or syndromic needs, the severity of knee dislocation, and the level of stiffness—such evaluations aid in determining the appropriate treatment approach, encompassing conservative and surgical interventions. Early initiation of treatment is generally advised, as nonsurgical methods prove satisfactory for mild cases. However, surgical intervention should be considered in cases with severe stiffness, unresponsive outcomes to conservative treatment, persistent deformities, or diagnoses and treatments occurring beyond the first month after birth.

Data availability

Data are available for review.

Abbreviations

Congenital dislocation of the knee

Congenital dislocation of the hip

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Mehrafshan M, Wicart P, Ramanoudjame M, et al. Congenital dislocation of the knee at birth – part I: clinical signs and classification. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(5):631–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.04.008 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Charif P, Reichelderfer TE. Genu recurvatum congenitum in the newborn: its incidence, course, treatment, prognosis. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1965;4(10):587–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/000992286500401006 .

Palco M, Rizzo P, Sanzarello I, et al. Congenital and bilateral dislocation of the knee: case report and review of literature. Orthop Rev. 2022;14(3):33926. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.33926 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferris B, Aichroth P. The treatment of congenital knee dislocation: a review of Nineteen Knees. Clin Orthop. 1987;Mar(216):135–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198703000-00021 .

Laurence M, GENU RECURVATUM CONGENITUMJ, Bone Joint. Surg Br. 1967;49–B(1):121–34. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.49B1.121 .

Curtis BH, Fisher RL. Congenital hyperextension with anterior subluxation of the knee. Surgical treatment and long-term observations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(2):255–69.

Naik PV. Management of congenital knee dislocation. Curr Orthop Pract. 2013;24(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0b013e31827ba3d5 .

Mahirogullari M, Pehlivan O, Kiral A, et al. Management of the bilateral congential dislocation of the hip and knee: a case report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006;126(9):634–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-005-0068-3 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Müller M, Strecker W. [Congenital knee dislocation in Larsen syndrome treated by arthroplasty]. Orthopade. 2010;39(4):444–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-009-1579-3 .

Abdelaziz TH, Samir S. Congenital dislocation of the knee: a protocol for management based on degree of knee flexion. J Child Orthop. 2011;5(2):143–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-011-0333-7 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yalaburgi SB. Congenital dislocation of the knee. A report of 5 cases. South Afr Med J Suid-Afr Tydskr Vir Geneeskd. 1981;59(22):804–6.

CAS   Google Scholar  

de Castro López MJ, Iglesias Deus A, Rodriguez Vidal A, et al. Knee dislocation in the delivery room. J Pediatr. 2014;165(4):871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.05.035 .

Morales-Roselló J, Loscalzo G, Hueso-Villanueva M, et al. Congenital knee dislocation, case report and review of the literature. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(4):809–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1731464 .

Lampasi M, Antonioli D, Donzelli O. Management of knee deformities in children with arthrogryposis. Musculoskelet Surg. 2012;96(3):161–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-012-0218-z .

Bensahel H, Dal Monte A, Hjelmstedt A, et al. Congenital dislocation of the knee. J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9(2):174–7.

Johnson E, Audell R, Oppenheim WL. Congenital dislocation of the knee. J Pediatr Orthop. 1987;7(2):194. https://doi.org/10.1097/01241398-198703000-00017 .

Cho T-J, Seo J-B, Lee HR, et al. Biologic characteristics of fibrous hamartoma from congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia associated with neurofibromatosis type 1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2735–44. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00014 .

Cavoretto PI, Castoldi M, Corbella G, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and postnatal outcome of fetal congenital knee dislocation: systematic review of literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26283 .

Youssef AO. Limited Open quadriceps Release for treatment of congenital dislocation of the knee. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017;37(3):192–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000612 .

Ooishi T, Sugioka Y, Matsumoto S, et al. Congenital dislocation of the knee. Its pathologic features and treatment. Clin Orthop. 1993;287:187–92.

Bell MJ, Atkins RM, Sharrard WJ. Irreducible congenital dislocation of the knee. Aetiology and management. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(3):403–6. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.69B3.3584194 .

Uhthoff HK, Ogata S. Early intrauterine presence of congenital dislocation of the knee. J Pediatr Orthop. 1994;14(2):254–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01241398-199403000-00023 .

Barber MA, Equiluz I, Plasencia W, et al. Prenatal features of genu recurvatum and genu flexum. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;105(3):267–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.01.015 .

Oetgen ME, Walick KS, Tulchin K, et al. Functional results after Surgical Treatment for congenital knee dislocation. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010;30(3):216–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181d48375 .

Shah NR, Limpaphayom N, Dobbs MB. A minimally invasive treatment protocol for the congenital dislocation of the knee. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(7):720–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181b7694d .

Salvador Marín J, Miranda Gorozarri C, Egea-Gámez RM, et al. Congenital knee dislocation. Therapeutic protocol and long-term functional results. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol Engl Ed. 2021;65(3):172–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2020.07.007 .

Singh BKAR, Shah KA. Surgical management of the congenital dislocation of the knee and hip in children presented after six months of age. Int Orthop. 2020;44(12):2635–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04759-8 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Xiaowei Wang MS, for editing the manuscript and for editorial assistance.

This work was supported by [The Shaanxi Provincial Clinical Medical Research Center Project-Innovation Capacity Support Program] (Grant numbers [2020LCZX-03]).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pediatric Orthopaedic Hospital, Honghui Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

Bohai Qi, Qiang Jie, Xiaowei Wang, Qingda Lu, Fei Su & Yating Yang

Xi’an Key Laboratory of Skeletal Deformity and Injury Repair, 555 Youyi East Road, Beilin District, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710021, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BHQ was involved in formulating the study’s protocol, data collection, and article production. The study was directed by XWW and QDL. Some of the data was acquired by FS and YTY. The study protocol was proposed by QJ, who also oversaw its execution and reviewed the manuscript. The article’s submission was reviewed and approved by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiang Jie .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This is an observational study. Our hospital’s Research Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from the parents included in the study.

Consent to publish

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for the publication of the images in all Figures. The written informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of subjects for publication.

Consent for publication

All the authors consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Qi, B., Jie, Q., Wang, X. et al. Congenital dislocation of the knee complicated with bilateral hip dislocation: a case report and literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25 , 327 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07316-1

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2023

Accepted : 27 February 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07316-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Congenital knee dislocation
• Classification

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

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

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Taylor Swift’s Tortured Poetry

By Amanda Petrusich

In the past several months, Taylor Swift has become culturally ubiquitous in a way that feels nearly terrifying. Superstardom tends to turn normal people into cartoons, projections, gods, monsters. Swift has been inching toward some sort of tipping point for a while. The most recent catalyst was, in part, love: in the midst of her record-breaking Eras Tour , Swift, who is thirty-four, began dating Travis Kelce , a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs. Whenever Swift appeared at one of Kelce’s games, the broadcasters whipped their extra-high-definition cameras toward her, sending legions of amateur lip-readers scrambling for their phones. I’m paid to give legibility to such things, and even I couldn’t help but think that we were crossing some sort of Rubicon with regard to our collective sanity. Swift was everywhere, beheld by everyone. She is one of the most streamed artists of all time on Spotify; Billboard reported that, at one point, she accounted for seven per cent of all vinyl sales in the U.S. Swift is a capable and hugely savvy businesswoman (a billionaire, in fact), yet I began to worry about her in a nearly maternal way: How could anyone survive that sort of scrutiny and retain her humanity? Detaching from reality can be lethal for a pop star, particularly one known for her Everygirl candor. I thought of the oft-memed bit from “Arrested Development,” in which Lucille Bluth, the oblivious matriarch, asks, “I mean, it’s one banana, Michael—what could it cost? Ten dollars?”

This month, Swift released “The Tortured Poets Department,” her eleventh studio album. She has now reached a level of virtuosity within her genre that feels nearly immutable—she’s too practiced, too masterly, to swing and really miss. But “The Tortured Poets Department” suffers from being too long (two hours after it was released, Swift announced a second disk, bringing the total number of tracks to thirty-one) and too familiar. Swift co-wrote most of the record with Jack Antonoff and with Aaron Dessner. (The two producers have oppositional melodic sensibilities: Antonoff sharpens Swift; Dessner softens her.) The new songs suggest that, after a decade, her partnership with Antonoff has perhaps run its course. The tracks written with Dessner are gentler, more tender, and more surprising. The raw and stirring “Robin” seems to address a child—either a very young Swift (the album contains several references to her hijacked youth, including “The Manuscript,” a sombre song about a relationship with an older man), or maybe a future son or daughter.

“The Tortured Poets Department” was released following the end of Swift’s six-year relationship with the actor Joe Alwyn, and the album is mostly about the utter unreliability of love—how bonkers it is that we build our entire lives around a feeling that can simply dissipate. “You said I’m the love of your life / About a million times,” Swift sings on “Loml,” a wrenching piano ballad. “You shit-talked me under the table, talking rings and talking cradles.” Shortly after Swift and Alwyn split, she reportedly had a fling with Matty Healy , the front man for the British rock band the 1975. (“I took the miracle move-on drug / The effects were temporary,” she sings on “Fortnight.”) Healy is a provocateur, prone to making loutish jokes; onstage, he smokes, eats raw steak, and makes out with strangers. The rumored relationship sent Swifties into spasms of outrage, and revealed the unusual extent to which Swift is beholden to her fans. She has encouraged and nurtured a parasocial affection (at times she nearly demanded it: inviting fans to her home, baking them cookies), and she now has to contend with their sense of ownership over her life. On “But Daddy I Love Him,” she scornfully chastises the “judgmental creeps” who relentlessly hounded her about her love life: “I’d rather burn my whole life down / Than listen to one more second of all this bitching and moaning.” (She saves the nastiest barb for the final verse: “All the wine moms are still holding out.”) Regardless, things with Healy ended fast, and, a few months later, she did the most wholesome thing possible: she started dating a football player whose team would go on to win the Super Bowl.

Quite a few of the album’s lyrics seem to evoke Healy: “You’re not Dylan Thomas / I’m not Patti Smith / This ain’t the Chelsea Hotel / We’re modern idiots,” Swift sings on the title track, a shimmering song about broken people clinging to each other. I like that line—it suggests self-awareness—but it’s followed by one of the weirdest verses of Swift’s career: “You smoked then ate seven bars of chocolate / We declared Charlie Puth should be a bigger artist / I scratch your head, you fall asleep / Like a tattooed golden retriever.” Other lyrics lack Swift’s signature precision: “At dinner you take my ring off my middle finger and put it on the one people put wedding rings on,” she sings. Even the greatest poets whiff a phrase now and then, but a lot of the language on the record is either incoherent (“I was a functioning alcoholic till nobody noticed my new aesthetic”) or just generally bewildering (“Florida is one hell of a drug”). My favorite lyrics are the simplest, and are delivered with a kind of exhausted calm. On “Down Bad,” a woozy song about feeling like shit, Swift admits defeat: “Now I’m down bad, crying at the gym / Everything comes out teen-age petulance / Fuck it if I can’t have him.” Feel you, dude.

Each of Swift’s records has a distinct visual component—this is more or less the premise of the Eras Tour . “The Tortured Poets Department” is preoccupied with writerly accoutrements, but the vibe is ultimately more high-end stationery store than musty rare-books room. Initially, the title seemed as if it might be a smirking reference to Joe Alwyn (he once joked about being part of a WhatsApp group called the Tortured Man Club). But I find that the phrase works well as a summation of Swift’s entire self-conception. She has always made a big deal about her pain being generative. “This writer is of the firm belief that our tears become holy in the form of ink on the page,” she wrote on Instagram. She has talked about this album as if the songs were mere monuments to her suffering: “Once we have spoken our saddest story, we can be free of it.”

An unusual number of Swift’s songs portray love as combative, perhaps because she is so prone to working from a place of wounded longing. On “Better Than Revenge,” a song she wrote at eighteen, Swift sings about art as a useful weapon, a way to punish anyone who does her dirty: “She thinks I’m psycho / ’Cause I like to rhyme her name with things.” It’s a funny lyric, but, by Swift’s current age, most people understand that love isn’t about winning. (Art isn’t, either.) Yet, in Swift’s universe, love is often a battlefield. On “Who’s Afraid of Little Old Me?,” she catalogues the ways in which fame can pervert and destroy a person: “I was tame, I was gentle, till the circus life made me mean,” she sings. She is paranoid, wild-eyed: “Tell me everything is not about me / But what if it is ?” (After the year Swift has had, she’s not wrong to ask.) The song itself is so tightly produced that it doesn’t sound dangerous. But, midway through, her voice briefly goes feral. I found the moment thrilling, which is maybe part of the problem.

In the weeks before “The Tortured Poets Department” was released, it seemed as though a backlash was inevitable. Swift’s lyrics are often focussed on her perseverance against all odds, but, these days, she is too omnipresent and powerful to make a very convincing underdog. Still, interest in Swift has yet to diminish or fully sour. She announced the album at the Grammys, in February, as she was accepting the award for Best Pop Vocal Album, for her previous record, “Midnights.” I found her speech so profoundly mercenary it was sort of funny. “I want to say thank you to the fans by telling you a secret that I’ve been keeping from you for the last two years, which is that my brand-new album comes out April 19th,” Swift said. “I’m gonna go and post the cover.”

As I’ve grown older, I’ve mostly stopped thinking about art and commerce as being fundamentally at odds. But there are times when the rapaciousness of our current pop stars seems grasping and ugly. I’m not saying that pop music needs to be ideologically pure—it wouldn’t be much fun if it were—but maybe it’s time to cool it a little with the commercials? A couple of days before the album’s release, Swift unveiled a library-esque display at the Grove, a shopping mall in Los Angeles. It included several pages of typewritten lyrics on faux aged paper, arranged as though they had recently been tugged from the platen of a Smith Corona. (The word “talisman” was misspelled on one, to the delight of the haters.) The Spotify logo was featured prominently at the bottom of each page. Once again, I laughed. What is the point of all that money if it doesn’t buy you freedom from corporate branding? For a million reasons—her adoption of the “poet” persona; her already unprecedented streaming numbers—such an egregious display of sponsorship was worse than just incongruous. It was, as they say, cringe.

Among the other clues Swift doled out were five exclusive playlists for Apple Music (sorry, Spotify!), comprising her own songs and organized according to the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. At first, I thought the playlists were just another bit of overwrought marketing, but the more I listened to “The Tortured Poets Department” the more germane the concept felt. Anyone who has grieved knows that these categories are not a ladder you climb toward peace: it is possible, instead, to feel all of them at once, briefly or forever. Each stage is evident on “The Tortured Poets Department.” Sometimes they oppose one another: Swift is cocky and self-loathing, tough and vulnerable, totally fine and completely destroyed. She is free, but trapped. Dominant, powerless. She wants this, but she doesn’t. Those sorts of contradictions can be dizzying, but, in the end, they’re also the last things keeping her human. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

A Harvard undergrad took her roommate’s life, then her own. She left behind her diary.

Ricky Jay’s magical secrets .

A thirty-one-year-old who still goes on spring break .

How the greatest American actor lost his way .

What should happen when patients reject their diagnosis ?

The reason an Addams Family painting wound up hidden in a university library .

Fiction by Kristen Roupenian: “Cat Person”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Adam Iscoe

By Helen Rosner

By Gary Shteyngart

By Eric Lach