types of literature review in a research

Resources Home 🏠
Try SciSpace Copilot
Search research papers
Add Copilot Extension
Try AI Detector
Try Paraphraser
Try Citation Generator
April Papers
June Papers
July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

How do we gather the data?
How to conduct one?
How reliable are the review findings?
How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
Potential for bias in the review process
Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title: Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
Provides evidence-based insights
Time and resource-intensive
High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches. However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Literature Review Type	Narrative	Systematic	Integrative	Rapid	Scoping
Approach	The traditional approach lacks a structured methodology	Systematic search, including structured methodology	Combines diverse methodologies for a comprehensive understanding	Quick review within time constraints	Preliminary study of existing literature
How Exhaustive is the process?	May or may not be comprehensive	Exhaustive and comprehensive search	A comprehensive search for integration	Time-limited search	Determined by time or scope constraints
Data Synthesis	Narrative	Narrative with tabular accompaniment	Integration of various sources or methodologies	Narrative and tabular	Narrative and tabular
Purpose	Provides description of meta analysis and conceptualization of the review	Comprehensive evidence synthesis	Holistic understanding	Quick policy or practice guidelines review	Preliminary literature review
Key characteristics	Storytelling, chronological presentation	Rigorous, traditional and systematic techniques approach	Diverse source or method integration	Time-constrained, systematic approach	Identifies literature size and scope
Example Use Case	Historical exploration	Effectiveness evaluation	Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed combination	Policy summary	Research literature overview

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

types of literature review in a research

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

ChatPDF Showdown: SciSpace Chat PDF vs. Adobe PDF Reader

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods. Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

John Dudovskiy

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

Traditional or narrative literature reviews
Scoping Reviews
Systematic literature reviews
Annotated bibliography
Keeping up to date with literature
Finding a thesis
Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
Managing and analysing your literature
Further reading and resources

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

The common types of literature reviews will be explained in the pages of this section.

Narrative or traditional literature reviews
Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
Scoping reviews
Annotated bibliographies

These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

What's the difference between reviews?

Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. Here are a couple of simple explanations.

The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:

Description of the differences between review types in image form

"Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. L., Arlt, S. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. R., Grindlay, D., Moberly, H. K., Morrow, L. D., Stavisky, J., & White, C. (2020). Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7 , 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00314 is licensed under CC BY 3.0

The table below lists four of the most common types of review , as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).


Identifies and reviews published literature on a topic, which may be broad. Typically employs a narrative approach to reporting the review findings. Can include a wide range of related subjects.	1 - 4 weeks	1
Assesses what is known about an issue by using a systematic review method to search and appraise research and determine best practice.	2 - 6 months	2
Assesses the potential scope of the research literature on a particular topic. Helps determine gaps in the research. (See the page in this guide on .)	1 - 4 weeks	1 - 2
Seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and synthesise research evidence so as to aid decision-making and determine best practice. Can vary in approach, and is often specific to the type of study, which include studies of effectiveness, qualitative research, economic evaluation, prevalence, aetiology, or diagnostic test accuracy.	8 months to 2 years	2 or more

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

See also the Library's Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

Callander, J., Anstey, A. V., Ingram, J. R., Limpens, J., Flohr, C., & Spuls, P. I. (2017). How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice. British Journal of Dermatology (1951), 177(4), 1007-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15873

Books on Literature Reviews

<< Previous: Home
Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
Last Updated: Aug 11, 2024 4:07 PM
URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

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

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Locations and Hours
UCLA Library
Research Guides
Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

Planning Your Systematic Review
Database Searching
Creating the Search
Search Filters and Hedges
Grey Literature
Managing and Appraising Results
Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x


	Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or mode	Seeks to identify most significant items in the field	No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution	Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological	Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory
	Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings	May or may not include comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Typically narrative	Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.
Mapping review/ systematic map	Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints	No formal quality assessment	May be graphical and tabular	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research
	Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/ exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses	Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary	Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity
	Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies	Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies	Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists	Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies	Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other
	Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics	May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not)	May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not)	Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features	Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.
	Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies	May employ selective or purposive sampling	Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion	Qualitative, narrative synthesis	Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models
	Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research	Completeness of searching determined by time constraints	Time-limited formal quality assessment	Typically narrative and tabular	Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature
	Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress	No formal quality assessment	Typically tabular with some narrative commentary	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review
	Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives	Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature	No formal quality assessment	Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment	Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research
	Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion	Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment	What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research
	Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies	What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations
	Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment	May or may not include comprehensive searching	May or may not include quality assessment	Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment	What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology
	Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results	Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies	Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves	Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary	What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research

<< Previous: Home
Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to...

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Future Research – Thesis Guide

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

Research Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Research Guides
Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services
Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services : Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

Develop a Protocol
Develop Your Research Question
Select Databases
Select Gray Literature Sources
Write a Search Strategy
Manage Your Search Process
Register Your Protocol
Citation Management
Article Screening
Risk of Bias Assessment
Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
Find Guidance by Discipline
Manage Your Research Data
Browse Evidence Portals by Discipline
Automate the Process, Tools & Technologies
Adapting Systematic Review Methods
Additional Resources

Choosing a Literature Review Methodology

Growing interest in evidence-based practice has driven an increase in review methodologies. Your choice of review methodology (or literature review type) will be informed by the intent (purpose, function) of your research project and the time and resources of your team.

Decision Tree (What Type of Review is Right for You?) Developed by Cornell University Library staff, this "decision-tree" guides the user to a handful of review guides given time and intent.

Types of Evidence Synthesis*

Critical Review - Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model.

Mapping Review (Systematic Map) - Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature.

Meta-Analysis - Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

Mixed Studies Review (Mixed Methods Review) - Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.

Narrative (Literature) Review - Broad, generic term - Refers to an examination and general synthesis of the research literature, often with a wide scope; completeness and comprehensiveness may vary. Does not follow an established protocol.

Overview - Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics.

Qualitative Systematic Review or Qualitative Evidence Synthesis - Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies.

Rapid Review - Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research.

Scoping Review or Evidence Map - Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research.

State-of-the-art Review - Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research.

Systematic Review - Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesize research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. (An emerging subset includes Living Reviews or Living Systematic Reviews - A [review or] systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available.)

Systematic Search and Review - Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis.’

Umbrella Review - Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.

*Apart from some qualifying description for "Narrative (Literature) Review", these definitions are provided in Grant & Booth's "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."

Literature Review Types/Typologies, Taxonomies

Grant, M. J., and A. Booth. "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies." Health Information and Libraries Journal 26.2 (2009): 91-108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Link

Munn, Zachary, et al. “Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology , vol. 18, no. 1, Nov. 2018, p. 143. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. Link

Sutton, A., et al. "Meeting the Review Family: Exploring Review Types and Associated Information Retrieval Requirements." Health Information and Libraries Journal 36.3 (2019): 202-22. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276 Link

<< Previous: Home
Next: The Systematic Review Process >>
Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 3:55 PM
URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/literature_review

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

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

Living reference work entry
First Online: 09 May 2023
Cite this living reference work entry

Dennis Thomas 2 ,
Elida Zairina 3 &
Johnson George 4

735 Accesses

1 Citations

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article Google Scholar

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

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(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter Google Scholar

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Research Methods

Getting Started
Literature Review Research
Research Design
Research Design By Discipline
SAGE Research Methods
Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?
What is NOT a Literature Review?
Purposes of a Literature Review
Types of Literature Reviews
Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

Help gather ideas or information
Keep up to date in current trends and findings
Help develop new questions

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.
Helps focus your own research questions or problems
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay

Not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed. A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another. A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
helps focus one’s own research topic.
identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
suggests unexplored populations.
determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, 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 original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded 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 to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

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. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused 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 [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on 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, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our 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 analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. 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?"

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help 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.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015), Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

Diagram for "What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters"

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A systematic review answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
explicit, reproducible methodology
a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review. More information on meta-analyses can be found in Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies. It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings. Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy.

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

<< Previous: Getting Started
Next: Research Design >>
Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Literature Reviews

Types of reviews
Getting started

Types of reviews and examples

Choosing a review type.

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

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Meta-analysis
Systematized

Definition:

"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).

Characteristics:

Provides examination of recent or current literature on a wide range of subjects
Varying levels of completeness / comprehensiveness, non-standardized methodology
May or may not include comprehensive searching, quality assessment or critical appraisal

Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review. Sustainability , 14 (15), 9653. doi.org/10.3390/su14159653

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).

Assessment of what is already known about an issue
Similar to a systematic review but within a time-constrained setting
Typically employs methodological shortcuts, increasing risk of introducing bias, includes basic level of quality assessment
Best suited for issues needing quick decisions and solutions (i.e., policy recommendations)

Learn more about the method:

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic reviews, 1 (1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol .

Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence. Sustainability, 11 (10), 2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).

Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic

Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14)

Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview

Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search

Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA , 104 (1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013

Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews, 5 (1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x

Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence. Environment international , 147 , 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954

Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 .

"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).

Main purpose is to map out and categorize existing literature, identify gaps in literature—great for informing policy-making
Search comprehensiveness determined by time/scope constraints, could take longer than a systematic review
No formal quality assessment or critical appraisal

Learn more about the methods :

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 (1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Example :

Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review. Science of the Total Environment, 757 , 143872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872

A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.

Compiles evidence from multiple reviews into one document
Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review

Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence. The Korean Journal of Pain , 35 (2), 127–128. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth , 18 (2), 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704

A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).

Statistical technique for combining results of quantitative studies to provide more precise effect of results
Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching
Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion criteria
May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review

Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations. Environmental Science & Technology , 38 (4), 945–956. https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g

A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).

Aims to compile and synthesize all known knowledge on a given topic
Adheres to strict guidelines, protocols, and frameworks
Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 12 (4), 4354–4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354

"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a structured review (Huelin et al., 2015).

Typically conducted by postgraduate or graduate students
Often assigned by instructors to students who don't have the resources to conduct a full systematic review

Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (5), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897

Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/

Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree.
LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews) with practical tips about strengths and weaknesses of different methods.
<< Previous: Getting started
Next: 1. Define your research question >>
Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:40 AM
URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

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

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

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

Different Types of Literature Review: Which One Fits Your Research?

By Laura Brown on 13th October 2023

You might not have heard that there are multiple kinds of literature review. However, with the progress in your academic career you will learn these classifications and may need to use different types of them. However, there is nothing to worry if you aren’t aware of them now, as here we are going to discuss this topic in detail.

There are approximately 14 types of literature review on the basis of their specific objectives, methodologies, and the way they approach and analyse existing literature in academic research. Of those 14, there are 4 major types. But before we delve into the details of each one of them and how they are useful in academics, let’s first understand the basics of literature review.

Demystifying 14 Different Types of Literature Reviews

What is Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical and systematic summary and evaluation of existing research. It is an essential component of academic and research work, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field.

In easy words, a literature review is like making a big, organised summary of all the important research and smart books or articles about a particular topic or question. It’s something scholars and researchers do, and it helps everyone see what we already know about that topic. It’s kind of like taking a snapshot of what we understand right now in a certain field.

It serves with some specific purpose in the research.

Provides a comprehensive understanding of existing research on a topic.
Identifies gaps, trends, and inconsistencies in the literature.
Contextualise your own research within the broader academic discourse.
Supports the development of theoretical frameworks or research hypotheses.

4 Major Types Of Literature Review

The four major types include, Narrative Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Scoping Review. These are known as the major ones because they’re like the “go-to” methods for researchers in academic and research circles. Think of them as the classic tools in the researcher’s toolbox. They’ve earned their reputation because they have a unique style for literature review introduction , clear steps and specific qualities that make them super handy for different research needs.

1. Narrative Review

Narrative reviews present a well-structured narrative that reads like a cohesive story, providing a comprehensive overview of a specific topic. These reviews often incorporate historical context and offer a broad understanding of the subject matter, making them valuable for researchers looking to establish a foundational understanding of their area of interest. They are particularly useful when a historical perspective or a broad context is necessary to comprehend the current state of knowledge in a field.

2. Systematic Review

Systematic reviews are renowned for their methodological rigour. They involve a meticulously structured process that includes the systematic selection of relevant studies, comprehensive data extraction, and a critical synthesis of their findings. This systematic approach is designed to minimise bias and subjectivity, making systematic reviews highly reliable and objective. They are considered the gold standard for evidence-based research as they provide a clear and rigorous assessment of the available evidence on a specific research question.

3. Meta Analysis

Meta analysis is a powerful method for researchers who prefer a quantitative and statistical perspective. It involves the statistical synthesis of data from various studies, allowing researchers to draw more precise and generalisable conclusions by combining data from multiple sources. Meta analyses are especially valuable when the aim is to quantitatively measure the effect size or impact of a particular intervention, treatment, or phenomenon.

4. Scoping Review

Scoping reviews are invaluable tools, especially for researchers in the early stages of exploring a topic. These reviews aim to map the existing literature, identifying gaps and helping clarify research questions. Scoping reviews provide a panoramic view of the available research, which is particularly useful when researchers are embarking on exploratory studies or trying to understand the breadth and depth of a subject before conducting more focused research.

Different Types Of Literature review In Research

There are some more approaches to conduct literature review. Let’s explore these classifications quickly.

5. Critical Review

Critical reviews provide an in-depth evaluation of existing literature, scrutinising sources for their strengths, weaknesses, and relevance. They offer a critical perspective, often highlighting gaps in the research and areas for further investigation.

6. Theoretical Review

Theoretical reviews are centred around exploring and analysing the theoretical frameworks, concepts, and models present in the literature. They aim to contribute to the development and refinement of theoretical perspectives within a specific field.

7. Integrative Review

Integrative reviews synthesise a diverse range of studies, drawing connections between various research findings to create a comprehensive understanding of a topic. These reviews often bridge gaps between different perspectives and provide a holistic overview.

8. Historical Review

Historical reviews focus on the evolution of a topic over time, tracing its development through past research, events, and scholarly contributions. They offer valuable context for understanding the current state of research.

9. Methodological Review

Among the different kinds of literature reviews, methodological reviews delve into the research methods and methodologies employed in existing studies. Researchers assess these approaches for their effectiveness, validity, and relevance to the research question at hand.

10. Cross-Disciplinary Review

Cross-disciplinary reviews explore a topic from multiple academic disciplines, emphasising the diversity of perspectives and insights that each discipline brings. They are particularly useful for interdisciplinary research projects and uncovering connections between seemingly unrelated fields.

11. Descriptive Review

Descriptive reviews provide an organised summary of existing literature without extensive analysis. They offer a straightforward overview of key findings, research methods, and themes present in the reviewed studies.

12. Rapid Review

Rapid reviews expedite the literature review process, focusing on summarising relevant studies quickly. They are often used for time-sensitive projects where efficiency is a priority, without sacrificing quality.

13. Conceptual Review

Conceptual reviews concentrate on clarifying and developing theoretical concepts within a specific field. They address ambiguities or inconsistencies in existing theories, aiming to refine and expand conceptual frameworks.

14. Library Research

Library research reviews rely primarily on library and archival resources to gather and synthesise information. They are often employed in historical or archive-based research projects, utilising library collections and historical documents for in-depth analysis.

Each type of literature review serves distinct purposes and comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, allowing researchers to choose the one that best suits their research objectives and questions.

Choosing the Ideal Literature Review Approach in Academics

In order to conduct your research in the right manner, it is important that you choose the correct type of review for your literature. Here are 8 amazing tips we have sorted for you in regard to literature review help so that you can select the best-suited type for your research.

Clarify Your Research Goals: Begin by defining your research objectives and what you aim to achieve with the literature review. Are you looking to summarise existing knowledge, identify gaps, or analyse specific data?
Understand Different Review Types: Familiarise yourself with different kinds of literature reviews, including systematic reviews, narrative reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and integrative reviews. Each serves a different purpose.
Consider Available Resources: Assess the resources at your disposal, including time, access to databases, and the volume of literature on your topic. Some review types may be more resource-intensive than others.
Alignment with Research Question: Ensure that the chosen review type aligns with your research question or hypothesis. Some types are better suited for answering specific research questions than others.
Scope and Depth: Determine the scope and depth of your review. For a broad overview, a narrative review might be suitable, while a systematic review is ideal for an in-depth analysis.
Consult with Advisors: Seek guidance from your academic advisors or mentors. They can provide valuable insights into which review type best fits your research goals and resources.
Consider Research Field Standards: Different academic fields have established standards and preferences for different forms of literature review. Familiarise yourself with what is common and accepted in your field.
Pilot Review: Consider conducting a small-scale pilot review of the literature to test the feasibility and suitability of your chosen review type before committing to a larger project.

Bonus Tip: Crafting an Effective Literature Review

Now, since you have learned all the literature review types and have understood which one to prefer, here are some bonus tips for you to structure a literature review of a dissertation .

Clearly Define Your Research Question: Start with a well-defined and focused research question to guide your literature review.
Thorough Search Strategy: Develop a comprehensive search strategy to ensure you capture all relevant literature.
Critical Evaluation: Assess the quality and credibility of the sources you include in your review.
Synthesise and Organise: Summarise the key findings and organise the literature into themes or categories.
Maintain a Systematic Approach: If conducting a systematic review, adhere to a predefined methodology and reporting guidelines.
Engage in Continuous Review: Regularly update your literature review to incorporate new research and maintain relevance.

Some Useful Tools And Resources For You

Effective literature reviews demand a range of tools and resources to streamline the process.

Reference management software like EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley helps organise, store, and cite sources, saving time and ensuring accuracy.
Academic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly articles, with advanced search and citation tracking features.
Research guides from universities and libraries offer tips and templates for structuring reviews.
Research networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu facilitate collaboration and access to publications. Literature review templates and research workshops provide additional support.

Some Common Mistakes To Avoid

Avoid these common mistakes when crafting literature reviews.

Unclear research objectives result in unfocused reviews, so start with well-defined questions.
Biased source selection can compromise objectivity, so include diverse perspectives.
Never miss on referencing; proper citation and referencing are essential for academic integrity.
Don’t overlook older literature, which provides foundational insights.
Be mindful of scope creep, where the review drifts from the research question; stay disciplined to maintain focus and relevance.

While Summing Up On Various Types Of Literature Review

As we conclude this classification of fourteen distinct approaches to conduct literature reviews, it’s clear that the world of research offers a multitude of avenues for understanding, analysing, and contributing to existing knowledge.

Whether you’re a seasoned scholar or a student beginning your academic journey, the choice of review type should align with your research objectives and the nature of your topic. The versatility of these approaches empowers you to tailor your review to the demands of your project.

Remember, your research endeavours have the potential to shape the future of knowledge, so choose wisely and dive into the world of literature reviews with confidence and purpose. Happy reviewing!

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

Chester Fritz Library
Library of the Health Sciences
Thormodsgard Law Library

Literature Reviews

Get started

Literature Reviews within a Scholarly Work

Literature reviews as a scholarly work.

Finding Literature Reviews
Your Literature Search
Library Books
How to Videos
Communicating & Citing Research
Bibliography

Literature reviews summarize and analyze what has been written on a particular topic and identify gaps or disagreements in the scholarly work on that topic.

Within a scholarly work, the literature review situates the current work within the larger scholarly conversation and emphasizes how that particular scholarly work contributes to the conversation on the topic. The literature review portion may be as brief as a few paragraphs focusing on a narrow topic area.

When writing this type of literature review, it's helpful to start by identifying sources most relevant to your research question. A citation tracking database such as Web of Science can also help you locate seminal articles on a topic and find out who has more recently cited them. See "Your Literature Search" for more details.

A literature review may itself be a scholarly publication and provide an analysis of what has been written on a particular topic without contributing original research. These types of literature reviews can serve to help keep people updated on a field as well as helping scholars choose a research topic to fill gaps in the knowledge on that topic. Common types include:

Systematic Review

Systematic literature reviews follow specific procedures in some ways similar to setting up an experiment to ensure that future scholars can replicate the same steps. They are also helpful for evaluating data published over multiple studies. Thus, these are common in the medical field and may be used by healthcare providers to help guide diagnosis and treatment decisions. Cochrane Reviews are one example of this type of literature review.

Semi-Systematic Review

When a systematic review is not feasible, a semi-systematic review can help synthesize research on a topic or how a topic has been studied in different fields (Snyder 2019). Rather than focusing on quantitative data, this review type identifies themes, theoretical perspectives, and other qualitative information related to the topic. These types of reviews can be particularly helpful for a historical topic overview, for developing a theoretical model, and for creating a research agenda for a field (Snyder 2019). As with systematic reviews, a search strategy must be developed before conducting the review.

Integrative Review

An integrative review is less systematic and can be helpful for developing a theoretical model or to reconceptualize a topic. As Synder (2019) notes, " This type of review often re quires a more creative collection of data, as the purpose is usually not to cover all articles ever published on the topic but rather to combine perspectives and insights from di ff erent fi elds or research traditions" (p. 336).


Sythesize and compare evidence	Quantitative, comprehensive for specific area, systematic search strategy, informs policy/practice	Health sciences, social sciences, STEM
Overview research area & changes over time	Quantitative or qualitative, less detailed/thorough search strategy, identifies themes or research gaps or develops a theoretical model or provides a history of the field	All
Synthesize literature to develop new perspectives or theories	Qualitative, non-systematic search strategy, combines ideas from different fields, focus on creating new frameworks or theories by critiquing previous ideas	Social sciences, humanities

Source: Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104. 333-339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

<< Previous: Get started
Next: Finding Literature Reviews >>
Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:27 AM
URL: https://libguides.und.edu/literature-reviews

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 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: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Faculty / Staff Search

Department / unit search.

Student Services

Catalogue & Collections
Research Support
My Library Account
Videos and How-Tos
typesofliteraturereviews

Videos & How-Tos

YouTube Playlist
Email us about Videos & How-Tos

Literature Reviews, Introduction to Different Types of

There are many different types of literature reviews, each with its own approach, analysis, and purpose. To confuse matters, these types aren't named consistently. The following are some of the more common types of literature reviews.

These are more rigorous, with some level of appraisal:

The Systematic Review is important to health care and medical trials, and other subjects where methodology and data are important. Through rigorous review and analysis of literature that meets a specific criteria, the systematic review identifies and compares answers to health care related questions. The systematic review may include meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, which leads us to...
The Quantitative or Qualitative Meta-analysis Review can both make up the whole or part of systematic review(s). Both are thorough and comprehensive in condensing and making sense of a large body of research. The quantitative meta-analysis reviews quantitative research, is objective, and includes statistical analysis. The qualitative meta-analysis reviews qualitative research, is subjective (or evaluative, or interpretive), and identifies new themes or concepts.

These don't always include a formal assessment or analysis:

The Literature Review (see our Literature Review video) or Narrative Review often appears as a chapter in a thesis or dissertation. It describes what related research has already been conducted, how it informs the thesis, and how the thesis fits into the research in the field. (See https://student.unsw.edu.au/writing-critical-review for more information.)
The Critical Review is like a literature review, but requires a more detailed examination of the literature, in order to compare and evaluate a number of perspectives.
The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation or research proposal. It is conducted before the research begins, and sets the stage for this research by highlighting gaps in the literature, and explaining the need for the research about to be conducted, which is presented in the remainder of the article.
The Conceptual Review groups articles according to concepts, or categories, or themes. It identifies the current 'understanding' of the given research topic, discusses how this understanding was reached, and attempts to determine whether a greater understanding can be suggested. It provides a snapshot of where things are with this particular field of research.
The State-of-the-Art Review is conducted periodically, with a focus on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic, and highlights where are there still disagreements.

Source: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26 (2), 91-108. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

1151 Richmond Street London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7 Tel: 519-661-2111 Privacy | Web Standards | Terms of Use | Accessibility

About the Libraries

Library Accessibility

Library Privacy Statement

Land Acknowledgement

Support the Libraries

Ask a Librarian

Literature Reviews

1. What is a Literature Review?
Developing a Research Question

Types of Reviews

EagleSearch and Research Databases
Search Tips and Shortcuts
4. Organizing Your Research
5. Writing a Literature Review
Additional Resources
Literature Review
Integrative Review
Systematic Review
Meta Analysis
Meta-Synthesis

Traditional Literature Reviews

Analyzes, synthesizes, and critiques a body of literature
Identifies patterns and themes in the literature
Draws conclusions
Identifies gaps in the literature

Integrative Reviews

May include case studies, observational studies, and meta-analyses, as well as other types of research
Search and selection is precise and should be described in the body of the review
Selected literature should be analyzed
Articles should be compared

Systematic Reviews

Reach a conclusion about the topic
Usually focuses on a specific empirical question: "To what extent does A contribute to B?"
Rigorous, comprehensive, and exhaustive review of experimental research studies using pre-specified and standardized methods
Search and selection is precise and should be described in the body of the review so others can replicate the search

Meta-Analyses

A form of systematic reviews
Analyzes findings from several studies on the same subject using standardized statistical procedures
Synthesizes a large body of quantitative research to enhance understanding
Draws conclusions and finds patterns or relationships

Meta-Syntheses

Similar to meta-analyses
Draws from qualitative studies
<< Previous: Developing a Research Question
Next: 3. Searching the Literature >>
Last Updated: Oct 25, 2023 10:38 AM
URL: https://guides.erau.edu/lit-review

Hunt Library

Mori Hosseini Student Union 1 Aerospace Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114

Phone: 386-226-6595 Toll-Free: 800-678-9428

Maps and Parking

Report a Problem
Suggest a Purchase

Library Information

Departments and Staff
Library Collections
Library Facilities
Library Newsletter
Hunt Library Employment

University Initiatives

Scholarly Commons
Data Commons
University Archives
Open and Affordable Textbooks

University of Texas Libraries
UT Libraries

Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods

Types of reviews.

Formulate Question
Find Existing Reviews & Protocols
Register a Protocol
Searching Systematically
Supplementary Searching
Managing Results
Deduplication
Critical Appraisal
Glossary of terms
Librarian Support
Video tutorials This link opens in a new window
Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Boot Camp

Not sure what type of review you want to conduct?

There are many types of reviews --- narrative reviews , scoping reviews , systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct. These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice for your research needs.

Which review is right for you? (Univ. of Manitoba)
What type of review is right for you? (Cornell)
Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT)
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. by Grant & Booth
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements | Health Info Libr J, 2019

Label

Description

Appraisal

Synthesis

Analysis

Critical Review

Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model

Seeks to identify most significant items in the field

No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution

Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological

Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory

Literature Review

Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings

May or may not include comprehensive searching

May or may not include quality assessment

Typically narrative

Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.

Mapping review/ systematic map

Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature

Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints

No formal quality assessment

May be graphical and tabular

Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research

Meta-analysis

Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results

Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness

Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses

Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary

Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity

Mixed studies review/mixed methods review

Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies

Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies

Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists

Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies

Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other

Overview

Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics

May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not)

May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not)

Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features

Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.

Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis

Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies

May employ selective or purposive sampling

Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion

Qualitative, narrative synthesis

Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models

Rapid review

Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research

Completeness of searching determined by time constraints

Time-limited formal quality assessment

Typically narrative and tabular

Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature

Scoping review

Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)

Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress

No formal quality assessment

Typically tabular with some narrative commentary

Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review

State-of-the-art review

Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research

Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature

No formal quality assessment

Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment

Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research

Systematic review

Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review

Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching

Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion

Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment

What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research

Systematic search and review

Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’

Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching

May or may not include quality assessment

Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies

What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations

Systematized review

Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment

May or may not include comprehensive searching

May or may not include quality assessment

Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment

Reproduced from Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 8:26 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews

Capstone and PICO Project Toolkit

Starting a Project: Overview
Developing a Research Question
Selecting Databases
Expanding a Search
Refining/Narrowing a Search
Saving Searches
Critical Appraisal & Levels of Evidence
Citing & Managing References
Database Tutorials
Types of Literature Reviews
Finding Full Text
Term Glossary

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

"What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic. While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would
May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference?

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews.

Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
<< Previous: Database Tutorials
Next: Finding Full Text >>
Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 11:45 AM
URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/pico

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

Avoiding Plagiarism
Google Scholar

A literature review is a compilation of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

Help gather ideas or information
Keep up to date in current trends and findings
Help develop new questions

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
Helps focus your own research questions or problems
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas
Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic
Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias
Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University, https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It 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.
Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later.

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.
Consider these things when planning your time for research.

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

By Research Guide

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature.

Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations.

5. Review the literature.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida, https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic.

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

Could be material that answers the question directly
Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

You are now working with fewer words/passages
Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them

The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis

This is now the outline for your literature review.

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center, https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following:

the methodology
the quality of the findings or conclusions
major strengths and weaknesses
any other important information

Writing Tips:

Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
Use quotes sparingly.
Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .
Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University, https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

<< Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
Next: Citing Your Sources >>
Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

James P. Adams Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Types of Literature Reviews
What is a Literature Review?
Tutorials This link opens in a new window
Research Iteration
Guides & Handbooks

Review Comparison Chart

A selection of the common review types found in the literature is presented and compared in the following table using the SALSA framework developed by Grant and Booth (2009).

Name	Description	Search	Appraisal	Synthesis	Analysis
Critical review	Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or mode.	Seeks to identify most significant items in the field.	No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution.	No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution.	Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory.
Literature review	Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings.	May or may not include comprehensive searching.	May or may not include quality assessment.	Typically narrative.	Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.
Mapping review/ systematic map	Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature.	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints.	No formal quality assessment.	May be graphical and tabular.	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research.
Meta-analysis	Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. Often used within a systematic review.	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness.	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/ exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses.	Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary.	Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity.
Mixed Methods Review	Refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.	Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies.	Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists.	Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies.	Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other.
Overview	Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics.	May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not).	May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not).	Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features.	Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc.
Qualitative Review	Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies.	May employ selective or purposive sampling.	Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion.	Qualitative, narrative synthesis.	Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models.
Rapid review	Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research.	Completeness of searching variable, determined by time constraints.	Time-limited formal quality assessment.	Typically narrative and tabular.	Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature.
Scoping review	Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research).	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress.	No formal quality assessment.	Typically tabular with some narrative commentary.	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review.

Adapted from:

Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Permissions

"Review Comparison Chart" from Which review is that? A guide to review types by the University of Melbourne Library is used with permission.

Last Updated: Mar 4, 2024 10:44 AM
URL: https://library.ric.edu/conducting-a-literature-review

600 Mt. Pleasant Ave

Providence, RI 02908

Social Media Links

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License unless otherwise noted.

University of Michigan Library
Research Guides

Evidence Syntheses (Scoping, systematic, & other types of reviews)

Types of Reviews

Choosing a Review Type

Types of literature reviews.

Should You Do a Systematic Review?
Work with a Search Expert
Covidence Review Software
Evidence in an Evidence Synthesis
Information Sources
Search Strategy
Managing Records
Selection Process
Data Collection Process
Study Risk of Bias Assessment
Reporting Results
For Search Professionals

This guide focuses on the methodology for systematic reviews (SRs), but an SR may not be the best methodology to use to meet your project's goals. Use the articles listed here or in the Types of Literature Reviews box below for information about additional methodologies that could better fit your project.

Haddaway NR, Lotfi T, Mbuagbaw L. Systematic reviews: A glossary for public health . Scand J Public Health. 2022 Feb 9:14034948221074998. doi: 10.1177/14034948221074998. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35139715.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. Defines 14 types of reviews and provides a helpful summary table on pp. 94-95.
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J . 2019;36(3):202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276
If you're not sure what type of review is right for your quantitative review, use this tool to find the best methodology for your project, What Review is Right for You? https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net

Systematic Reviews

Meta-Analyses

Comparative Effectiveness
systematically and transparently searches for a broad range of information to synthesize, in order to find the effect of an intervention.
uses a protocol
has a clear data extraction and management plan.
Time-intensive and often take months to a year or more to complete, even with a multi-person team.

NOTE: The term "systematic review" is also used incorrectly as a blanket term for other types of reviews.

Methodological Guidance

Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011. Institute of Medicine. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13059
Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions, v. 6. 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
The Joanna Briggs Reviewers Manual. 2024. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL
The Community Guide/Methods/Systematic Review Methods. 2014. The Community Preventive Services Task Force. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/about/methods.html

For issues in systematic reviews, especially in social science or other qualitative research:

Some Potential "Pitfalls" in the Construction of Educational Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-017-0675-7
Lescoat, A., Murphy, S. L., Roofeh, D., et al. (2021). Considerations for a combined index for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis to support drug development and improve outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397198320961967
DeLong, M. R., Tandon, V. J., Bertrand, A. A. (2021). Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33177453/
Carey, M. R., Vaughn, V. M., Mann, J. (2020). Is Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Non-Inferior to Antibiotic Therapy in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: a Systematic Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32270403/
Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies.
Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results.
May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review.
Cochrane Handbook, Ch 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10
Bauer, M. E., Toledano, R. D., Houle, T., et al. (2020). Lumbar neuraxial procedures in thrombocytopenic patients across populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31810860/ 6
Mailoa J, Lin GH, Khoshkam V, MacEachern M, et al. Long-Term Effect of Four Surgical Periodontal Therapies and One Non-Surgical Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26110453/

Umbrella Reviews

Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic.
Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review.
Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider.
Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35081993
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. 2015 Methodology for JBI Umbrella Reviews. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl.
Gastaldon, C., Solmi, M., Correll, C. U., et al. (2022). Risk factors of postpartum depression and depressive symptoms: umbrella review of current evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35081993/
Blodgett, T. J., & Blodgett, N. P. (2021). Melatonin and melatonin-receptor agonists to prevent delirium in hospitalized older adults: An umbrella review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34749057/

Comparative effectiveness

Systematic reviews of existing research on the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and comparative harms of different health care interventions.
Intended to provide relevant evidence to inform real-world health care decisions for patients, providers, and policymakers.
“Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.” Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/collections/cer-methods-guide
Main document of above guide : https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/cer-methods-guide_overview.pdf .
Tanni KA, Truong CB, Johnson BS, Qian J. Comparative effectiveness and safety of eribulin in advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021 Jul;163:103375. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103375. Epub 2021 Jun 2. PMID: 34087344.
Rice D, Corace K, Wolfe D, Esmaeilisaraji L, Michaud A, Grima A, Austin B, Douma R, Barbeau P, Butler C, Willows M, Poulin PA, Sproule BA, Porath A, Garber G, Taha S, Garner G, Skidmore B, Moher D, Thavorn K, Hutton B. Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 28;15(12):e0244401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244401. PMID: 33370393; PMCID: PMC7769275.

Scoping Review or Evidence Map

Systematically and transparently collect and categorize existing evidence on a broad question of policy or management importance.

Seeks to identify research gaps and opportunities for evidence synthesis rather than searching for the effect of an intervention.

May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would. (see EE Journal and CIFOR )

May take longer than a systematic review.

For useful guidance on whether to conduct a scoping review or not, see Figure 1 in this article. Pollock, D , Davies, EL , Peters, MDJ , et al. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics . J Adv Nurs . 2021 ; 77 : 2102 – 2113 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14743For a helpful

Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework http://10.1080/1364557032000119616

Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. (2020) . JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews

Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tet al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30453902/

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Epub 2018 Sep 4. PMID: 30178033. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/M18-0850

Bouldin E, Patel SR, Tey CS, et al. Bullying and Children who are Deaf or Hard-of-hearing: A Scoping Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33438758

Finn M, Gilmore B, Sheaf G, Vallières F. What do we mean by individual capacity strengthening for primary health care in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic scoping review to improve conceptual clarity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33407554/

Hirt J, Nordhausen T, Meichlinger J, Braun V, Zeller A, Meyer G. Educational interventions to improve literature searching skills in the health sciences: a scoping review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33013210/

Rapid Review

Useful for addressing issues needing timely decisions, such as developing policy recommendations.

Applies systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting.

Employs intentional, methodological "shortcuts" (limiting search terms for example) at the risk of introducing bias.

Defining characteristic is the transparency of team methodological choices.

Garritty, Chantelle, Gerald Gartlehner, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Valerie J. King, Candyce Hamel, Chris Kamel, Lisa Affengruber, and Adrienne Stevens. “Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group Offers Evidence-Informed Guidance to Conduct Rapid Reviews.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 130 (February 2021): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 .

Klerings I , Robalino S , Booth A , et al. Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 19 April 2023. https:// 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112079

WHO. “WHO | Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide.” World Health Organization. Accessed February 11, 2022. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/258698 .

Dobbins, Maureen. “Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review,” 2017, 25. https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf

Norris HC, Richardson HM, Benoit MC, et al. (2021) Utilization Impact of Cost-Sharing Elimination for Preventive Care Services: A Rapid Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34157906/

Marcus N, Stergiopoulos V. Re-examining mental health crisis intervention: A rapid review comparing outcomes across police, co-responder and non-police models. Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Feb 1. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13731. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35103364.

Narrative ( Literature ) Review

A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology.

See Baethge 2019 below for a method to provide quality assessment,

Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and time range covered will vary and do not follow an established protocol.

It provides insight into a particular topic by critically examining sources, generally over a particular period of time.

Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29578574/

Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S. & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41073-019-0064-8 https:// researchintegrityjournal. biomedcentral.com/articles/10. 1186/s41073-019-0064-8
Czypionka, T., Greenhalgh, T., Bassler, D., & Bryant, M. B. (2021). Masks and Face Coverings for the Lay Public : A Narrative Update. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33370173/
Gardiner, F. W., Nwose, E. U., Bwititi, P. T., et al.. (2017). Services aimed at achieving desirable clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus: A narrative review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29201367/
Dickerson, S. S., Connors, L. M., Fayad, A., & Dean, G. E. (2014). Sleep-wake disturbances in cancer patients: narrative review of literature focusing on improving quality of life outcomes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25050080/

Eccles Health Sciences Library

Spencer s. eccles health sciences library.

University of Utah
ULibraries Research Guides
* Eccles Health Sciences Library Research Guides

Systematic Reviews

Choosing a review type.

Systematic Review Process: At a Glance
Learn Systematic Reviews
Appraise Systematic Reviews
Conducting Scoping Reviews

Review types and evidence level

Selected review types, additional discussion of review types, involve a librarian.

ULibraries Evidence Review Services

Not every research question requires systematic review methodology.

Be sure to select the review type that matches the purpose and scope of your project., all reviews should be methodical - conducted in a careful and deliberate manner. , questions to ask yourself:, what is the purpose of this review , what is the research question, how long do i have to complete it, am i doing it alone or part of a team, how much of the literature do i need to capture, do my literature search and methods need to be transparent and replicable.

Right Review - a tool providing guidance and supporting material on methods for conduct and reporting of knowledge synthesis.

Reviews of increasing complexity, from narrative reviews to systematic reviews... with complexity comes an increase in time & resources needed. -from Scoping Studies. Health Libraries Portal . HLWIKI International

Narrative Reviews or Literature Reviews

Useful in tracing concept development
Scope can be broad or focused
Methodology is not standardized
Can be conducted by an individual or a team
Journal requirements vary - check the journal's instruction for authors

Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(6):1596-605. Epub 20150601. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12541. PubMed PMID: 26032263.

SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5. Epub 20190326. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8. PubMed PMID: 30962953; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC643487

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6):e12931. Epub 2018/03/27. doi: 10.1111/eci.12931. PubMed PMID: 29578574; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6001568.

Evidence Reviews listed below which utilize explicit methodologies, reduce bias, increase transparency & reproducibility and a team.

Addresses a specific question
Uses specified methodology to reduce bias
Requires a team and time commitment
May include meta-analysis, dependent upon heterogeneity

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 19 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E. et al. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 5 (2018). doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

Conducting a systematic review: finding the evidence . Lodge, M. (2011). J Evid Based Med, 4(2), 135-139. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01130.x PubMed PMID: 23672704

Reviews of Reviews (Umbrella)

Systematic review using only systematic reviews as subjects
Synthesizes systematic reviews of same topic
Assesses scope and quality of individual systematic reviews

Conducting umbrella reviews. Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. BMJ Medicine. 2022;1(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000071. PubMed PMID: 36936579

Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions . Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Feb 3;11(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15.

Scoping Reviews

Looks at broad research question
Creates broad literature map to find gaps
Requires a team and time
Uses qualitative analysis

What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, McLnerney P, Godfrey CM, et al. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):950-2. Epub 20220401. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483. PubMed PMID: 35249995 .

Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solution s. Khalil H, Peters MD, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. Epub 2020/10/31. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009. PubMed PMID: 33122034

Realist Reviews

Focuses on context and process
Uses an iterative protocol
Useful for complex policy interventions

Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research . Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, DeCorby K, Bucknall TK, Kent B, Schultz A, Snelgrove-Clarke E, Stetler CB, Titler M, Wallin L, Wilson V. Implement Sci.2012 Apr 19;7:33. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-33.

Rapid Reviews

Used on emerging issues needing quick answers
Uses systematic review methods
Time constraints (often ≤3 months)

Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach . Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.

Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more . Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183.doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7. PubMed PMID: 26693720 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4688988.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PubMed PMID: 1949148

Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were compared and contrasted using the SALSA (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis) framework.

Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging Medical Librarians to Improve the Quality of Review Articles . JAMA. 2014 Sep 10;312(10):999-1000. PubMed PMID: 25203078

<< Previous: Types of Evidence Reviews
Next: ULibraries Evidence Review Services >>
Last Updated: Aug 28, 2024 2:18 PM
URL: https://campusguides.lib.utah.edu/SystematicReviews
Youtube EHSL Digital Publishing
Twitter @EHSLibrary
Facebook @EcclesLibrary
Instagram @EHSLibrary
Email @Digital Publishing Group

Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, logo

The University of Utah
10 N. 1900 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Phone 801.581.5534

EHSL Website
UofU Health
UofU Policies

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

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.

American Job Centers
Apprenticeship
Demonstration Grants
Farmworkers
Federal Bonding Program
Foreign Labor Certification
Indians and Native Americans
Job Seekers
Layoffs and Rapid Response
National Dislocated Worker Grants
Older Workers
Skills Training Grants
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Unemployment Insurance
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
WIOA Adult Program
Advisories and Directives
Regulations
Labor Surplus Area
Performance
Recovery-Ready Workplace Resource Hub
Research and Evaluation
ETA News Releases
Regional Offices
Freedom of Information Act
Office of Apprenticeship
Office of Foreign Labor Certification
Office of Grants Management
Office of Job Corps
Office of Unemployment Insurance (1-877-S-2JOBS)

Equity in Grant-Making: A Review of Barriers and Strategies for Funders Considering Improvement Opportunities

Publication info, research methodology, description.

In 2023 the Chief Evaluation Office partnered with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to fund a study focused on exploring approaches to measure and increase equity in ETA’s discretionary grant-making programs. This study sought to explore how grant-makers – such as Federal agencies, State and local government agencies, and philanthropic organizations – define, assess, and increase equity in their grant-making process.

This study explores research and strategies related to equity in the discretionary grant-making process based on a review of publicly available literature and Federal agency Equity Action Plans as well as interviews with Federal and philanthropic grant-makers. The report describes how funders define equity in the context of awarding grants, common barriers and promising action steps to increase equity in each stage of the grant-making process (pre-award, collection of applications, funding of awards, and post-award), and measurement strategies to help funders track their progress.

This report can support a variety of grant-makers examining equity, whether at government agencies (including at Federal, State, and local levels) or foundations. Recognizing that grant-making organizations vary in size, policy area, and scope, the study team provides findings and suggestions that funders can tailor to meet their context and goals. The findings focus on domestic (U.S.-based) grant-making, though international or transnational grant-makers may also find useful insights.

Key takeaways include:

When selecting strategies to increase equity, grant-makers may invest time and resources to communicate the new approach to potential applicants and build trust, particularly with organizations and groups that provide services to underrepresented communities. For example, reviewed resources encourage funders to expand the networks they use to announce new funding opportunities and participate in community events. These trust-building activities may encourage new organizations to apply for grant programs and create space to provide feedback on challenging or inequitable aspects of the grant-making process.
Study interviewees also emphasized the value of continued internal communications with funding staff to build organizational motivation to implement and refine equity initiatives. Communication efforts include describing goals and progress, holding training sessions to increase awareness of action steps, and sharing tools to streamline implementation and affect change.
By implementing strategies to increase equity in grant-making, funders take a critical step toward addressing systemic inequities in the type of organizations, individuals, and communities that receive grant funding.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

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

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

The intellectual base and research fronts of IL-18: A bibliometric review of the literature from WoSCC (2012-2022)

Affiliation.

1 Department of Dermatology, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
PMID: 39188114
DOI: 10.1111/cpr.13684

Interleukin-18 (IL-18) is a vital pro-inflammatory cytokine crucial for immune regulation. Despite its significance, bibliometric analysis in this field is lacking. This study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively assess IL-18 research to construct its intellectual base and predict future hotspots. We conducted a thorough search on the Web of Science Core Collection for relevant publications between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2022. English-language articles and reviews were included. Visual analysis was performed using various tools including VOSviewer, Citespace, and Microsoft Excel. Our analysis covers interleukin-18 (IL-18) literature from 2012 to 2022, exploring research trends comprehensively. Key institutions like Yale University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University emerged as significant contributors. Prolific authors such as Kanneganti and Dinarello made notable contributions. Main focus areas included biology, medicine, and immunology. Co-citation analysis highlighted influential works like Jianjin Shi. Hotspot keyword frequency cluster analysis revealed emerging themes like pyroptosis and psoriasis. Gene co-occurrence clustering identified genes associated with immune regulation and inflammation. GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis provided insights into IL-18-related biological processes and pathways. Protein-protein interaction networks identified core proteins such as IL10 and TNF. Association disease analysis linked IL-18 to various inflammatory, autoimmune, and metabolic disorders. This bibliometric review offers insights into IL-18 research trends over the past decade, guiding future investigations and serving as a reference for researchers in this field.

PubMed Disclaimer

Dinarello CA, Novick D, Puren AJ, et al. Overview of interleukin‐18: more than an interferon‐gamma inducing factor. J Leukoc Biol. 1998;63(6):658‐664.
Yasuda K, Nakanishi K, Tsutsui H. Interleukin‐18 in health and disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(3):649.
Krishnan SM, Sobey CG, Latz E, Mansell A, Drummond GR. IL‐1β and IL‐18: inflammatory markers or mediators of hypertension? Br J Pharmacol. 2014;171(24):5589‐5602.
Rex DAB, Nupur Agarwal TS, Prasad K, et al. A comprehensive pathway map of IL‐18‐mediated signalling. J Cell Commun Signal. 2020;14(2):257‐266.
Zhou T, Damsky W, Weizman O‐E, et al. IL‐18BP is a secreted immune checkpoint and barrier to IL‐18 immunotherapy. Nature. 2020;583:609‐614.

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Grants and funding

2202-21/the Scientific research projects of Shanghai HongKou Health Commission
Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, miscellaneous.

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

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

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
Open access
Published: 28 August 2024

A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis provide evidence for an effect of acute physical activity on cognition in young adults

Jordan Garrett ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5893-5904 1 , 2 ,
Carly Chak 1 , 2 ,
Tom Bullock 1 , 2 &
Barry Giesbrecht ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1976-1251 1 , 2

Communications Psychology volume 2 , Article number: 82 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cognitive neuroscience
Human behaviour

Physical exercise is a potential intervention for enhancing cognitive function across the lifespan. However, while studies employing long-term exercise interventions consistently show positive effects on cognition, studies using single acute bouts have produced mixed results. Here, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the impact of acute exercise on cognitive task performance in healthy young adults. A Bayesian hierarchical model quantified probabilistic evidence for a modulatory relationship by synthesizing 651 effect sizes from 113 studies from PsychInfo and Google Scholar representing 4,390 participants. Publication bias was mitigated using the trim-and-fill method. Acute exercise was found to have a small beneficial effect on cognition ( g = 0.13 ± 0.04; BF = 3.67) and decrease reaction time. A meta-analysis restricted to executive function tasks revealed improvements in working memory and inhibition. Meta-analytic estimates were consistent across multiple priors and likelihood functions. Physical activities were categorized based on exercise type (e.g., cycling) because many activities have aerobic and anaerobic components, but this approach may limit comparison to studies that categorize activities based on metabolic demands. The current study provides an updated synthesis of the existing literature and insights into the robustness of acute exercise-induced effects on cognition. Funding provided by the United States Army Research Office.

An umbrella review of randomized control trials on the effects of physical exercise on cognition

Aerobic exercise improves episodic memory in late adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating moderators of long-term effects of exercise on cognition in healthy individuals

Introduction.

A single bout of exercise induces a cascade of neuromodulatory changes that influence multiple brain systems 1 , 2 . This includes an increase in the synthesis of neurotransmitters (e.g., acetylcholine, dopamine, GABA, glutamate) and neurotrophic factors (e.g., BDNF), which can occur in a brain-region-specific manner (see ref. 1 for review). Given these impacts on the brain, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that single brief bouts of exercise are associated with changes in performance across a range of cognitive domains. Consistent with this hypothesis, there is abundant evidence that attention 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , working memory 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , decision making 12 , 13 , and cognitive control 14 , 15 are facilitated by brief bouts of physical exercise. However, there is also evidence suggesting that exercise has little or no effect on cognitive task performance. For instance, Komiyama et al. 16 observed no difference in accuracy on a spatial delayed response task between exercise and rest conditions. Further, working memory performance has been shown to remain unchanged either during or after a single bout of exercise 6 . The discrepant pattern of results in the literature investigating the link between exercise and performance on cognitive tasks is surprising given the consistent and robust physiological effects of even brief bouts of physical activity. However, it is unclear whether this limited impact of exercise on performance reflects the true state of affairs or whether the apparent lack of robust influence is due to vast empirical discrepancies across studies in the literature. Studying the impact of single exercise sessions on cognition can provide insight into how changes in our body’s physiological state impact behavior. This understanding can then guide the creation of more effective longer-term exercise interventions, which essentially involve regularly repeating brief exercise sessions over an extended period.

Meta-analytic techniques are a set of powerful tools that can expose dominant trends within a methodologically heterogeneous literature. There is a consensus amongst narrative reviews and previous meta-analyses that an acute bout of exercise has a small positive influence on behavioral performance 1 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 . The nature of this effect is moderated by exercise protocol, cognitive tasks, and participant characteristics. For instance, Lambourne & Tomporowski 20 observed that task performance during exercise was dependent on exercise modality, the type of cognitive task, and when it was completed relative to exercise onset. Similarly, post-exercise performance was moderated by exercise modality and the type of cognitive task. Chang et al. 18 reported that post-exercise cognitive performance was influenced by exercise intensity, duration, and the time of cognitive test relative to exercise cessation. Interestingly, the authors found that study sample age was a significant moderator, where larger positive effects were found for high school (14–17 years), adult (31–60 years), and older adult (>60 years) samples compared to elementary (6–13 years) and young adult (18–30 years) samples. Multiple meta-analyses have observed that the effect of exercise is dependent on cognitive domain, with measures of executive function, attention, crystallized intelligence, and information processing speed showing the largest gains 18 , 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 . Further, there is evidence that exercise has a differential influence on the speed and accuracy of cognitive processes. McMorris et al. 21 observed that acute, intermediate exercise facilitated response times on working memory tasks, while accuracy was compromised. In contrast, exercise has been shown to boost both the accuracy and speed of cognitive control 23 . Altogether, it is important to consider cognitive task, participant, and physical activity characteristics to develop a holistic model of the relationship between exercise and cognition.

While these earlier meta-analyses have provided unique insights into understanding the relationship between acute exercise and cognition, they have two major limitations. First, the most recent holistic quantitative synthesis of the extant literature was published over a decade ago 18 . Meanwhile, the exercise and cognition literature has grown drastically. According to the electronic database Web of Science, almost 6,000 articles associated with the search term “exercise and cognition” have been published since this last holistic meta-analysis. In addition, more recent meta-analyses have primarily focused on executive processes 19 , 22 , 26 , 27 . Thus, previous models may provide an outdated and limited account of exercise-induced influences on other aspects of cognition, such as perception, long-term memory, and learning. Second, previous meta-analytic approaches employed frequentist statistical methods, which are based on a decision threshold rather than a characterization of the relevant evidence. As a result, it is possible that acute exercise and moderator variables are deemed to have a significant influence on task performance despite the fact that there may only be a small degree of probabilistic evidence in favor of this notion. In addition, relying on a decision threshold prevents these models from conveying the likelihood that an exercise protocol elicits a change in cognitive task performance. Past frequentist meta-analytic models also treated heterogeneity parameters as a fixed quantity and utilize only a point estimate, which can lead to an underestimation of the variability either between or within studies 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 . This is especially true when the number of modeled studies is low 32 , 33 , 34 . When considered together, there is a clear need for an updated meta-analysis using an approach that addresses these limitations.

The current study addressed these limitations in two ways. First, a comprehensive literature search was conducted spanning the years 1995–2023. To quantify the influence of exercise on cognition in young healthy adults, the search was limited to non-clinical studies whose subjects were between 18–45 years old. The analysis focused on subjects within this age range since exercise research has predominantly been dedicated toward studying the effects in children and older adults 35 , 36 . Studies were required to be experimental in nature, and consist of both an acute exercise manipulation and cognitive task measurements. A broad range of cognitive domains encompassing tasks probing perception to executive function were included in the meta-analysis. Similarly, a wide range of exercise types and testing contexts were included. For example, traditional laboratory exposures to exercise (e.g., cycling, running) and sport activities in real-world settings were viable candidates for analysis. By casting a wide net, the current study provides a large scope and updated summary of the current state of the exercise and cognition literature.

Second, the current study uses a Bayesian meta-analytic approach to synthesize studies across the acute exercise and cognition literature. The Bayesian approach affords a flexible modeling framework that uses reported effect sizes to characterize the relative evidence in favor of a modulatory account. Inherently, a random effects meta-analytic model is hierarchical in nature, making it well suited for Bayesian methods. When utilized within this statistical framework, priors are placed on parameters at the highest level of the model such as the estimated pooled effect size and measures of heterogeneity. This approach has several advantages compared to its frequentist counterpart. First, the use of priors on heterogeneity parameters can attenuate the underestimation of variation both between and within studies 37 , 38 , leading to a clearer understanding of sources of heterogeneity and an increased precision when estimating the pooled effect size 39 . Furthermore, priors provide additional constraints on low-level parameter estimates and a greater degree of “shrinkage” of outliers towards the overall pooled effect size or mode(s) of grouping variables 39 , 40 . Therefore, a Bayesian meta-analysis is more robust to outliers and can be more conservative when proper priors are employed. Second, the method yields a posterior distribution for all parameter estimates. This grants the capability of directly modeling the degree of uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates 37 . Posterior distributions can be used to compute the probability that an exercise protocol elicits a change in task performance of a given magnitude (e.g., large effect size). Compared to the approximation of p -values and confidence intervals, which require additional assumptions for hierarchical models, calculating the high-density interval (HDI), which indicates the most credible outcomes in the posterior distribution, for complex hierarchical models is seamless 39 . Third, it is possible to incorporate knowledge from previous meta-analyses when constructing prior distributions. This affords the ability to quantitatively compare the observed data to the predictions of previous models.

Considering the results of past meta-analyses, exercise was expected to have a small positive influence on cognition. Cognitive task and exercise characteristics were anticipated to moderate this relationship, as evidenced by nonzero parameter estimates, reflecting the selective nature of exercise-induced effects. Model comparisons were conducted to evaluate how moderator inclusion improved predictive performance, and robustness of parameter estimates were determined by employing multiple priors and likelihood functions.

Literature search

Studies investigating the impact of an acute bout of exercise on cognition were obtained through searches of the electronic databases PsychInfo and Google Scholar according to the PRISMA guidelines 41 . On 09 September 2023, databases were queried using a search string that combined the following physical activity and cognitive domain keywords: [“exercise” OR “physical activity” OR “physical exertion” OR “physical fatigue”] AND [“perception” OR “attention” OR “working memory” OR “executive function” OR “memory” OR “decision making” OR “motor skill” OR “skill acquisition” OR “language” OR “reasoning”]. For the PsychInfo search, the filters “journal article”, “English”, “empirical study”, “human”, and “peer reviewed” were applied. Search results were limited to studies published between 1995 and 2023 and whose subjects were between 18 and 45 years of age. Note, this literature search and analysis were not preregistered, nor was a review protocol prepared prior to the literature search.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis if they met all of the following criteria: assessed the influence of an acute bout of exercise on cognition, compared the effects of exercise with an active and/or passive control group(s), utilized cognitive tasks that measured reaction time (RT) and/or accuracy, tested cognition either during, pre-, or post-exercise and consisted of cognitively normal subjects. Note, an acute bout was defined as an instance of physical activity that occurred within a single 24-hour period 18 . Two researchers independently screened records based on their title, abstract, and full text. In the case of discrepancies, a third researcher resolved them by reading the full-text.

Data extraction and coding

Information concerning experimental design and procedures, exercise details (i.e., type, intensity, duration), and sample characteristics were extracted from the final list of studies by a single researcher. Means and standard deviations of accuracy and/or RT measures on all cognitive tasks were inserted into an electronic spreadsheet for the calculation of effect sizes. The primary outcome measures for each domain were inserted separately if a task assessed multiple cognitive domains. Regarding studies that probed cognition at multiple time points during or post-exercise, measures for each time point were also recorded separately. If the statistics necessary for calculating effect sizes were not reported in the full-text of the article, the authors were contacted and asked to provide them.

All effect sizes were categorized into one of seven cognitive domains that were generally based on the DSM-5 42 : executive function, information processing, perception, attention, learning, motor skills, and memory. The classification criteria used for categorizing a cognitive task into a domain is provided in the Supplementary Table 1 . To account for variability in the metric used to measure exercise intensity across studies (e.g., ventilatory threshold, heart rate), each intensity was labeled as either light, moderate, or vigorous according to the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines 43 . Exercise durations were grouped into one of five time bins: ≤16 minutes, 20–27 minutes, 30–35 minutes, 40–45 minutes, ≥60 minutes. In the event that a study did not provide the exercise duration, its time bin was labeled as “not provided”. Exercise types were based on the modality reported in each study, yielding the following categorizations: cycling, high intensity interval training (HIIT), running, walking, circuit training, resistance exercise, and sports activity. The latter category encompassed studies that used sports-related exercises that did not fit into the other labels, such as rock climbing or soccer. The time at which cognitive task performance was evaluated relative to exercise was categorized as either during exercise or 0, 15, 20–75, and ≥180 minutes after cessation. Lastly, effect sizes were also coded according to task performance dependent measures (i.e., RT vs accuracy). Note, the levels of each categorical moderator were chosen with the intention of achieving a balance between specificity and statistical power to yield reliable estimates that can inform the design of future exercise studies.

Calculating effect sizes

Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated for studies that tested cognition pre-/post-exercise without a control condition by dividing the mean change in performance by the standard deviation of the pre-test. If the study included a control group (e.g., rest), the mean change of the control condition was subtracted from the mean change of the exercise condition and divided by the pooled standard deviation of pretest scores 20 , 44 . For studies that tested cognition during, or only after exercise, the mean of the control condition was subtracted from the mean of the exercise condition and divided by the standard deviation of the control condition 21 . All effect sizes were converted into the bias-corrected standardized mean difference, Hedge’s g , by multiplying them by the correction factor \({{\rm{J}}}=1-\frac{3}{4{df}-1}\) where df is the degrees of freedom 45 . The sign of effect sizes for RT and error were reversed to reflect a positive influence of exercise on cognitive task performance. Once effect sizes were extracted from each study, inspection of a funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were conducted to assess the risk of publication bias.

Bayesian hierarchical modeling

The overall effect of exercise on cognition was assessed using a Bayesian hierarchical model 46 , 47 , which was implemented through the R package brms 48 . In the first level of the model, a study’s observed effect size(s) \({\hat{{{\rm{\theta }}}}}_{{ik}}\) was assumed to be an estimate of the true effect size \({{{\rm{\theta }}}}_{k}\) . The observed effect(s) \({\hat{\theta }}_{{ik}}\) were modeled as being sampled from a normally distributed population underlying study k with a mean equivalent to the true effect and a variance of \({{{\rm{\sigma }}}}_{k}^{2}\) . In the second level of the model, the true effect size \({\theta }_{k}\) was assumed to have been drawn from an overarching distribution whose mean represented the overall pooled effect \({{\rm{\mu }}}\) , and whose variance depicted the degree of between-study heterogeneity \({\tau }^{2}\) . The final level of the model contained weakly informative priors. A standard normal prior was used for the pooled effect, while the prior for \({\tau }^{2}\) was a Half-Cauchy distribution with location and scale parameters set to 0 and 0.5, respectively.

Following the main meta-analysis, subgroup analyses were conducted to determine potential moderators of the relationship between exercise and cognitive task performance. More specifically, we analyzed the influence of the following primary moderators: cognitive domain, time of cognitive test relative to exercise, task outcome measure, exercise intensity, duration, and type. The following secondary moderators were also analyzed to determine the influence of study and participant characteristics on the overall pooled effect size: average sample age, body mass index (BMI kg/m 2 ), height (cm), weight (kg), VO2 max (ml/kg/min), percentage of female participants, within- vs between-study design, and publication year. With the exception of publication year and the percentage of female participants, all secondary moderators were mean centered for interpretability. A standard normal distribution was used as a weakly informative prior for the difference in effect sizes between subgroups. When reporting model parameter estimates, we use the [mode ± standard deviation] and the 89% HDI of posterior distribution.

Statistical inference

For all estimated effect sizes, Bayes Factors (BFs) were used to determine the degree of evidence in favor of a difference from zero. BFs were approximated using the reciprocal of the Savage-Dickey density ratio, which was implemented using the function bayesfactor_parameters from the bayestestR package 49 . This method involves dividing the height of the prior distribution for the null value by the height of the posterior distribution at the same value, and represents the credibility of the null value for a parameter once the data has been taken into consideration. BFs were also used to ascertain the predictive performance of subgroup models. After each model was compared to a null counterpart (i.e., moderator excluded) using the function bayesfactor_models , an inclusion BF ( bayesfactor_inclusion ) was estimated to determine if including a moderator improved predictive power 50 . To estimate stable BFs, a large number of sampling iterations (10,000) and warmup samples (2000) were used for each of four chains when estimating model parameters 51 . BFs were interpreted following the guidelines proposed by Jeffreys 52 . A BF between 1 and 3 indicates “anecdotal” evidence for the alternative hypothesis, between 3 and 10 indicates “moderate” evidence, between 10 and 30 indicates “strong” evidence, and greater than 30 indicates “very strong” evidence 39 , 53 , 54 , 55 . The reciprocal of these ranges signifies evidence in favor of the null hypothesis (e.g., 0.33-1 = anecdotal evidence). When conducting subgroup analyses with more than two factors, orthonormal coding was employed to ensure that an identical prior was used for each factor level and that estimated BFs were accurate 56 . Parameter estimates were extracted from all models using the R package emmeans .

Sensitivity analysis

A popular criticism of the Bayesian approach is that priors are chosen subjectively, which in turn can bias parameter estimates and their corresponding BFs 40 , 57 . Although utilizing weakly informative priors mitigates bias, a sensitivity analysis that evaluates the contribution of both priors and the likelihood function must be conducted to determine if the model results are robust 38 , 58 , 59 , 60 . Thus, we replicated the previously described modeling approach with the exception of using two different priors for the overall pooled effect size. The first was a normal distribution with a mean of zero and standard deviation of ½. Since this prior adds greater weight to the probability that exercise has no influence on task performance, we denoted it as the no effect (NE) prior. The second prior was constructed by synthesizing estimates from previous meta-analyses on acute exercise and cognition 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , resulting in a normal distribution with a mean of 0.24 and standard deviation of 0.57. This prior was denoted as the positive effect (PE) prior.

The influence of the likelihood function was assessed by modeling study effect sizes as being sampled from a t -distribution. An advantage of using this likelihood function, compared to a normal distribution, is that model parameter estimates are influenced less by outliers 40 . The Half-Cauchy prior was used for the scale of the distribution, while a standard normal prior was used for its mean. For its shape (i.e., degree of freedom) an exponential distribution with a rate equal to 1/29 served as a prior. To determine if meta-analytic estimates were robust across the alternative priors and likelihood function, we visually compared the posterior distributions across models for large deviations 58 .

Description of studies

The literature search yielded 15,900 peer reviewed journal articles, and after removing duplicates 8295 remained. Subsequent an initial screening based off the titles and abstracts, 805 studies were identified as potential candidates for modeling. 113 of these studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis according to their full-text contents (Fig. 1 ). In total, 642 effect sizes were extracted from these studies, representing data from 4390 subjects. A majority of the effects measured the influence of exercise on executive function ( k = 434) and attention ( k = 109). Fewer effects were measured during exercise ( k = 82) relative to after the cessation of exercise ( k = 560). Visual inspection of a funnel plot suggested that the effect sizes were distributed symmetrically (Fig. 2a ), however there was very strong evidence for asymmetry according to Egger’s regression intercept ( \({{\rm{\beta }}}\) = 1.18 ± 0.25; HDI = [0.78, 1.58]; BF = 253.24) suggesting the presence of publication bias. This was addressed by employing the trim and fill approach, which imputes low-precision effect sizes until the funnel plot is symmetrical 61 .

A total of 113 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analytic modeling.

a Funnel plot of 642 study effect sizes (black circles). Imputed effect sizes after using the trim and fill method are represented by the unfilled circles ( \(n=9\) ). Vertical blue line indicates the estimated pooled effect sizes, while dashed black lines represent a pseudo 95% confidence limits. b Posterior distribution of estimated pooled effect. Horizontal black line indicates bounds of 89% HDI derived using \(n=651\) effect sizes. c Empirical cumulative density function of distribution in b , where the dashed black line indicates the pooled effect. d Representation of using the Savage-Dickey ratio to calculate BFs. The density of the null value in the prior distribution (red) is divided by its density in the posterior distribution (blue) to yield probabilistic evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis. e Posterior distributions of between and within study heterogeneity.

Overall effect

The meta-analysis indicated that there was moderate evidence for an acute bout of exercise to have a small positive influence on overall performance across cognitive domains ( g = 0.13 ± 0.04; HDI = [0.06, 0.20]; BF = 3.67) (Fig. 2 b, d ) . According to the posterior distribution, there was a low probability that the estimated pooled effect was less than or equal to zero ( p = 0.01) and an 80% chance that the effect size fell between the range of 0 to 0.2 (Fig. 2c ). There was a large amount of heterogeneity within ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{within}}\,\) = 0.65 ± 0.03; HDI = [0.60, 0.70]; \({I}_{{within}}^{2}\,\) = 81.19%) and moderate amount between ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{between}}\,\) = 0.29 ± 0.05; HDI = [0.20, 0.38]; \({I}_{{between}}^{2}\) = 15.9%) studies (Fig. 2e ). Effect size estimates for each individual study are presented in Table 1 .

Subgroup analyses

Primary subgroup analyses revealed that acute exercise reduced RT on cognitive tasks ( g = 0.27; HDI = [0.18, 0.36]; BF \(=6.71\times {10}^{3}\) ), but had no impact on accuracy ( g = 0.04; HDI = [−0.04, 0.12]; BF \(=6.15\times {10}^{-2}\) ) (Table 2 ) (Fig. 3a ). Engaging in either cycling ( g = 0.21; HDI = [0.11, 0.32]; BF = \(14.74\) ) or HIIT ( g = 0.73; HDI = [0.40, 1.09]; BF \(=26.05\) ) was found to have an enhancing effect on performance in cognitive tasks (Fig. 3b ). In regard to cognitive domain, there was evidence that acute exercise has a positive influence on executive processes ( g = 0.18; HDI = [0.10, 0.27]; BF \(=36.97\) ). Furthermore, behavioral performance was found to improve immediately after exercise cessation ( g = 0.16; HDI = [0.11, 0.30]; BF \(=4.03\) ) and in response to vigorous intensity exercises ( g = 0.19; HDI = [0.09, 0.28]; BF \(=5.03\) ). Lastly, at least moderate evidence in favor of non-zero parameter estimates were observed for the secondary moderators publication year, within-subjects design, age, percentage of female participants, and weight (Table 3 ).

Posterior distributions of a cognitive and b exercise moderators. Horizontal black line indicates the 89% HDI interval, while the black dot represents the mode of the posterior distribution. Intervals derived using \({{\rm{n}}}=651\) effect sizes.

To test for the possible contribution of a learning effect to the estimated overall pooled effect size, a separate meta-analysis was conducted on effects from studies employing a pre-/post-test design ( N effect sizes = 298). Despite the estimated pooled effect size for this subset of data being nominally similar to the estimate for the entire dataset, there was anecdotal evidence in favor of the null hypothesis ( g = 0.15 ± 0.06; HDI = [0.04, 0.24]; BF \(=0.95\) ). Moderator analyses indicated that there was no credible evidence for a difference in this estimated pooled effect size as a function of whether or not a control group was included in the study \(({{{\rm{BF}}}}_{{{\rm{Inclusion}}}}=0.12;\,{\mbox{w}}/{\mbox{control}}:g\,=0.18\,\pm \,0.10;\,{\mbox{HDI}}=[0.03,\,0.33];{\mbox{BF}}=0.51;{\mbox{w}}/{{\rm{o}}} {{\rm{control}}}:g=0.11\pm 0.13;{\mbox{HDI}}=\left[-0.03,\,0.26\right]{\mbox{;BF}}=0.18)\) , suggesting that the estimated influence of exercise on general cognitive performance is not driven by a learning effect.

Model comparisons

Model comparisons were performed to determine if including a moderator improved predictive performance. Only a model that included task performance measure as a moderator was more likely when compared to a null counterpart (BF Inclusion \(=357.10\) ) (Table 4 ). This is likely due to a number of factors. First, acute exercise had a negligible impact on a majority of the levels in each subgroup. Second, there was a high degree of uncertainty in estimated model coefficients, as evidenced by their wide HDI intervals. Third, Bayesian inference automatically penalizes model complexity and favors more parsimonious models. If a model has many parameters, but a majority of them are nonzero, then a simpler counterpart will be favored.

Interactions between moderators

An exploratory analysis was conducted to determine if the influence of moderator variables was contingent on one another. Due to the computationally intensive nature of Bayesian modeling, analyses were limited to the following pairs of moderators: (1) exercise intensity and type, (2) exercise intensity and duration, (3) exercise type and duration, (4) cognitive domain and exercise type, (5) cognitive domain and exercise intensity, (6) cognitive domain and task performance measure, (7) exercise type and task performance measure. Although none of the pairs of interaction models had more predictive power compared to a null counterpart ( \({{{\rm{BF}}}}_{{{\rm{Inclusion}}}}\) : Model 1 = \(3.86\times {10}^{-6}\) ; Model \(2=1.66\times {10}^{-8}\) ; Model \(3=1.84\times {10}^{-3}\) ; Model 4 = 1.31 × 10 −4 ; Model 5 = \(3.91\times {10}^{-5}\) ; Model 6 = \(7.1\times {10}^{-3}\) ; Model 7 = \(7.05\times {10}^{-4}\) ), there were two that had nonzero parameter estimates.

The first model included an interaction between cognitive domain and exercise type. There was evidence in favor of cycling improving performance on tasks that probed attention ( g = 0.34; HDI = [0.14, 0.56]; BF \(=3.05\) ) and executive function ( g = 0.28; HDI = [0.14, 0.40]; BF = \(17.83\) ). HIIT exercises were found to bolster executive function ( g = 1.01; HDI = [0.61, 1.43]; BF \(=155.33\) ), while resistance exercises had an aversive impact on attentional performance ( g = −0.76; HDI = [−1.20, −0.38]; BF \(=18.07\) ) (Fig. 4a ). The second model included an interaction between cognitive domain and task performance measure and indicated that time-dependent measures of executive function are improved ( g = 0.30; HDI = [0.19, 0.39]; BF \(=1.10\times {10}^{3}\) ) (Fig. 4b ).

Posterior mode estimates of models including interactions between cognitive domain and a exercise type and b task outcome measure. Width of line represents 89% HDI derived using \({{\rm{n}}}=651\) effect sizes.

Sensitivity analyses

The estimated overall effect of acute exercise on cognition was consistent across the NE prior ( g = 0.13 ± 0.04; HDI = [0.06, 0.20]; BF = 6.52), PE prior ( g = 0.12 ± 0.04; HDI = [0.06, 0.19]; BF \(=6.51\) ), and t likelihood function ( g = 0.12 ± 0.04; HDI = [0.06, 0.18]; BF \(=8.77\) ) (Fig. 5a ). Interestingly, there was anecdotal-to-moderate evidence in favor of the synthesized estimate from previous meta-analyses (i.e., g = 0.24) across the PE (BF \(=3.19\) ), NE (BF \(=2.78\) ), and standard normal (BF \(=5.27\) ) priors. Estimates of between-study heterogeneity were also robust across the NE prior ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{between}}\,\) = 0.29 ± 0.05; HDI = [0.20, 0.37]), the PE prior ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{between}}\,\) = 0.29 ± 0.05; HDI = [0.21, 0.37]), and t likelihood function ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{between}}\,\) = 0.31 ± 0.03; HDI = [0.26, 0.38]) (Fig. 5b ). In contrast, within study heterogeneity was estimated to be lower when using the t likelihood function ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{within}}\,\) = 0.17 ± 0.02; HDI = [0.13, 0.19]) relative to the NE ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{within}}\,\) = 0.65 ± 0.03; HDI = [0.61, 0.70]) and PE ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{within}}\,\) = 0.65 ± 0.02; HDI = [0.60, 0.70]) priors (Fig. 5c ). Note, this reduction reflects the diminished influence of outliers on variance estimates by the inclusion of the shape parameter for the t distribution ( v = 1.52 ± 0.14; HDI = [1.30; 1.73]). In addition to testing the robustness of parameter estimates, a model comparison was conducted to determine if either the null or positive effect prior was more probable given the data. The t -likelihood function was not included in this comparison since it would only indicate if effect sizes were more likely to have been drawn from either a normal or t -distribution. When compared to a standard normal prior, there was anecdotal evidence in favor of both the PE (BF \(=2.56\) ) and NE (BF \(=1.48\) ) priors. Relative to the PE prior, there was anecdotal evidence against the NE prior (BF \(=0.73\) ). Altogether, parameter estimates were not biased by the prior or likelihood function.

Estimates for the a overall pooled effect size, b between- and c within-study heterogeneity parameters across the t-likelihood function (TL), weakly informed, null effect (NE), and positive effect (PE) priors. Color dots represent mode of posterior distributions, while color horizontal line depicts the 89% HDI derived using \(n=651\) effect sizes.

Executive function meta-analysis

Considering that the majority of the effect sizes were from tasks that probed executive function, and that this cognitive domain encompasses multiple sub-domains, a separate meta- analysis and set of meta-regressions were conducted on this subset of data. Categorization criteria from previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews 17 , 24 , 26 were used to classify effect sizes into the following sub-domains of executive function: working memory, cognitive control, decision making, planning, and inhibition. For completeness, the primary moderators used in the main meta-analysis were also tested.

The results were similar to the main meta-analysis. There was very strong evidence in favor of exercise having a small positive influence on overall task performance ( \(g\) = 0.20 ± 0.06; HDI = [0.12, 0.30]; BF \(=29.57\) ), and a moderate degree of heterogeneity both within ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{within}}\,\) = 0.51 ± 0.03; HDI = [0.47, 0.57]) and between studies ( \({{{\rm{\tau }}}}_{{between}}\,\) = 0.40 ± 0.06; HDI = [0.30, 0.48]). Subgroup analyses indicated that a model including the moderator task outcome measure had more predictive power relative to a null counterpart (BF Inclusion \(=48.43\) ). Paralleling the main meta-analysis, there was very strong evidence that acute exercise improved RT on executive function tasks ( g = 0.32; HDI = [0.21, 0.42]; BF \(=748.18\) ), but no credible evidence was observed for an effect on accuracy ( g = 0.13; HDI = [0.04, 0.23]; BF \(=0.63\) ) (Table 5 ). Furthermore, there was moderate evidence in favor of a positive impact of exercise on inhibition ( g = 0.21; HDI = [0.09, 0.33]; BF \(=3.14\) ) and working memory ( g = 0.22; HDI = [0.11, 0.34]; BF \(=6.89\) ) (Fig. 6 ). Yet, a model including executive function sub-domain as a moderator did not improve model performance (BF Inclusion \(=7.52\times {10}^{-4}\) ), nor did models including interactions between moderators.

Posterior distributions for executive function sub-domain. Horizontal black line indicates the 89% HDI interval, while the black dot represents the mode of the posterior distribution, which was derived using \(n=433\) effect sizes.

A large corpus of empirical work has examined how a single bout of acute exercise modulates activity within multiple brain systems that underly cognition. Despite inconsistencies in results across empirical studies, there is consensus amongst previous reviews and meta-analyses that acute exercise impacts behavioral performance 18 , 20 , 22 and that this relationship is moderated by both exercise protocol and behavioral task characteristics. The goal of the present work was to address two key limitations of previous meta-analyses. First, recent meta-analyses have a narrower focus, often limited to a single cognitive domain or a specific subset of domains. In contrast, the current meta-analysis presents an updated synthesis of the literature spanning a much wider range of cognitive domains. Second, in contrast to previous frequentist approaches, a Bayesian framework was adopted allowing for the quantification of the degree of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that acute exercise influences cognition in young healthy adults. The current meta-analysis observed that acute exercise has a small positive influence on overall cognitive task performance, and sensitivity analyses indicated that the alternative hypothesis was 6.51–8.77 times more likely than the null across multiple priors and likelihood functions. The magnitude and directionality of this effect were consistent with the results of previous meta-analyses on acute exercise and cognition 18 , 21 , 22 , 62 . Subgroup analyses suggested that this relationship is moderated by task performance measure, cognitive domain, exercise type and intensity, and the time of task completion relative to exercise cessation. Model comparison results indicated that accounting for variations amongst moderator levels did not improve predictive performance. Given our eligibility criteria, these results are limited to healthy individuals between the ages of 18–45 years old.

Similar to McMorris et al. 63 , acute exercise was found to improve RT but no credible evidence was observed for an influence on accuracy. A possible explanation for this differential impact on task outcome measures is that exercise modulates primary motor cortex (M1) excitability 64 . There is accumulating evidence that acute exercise increases M1 intracortical facilitation 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 and inhibition 69 , 70 . Yamazaki et al. 68 observed that the intracortical circuits of both exercised (i.e., legs) and non-exercised (i.e., hand) effectors are modulated by an acute bout of low intensity pedaling. Thus, alterations in the activity of excitatory or inhibitory circuits of non-exercised cortical representations may promote faster RT on cognitive tasks. However, the lack of concurrent changes in corticospinal excitability or motor-evoked potentials suggests that this explanation is not a viable account of a mechanism that engenders faster RTs. An alternative explanation is that exercise increases peripheral and central concentrations of catecholamines, such as norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine, which in turn improves the speed of cognition 1 , 71 , 72 . Indeed, acute exercise has been found to improve response time on choice RT, decision-making, and interference tasks 18 , 73 , 74 . Yet, it is unclear as to why changes in neurochemical levels would facilitate RT but have no impact on accuracy. Considering that physical activity modulates population-level tuning in the sensory areas of nonhuman animals and invertebrates 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , along with sensory responses in humans 82 , 83 , 84 , it stands to reason that the fidelity of stimulus representations would also be impacted, resulting in changes in accuracy. Changes in the fidelity of feature selective stimulus representations can be determined by applying encoding models to recorded neural activity 83 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 . For instance, Garrett et al. 91 applied an inverted encoding model to topographical patterns of alpha band activity, recorded at the scalp, while subjects completed a spatial working memory task both at rest and during a bout of moderate intensity cycling. Notably, it was possible to reconstruct spatially selective responses during exercise, and the selectivity of these responses decreased during exercise relative to rest. Therefore, encoding models can be a powerful tool for future research to demystify how the precision of task-relevant representations is influenced by exercise. It is also important to keep in mind that many psychological tasks are relatively simple to do, which can lead to ceiling effects that may mask the influence of exercise on accuracy measures. Lastly, the differential impact of exercise on accuracy and RT may be due to the relative sensitivities of these dependent measures to modulations of different stages of information processing. For example, there is evidence that in near-threshold tasks accuracy is sensitive to perceptual manipulations, whereas in supra-threshold (i.e., perceptually easy tasks, including many of those used in the studies in this meta-analysis) RT is sensitive to modulations in both perceptual and post-perceptual processes 92 , 93 . Indeed, Davranche et al. 73 utilized a drift diffusion model to determine which aspects of decision-making are modulated by HIIT. Importantly, drift rate and decision response boundary size increased significantly after exercise relative to before, while non-decision time decreased. This suggests there was an improvement in perceptual discrimination, the efficiency of non-decisional processes (e.g., motor execution), and the adoption of a more conservative criterion. Future research employing computational models of response time and representational fidelity is needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of the selective influence exercise on information processing speed and accuracy.

Parameter estimates of a model including exercise modality as a moderator suggested that engaging in cycling or HIIT may beneficially impact cognition, especially on attentional and executive processes. Cycling is a commonly used modality in exercise and cognition research. Numerous empirical studies have found that a bout of cycling benefits inhibition, as measured using either the Stroop or Eriksen Flanker task 15 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 . Improvements in planning 94 , 100 , task-switching 27 , 101 , 102 , and the speed of decision making 103 have also been reported. In contrast to the ubiquity of cycling, the use of HIIT workouts in exercise and cognition research is a relatively recent practice, hence the small number of effect sizes from studies using this modality compared to other types of exercise. The number of effect sizes is important because low-level parameters in a hierarchical model are influenced both by the subset of data directly dependent on the low-level parameter, and by high-level parameter estimates that rely on all of the data. This makes low-level parameter estimates indirectly dependent on the entire dataset, and causes shrinkage in estimates at all levels of the model. In other words, the estimated relationship between HIIT and behavioral performance is derived directly from the few representative effect sizes and indirectly from the rest of the data. The observed positive effect of HIIT on cognition corroborates previous findings. For example, Alves et al. 3 observed that the time to complete a Stroop Task decreased after ten 1-minute bouts of exercising at 80% heart rate reserve relative to a control condition. Improvements in time-dependent measures on interference tasks (i.e., Stroop and flanker) have been correlated with an increase in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity, as measured with functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), and a decrease in P3 latency measured with EEG 104 . Furthermore, enhancements have also been shown to coincide with an increase in peripheral levels of neural growth factors and lactate 105 . Lastly, a recent meta-analysis on elite athletes observed that HIIT team-based sports had a positive impact on cognitive task performance 25 . Interestingly, because of the small number of published studies in the literature, it is currently unclear if the type of exercise modality used for HIIT workouts (e.g., cycling, sprinting, resistance) differentially impacts cognition.

Behavioral task performance was found to be improved by engaging in vigorous intensity exercise. These results are surprising, considering that exercise intensity is believed to have an inverted-U relationship with performance; where moderate intensity exercise elicits the greatest enhancements while more intense, fatiguing exercise imposes decrements 18 , 62 , 63 , 71 , 106 , 107 . This effect could be driven by HIIT workouts, but may also depend on multiple cognitive task and exercise protocol characteristics. For instance, Chang et al. 18 observed that exercise intensity was only a significant moderator when cognition was tested post-exercise. Similarly, Oberste et al. 23 found that exercise intensity influenced time-dependent measures of interference control but not accuracy. When considering these results, one must also consider that both aforementioned meta-analyses included studies whose subjects were children, adolescents, and older adults. In contrast, the current study was limited to young adults, and there is evidence that the effect of exercise on cognition is comparatively smaller in this age group 18 , 23 . Thus, a model containing an interaction between cognitive domain, task outcome measure, and age groups across the lifespan may be required to observe evidence for an effect of intensity. In addition, there was evidence for the enhancing effects of exercise post-cessation, corroborating previous research 1 , 18 , 94 . Interestingly, in the current meta-analysis cognition was not found to be impacted during exercise. Prior meta-analytic findings on cognition during exercise are mixed, with some reporting that it is exacerbated 20 , while others that find evidence for an enhancement 18 .

Given that the majority of the effect sizes were from tasks that probed executive function, a separate meta-analysis was conducted on this subset of data. This analysis revealed that exercise has a small positive impact on RT measures of executive processes. When looking at model parameters, there was evidence in favor of exercise-enhancing inhibition and working memory. Behavioral research has shown that both the accuracy 9 and speed of working memory 108 , 109 are facilitated by an instance of physical activity. What remains to be determined is the neural mechanisms that engender these behavioral effects. Kao et al. 108 observed that a reduction in RT on the Sternberg task post-HIIT corresponded to an increase in frontal alpha desynchronization during encoding, maintenance, and retrieval periods when working memory load is high. Neuroimaging studies have also found evidence for changes in the activation levels of frontal areas 110 and their connectivity with the intraparietal sulcus post-exercise 111 . These changes in neural activity were not accompanied by a change in behavior, suggesting that more research is needed to demystify the neuromodulatory effect of acute exercise on working memory.

Engaging in repeated bouts of acute exercise over a long period of time can have lasting changes on baseline neurochemical levels, cortical volume, and structural/functional connectivity, which can alter cognitive task performance 1 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 . Research investigating the influence of these long-term interventions on cognition has primarily focused on children or older adults. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that exercise has a small to moderate beneficial impact on general task performance for both of these age groups, with the largest effect sizes observed for measures of executive function, attention, and academic performance 35 . Despite the relative paucity of meta-analyses on how exercise interventions impact cognition in healthy young adults, recent work suggests that it may have a similar beneficial effect. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis, conducted by Ludyga et al. 116 , indicated that long-term exercise interventions have a small positive influence on general cognition regardless of age. The magnitude of this effect was dependent on the interaction between intervention length and exercise duration, with longer interventions and sessions producing greater benefits. Integrating these findings with the current meta-analysis, there is support for the notion that the beneficial impact of long-term interventions on cognition may be a product of repeated exposure to acute exercise induced effects.

There are a number of possible explanations as to why exercise induced effects are small. One possibility is that cognitive function is at its peak during young adulthood, leaving little room for improvements in task performance. Indeed, previous reviews and meta-analyses have observed that the effect of exercise is moderated by age 35 , with the greatest benefits observed for preadolescent children and older adults 18 , 23 , 26 . Contrary to this account, though, the largest exercise induced effects were observed for executive processes, which are believed to be at peak efficiency during this period in the lifespan 117 , 118 . Furthermore, there was moderate evidence that the impact of exercise increased as the average age of sampled young adults also increased. Another explanation may be that cognition is resilient to slight or modest perturbations in overall global state. For example, Bullock et al. 119 demonstrated there was no change in accuracy or RT on a target detection task during experimentally induced hypoxia, hypercapnia, hypocapnia, and normoxia. Meta-analytic modeling of the influence of acute stress on executive function revealed that stress has a small negative impact on working memory and cognitive flexibility, but no impact on inhibition 120 . This suggests that cognition is able to selectively adapt to changes in physiological state caused by various types of stressors, including exercise. A final more intriguing and functional explanation for exercise having a small impact on cognition is that experimental protocols do not typically require the engagement of the body to execute the cognitive task, but rather have people engage in a cognitive task while exercising (or shortly thereafter). This experimental design contrasts real-world tasks that require engagement of the body in the service of the cognitive task. When components of the exercise are incorporated into task goals, then larger changes in performance may be observed. Empirical research investigating how exercise influences task performance in embodied settings versus classic laboratory settings (see 121 for review) is necessary to test the plausibility of this explanation. In addition, the notion that the integrated action of the body and the mind are required to produce the largest effects of exercise on cognition is consistent with a recent evolutionary account of the link between cognition and exercise 122 .

The discrepancy in moderator results between the current meta-analysis and previous meta-analyses could be due to differences in the statistical approach. Frequentist methods typically conduct an omnibus test to determine if levels of a moderator are significantly different from one another and as a measure of a model’s goodness of fit. In contrast, the Bayesian approach determines how likely the observed effect sizes are under a model that includes a moderator and if predictive power is increased. There are a few key advantages to using the Bayesian approach compared to classical frequentist methods. First, it models the uncertainty involved in estimates of between- and within-study heterogeneity and returns a full posterior distribution for both parameters 123 . With these posterior distributions, one can simulate possible pooled effect sizes across credible levels of heterogeneity and develop an informed hypothesis for a subsequent meta-analysis. Similarly, the posterior distributions of effect size estimates can be used as well-informed prior distributions for new data. Importantly, this facilitates the updating of meta-analyses as new research is published. It should be mentioned that the degree of between-study heterogeneity was numerically similar to previous meta-analyses 18 , 22 , implying that they did not suffer from an issue of underestimation by assuming heterogeneity to be a fixed quantity. Second, the Bayesian approach permits the inclusion of prior knowledge. Across all tested priors, there was evidence in favor of a pooled effect derived from averaging the reported estimates of previous meta-analyses. When comparing a prior distribution based on this knowledge to a null effect prior, the former was found to be more probable. Lastly, the posterior distribution of parameter estimates can be used to ascertain the likelihood that one will observe an effect size of a given magnitude for an exercise protocol and cognitive task combination. For example, a researcher could compute the probability that the influence of a bout of cycling on cognitive control will fall within the range of large effect sizes, even if that range does not encompass the maximum a posteriori probability estimate. In contrast, the frequentist approach only produces the maximum likelihood estimate and an interval around it based on fictitious repeats of the meta-analysis. Therefore, the Bayesian approach provides more information for designing future exercise and cognition studies.

Limitations

A potential limitation in the current meta-analysis is the categorization of exercise type using the activity reported in each study. An alternative approach is to categorize exercise based on the theoretical and physiological distinctions between aerobic and anaerobic exercise. We did not adopt this approach here because many activities used in the literature typically include aerobic and anaerobic components, and basing their classification on what authors reported provides insights into the exercise modalities that have been predominantly used in the literature. Another limitation is the schema used to categorize exercise duration. In the event that a study did not report how long participants engaged in exercise, these effects were classified as “not provided”, rendering them as uninterpretable. Lastly, sensitivity analyses were not conducted for moderator parameter estimates due to the high degree of computational demands. However, considering that the pooled effect size estimate was robust across multiple priors and likelihood functions, it is likely that moderator parameter estimates are also consistent.

Conclusions

In summary, the current meta-analytic examination has shown that there is moderate evidence for an acute bout of aerobic exercise inducing a small enhancement in overall performance on cognitive tasks, especially on those that probe executive function and measure response time. Incorporating computational models of decision-making processes, such as drift-diffusion or signal detection models, into exercise research may provide useful insights into the nature of speeded executive processes. Furthermore, testing performance in a real-world setting where individuals typically engage in physical activity may amplify exercise-induced effects.

Data availability

Data have been made publicly available at https://github.com/jggarrett23/PACMAn .

Code availability

Code has been made publicly available at https://github.com/jggarrett23/PACMAn .

Basso, J. C. & Suzuki, W. A. The effects of acute exercise on mood, cognition, neurophysiology, and neurochemical pathways: a review. Brain Plast. 2 , 127–152 (2017).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I. & Kramer, A. F. Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9 , 58–65 (2008).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Alves, C. R. R. et al. Influence of acute high-intensity aerobic interval exercise bout on selective attention and short-term memory tasks. Percept. Mot. Skills 118 , 63–72 (2014).

Chang, Y. K., Pesce, C., Chiang, Y. T., Kuo, C. Y. & Fong, D. Y. Antecedent acute cycling exercise affects attention control: an ERP study using attention network test. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9 , 156 (2015).

Davranche, K. & Audiffren, M. Facilitating effects of exercise on information processing. J. Sports Sci. 22 , 419–428 (2004).

Lambourne, K., Audiffren, M. & Tomporowski, P. D. Effects of acute exercise on sensory and executive processing tasks. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc 42 , 0–00 (2010).

Article Google Scholar

Chen, A. G., Zhu, L. N., Yan, J. & Yin, H. C. Neural basis of working memory enhancement after acute aerobic exercise: FMRI study of preadolescent children. Front. Psychol. 7 , 1804 (2016).

Kao, S. C., Wang, C. H. & Hillman, C. H. Acute effects of aerobic exercise on response variability and neuroelectric indices during a serial n-back task. Brain Cogn. 138 , 105508 (2020).

Quelhas Martins, A., Kavussanu, M., Willoughby, A. & Ring, C. Moderate intensity exercise facilitates working memory. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14 , 323–328 (2013).

Roig, M., Nordbrandt, S., Geertsen, S. S. & Nielsen, J. B. The effects of cardiovascular exercise on human memory: a review with meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37 , 1645–1666 (2013).

Schaefer, S., Lövdén, M., Wieckhorst, B. & Lindenberger, U. Cognitive performance is improved while walking: differences in cognitive–sensorimotor couplings between children and young adults. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 7 , 371–389 (2010).

Kamijo, K. et al. Differential influences of exercise intensity on information processing in the central nervous system. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 92 , 305–311 (2004).

Kamijo, K. & Takeda, Y. General physical activity levels influence positive and negative priming effects in young adults. Clin. Neurophysiol. 120 , 511–519 (2009).

Hillman, C. H. et al. The effect of acute treadmill walking on cognitive control and academic achievement in preadolescent children. Neuroscience 159 , 1044–1054 (2009).

Kamijo, K., Nishihira, Y., Higashiura, T. & Kuroiwa, K. The interactive effect of exercise intensity and task difficulty on human cognitive processing. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 65 , 114–121 (2007).

Komiyama, T. et al. Cognitive function at rest and during exercise following breakfast omission. Physiol. Behav. 157 , 178–184 (2016).

Cantelon, J. A. & Giles, G. E. A review of cognitive changes during acute aerobic exercise. Front. Psychol. 12 , 653158 (2021).

Chang, Y. K., Labban, J. D., Gapin, J. I. & Etnier, J. L. The effects of acute exercise on cognitive performance: a meta-analysis. Brain Res. 1453 , 87–101 (2012).

Haverkamp, B. F. et al. Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive outcomes and academic performance in adolescents and young adults: a meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. 38 , 2637–2660 (2020).

Lambourne, K. & Tomporowski, P. The effect of exercise-induced arousal on cognitive task performance: a meta-regression analysis. Brain Res. 1341 , 12–24 (2010).

McMorris, T., Sproule, J., Turner, A. & Hale, B. J. Acute, intermediate intensity exercise, and speed and accuracy in working memory tasks: a meta-analytical comparison of effects. Physiol. Behav. 102 , 421–428 (2011).

Moreau, D. & Chou, E. The acute effect of high-intensity exercise on executive function: a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14 , 734–764 (2019).

Oberste, M. et al. Effects and moderators of acute aerobic exercise on subsequent interference control: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 10 , 2616 (2019).

Ishihara, T., Drollette, E. S., Ludyga, S., Hillman, C. H. & Kamijo, K. The effects of acute aerobic exercise on executive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 128 , 258–269 (2021).

Logan, N. E., Henry, D. A., Hillman, C. H. & Kramer, A. F. Trained athletes and cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 21 , 725–749 (2023).

Ludyga, S., Gerber, M., Brand, S., Holsboer-Trachsler, E. & Pühse, U. Acute effects of moderate aerobic exercise on specific aspects of executive function in different age and fitness groups: a meta-analysis. Psychophysiology 53 , 1611–1626 (2016).

Oberste, M., Sharma, S., Bloch, W. & Zimmer, P. Acute exercise-induced set shifting benefits in healthy adults and its moderators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 12 , 2 (2021).

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1 , 97–111 (2010).

Hackenberger, B. K. Bayesian meta-analysis now – let’s do it. Croat. Med. J. 61 , 564 (2020).

Sutton, A. J. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research methods for meta-analysis in medical research contents preface acknowledgements part a: meta-analysis methodology: the basics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236905532 (2000).

Sutton, A. J. & Abrams, K. R. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 10 , 277–303 (2001).

Chung, Y., Rabe-Hesketh, S. & Choi, I. H. Avoiding zero between-study variance estimates in random-effects meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 32 , 4071–4089 (2013).

Kontopantelis, E., Springate, D. A. & Reeves, D. A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses. PloS one 8 , e69930 (2013).

Sidik, K. & Jonkman, J. N. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies. Stat. Med. 26 , 1964–1981 (2007).

Erickson, K. I. et al. Physical activity, cognition, and brain outcomes: a review of the 2018 physical activity guidelines. Med Sci. Sports Exerc. 51 , 1242–1251 (2019).

Stillman, C. M., Esteban-Cornejo, I., Brown, B., Bender, C. M. & Erickson, K. I. Effects of exercise on brain and cognition across age groups and health states. Trends Neurosci. 43 , 533–543 (2020).

Thompson, S. G. & Sharp, S. J. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat. Med. 18 , 2693–2708 (1999).

Williams, D. R., Rast, P. & Bürkner, P.-C. Bayesian meta-analysis with weakly informative prior distributions. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/7TBRM (2018).

Kruschke, J. K. & Liddell, T. M. The Bayesian new statistics: hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a bayesian perspective. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25 , 178–206 (2018).

Kruschke, J. K. Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan, 2nd Edn. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405888-0.09999-2 (Elsevier Science, 2014).

Moher, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 20 , 148–160 (2015).

Google Scholar

Sachdev, P. S. et al. Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 10 , 634–642 (2014).

Garber, C. E. et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 43 , 1334–1359 (2011).

Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 (Elsevier, 1985).

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. Introduction to meta-analysis. (Wiley, 2021).

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G. & Spiegelhalter, D. J. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A, (Stat. Soc.) 172 , 137 (2009).

Röver, C. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the Bayesmeta R package. J. Stat. Softw. 93 , 1–51 (2020).

Bürkner, P. C. Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. R. J. 10 , 395–411 (2018).

Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. & Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the bayesian framework. J. Open Source Softw. 4 , 1541 (2019).

Hinne, M., Gronau, Q. F., van den Bergh, D. & Wagenmakers, E.-J. A conceptual introduction to bayesian model averaging. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3 , 200–215 (2020).

Schad, D. J., Betancourt, M. & Vasishth, S. Toward a principled Bayesian workflow in cognitive science. Psychol. Methods 26 , 103–126 (2021).

Jeffreys, H. Theory of probability. 3rd Ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford. (Oxford University Press, 1961).

Dienes, Z. How Bayes factors change scientific practice. J. Math. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.003 (2016).

Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 (1995).

Wetzels, R. et al. Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: an empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6 , 291–298 (2011)

Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L. & Province, J. M. Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. J. Math. Psychol. 56 , 356–374 (2012).

Goldstein, M. Subjective bayesian analysis: principles and practice. Bayesian Anal . 1 , 403–420 (2006).

Depaoli, S., Winter, S. D. & Visser, M. The importance of prior sensitivity analysis in bayesian statistics: demonstrations using an interactive shiny app. Front. Psychol. 11 , 3271 (2020).

Lambert, P. C., Sutton, A. J., Burton, P. R., Abrams, K. R. & Jones, D. R. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat. Med. 24 , 2401–2428 (2005).

McElreath, R. Statistical rethinking: a Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315372495 (2018).

Duval, S. & Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56 , 455–463 (2000).

Etnier, J. et al. The influence of physical fitness and exercise upon cognitive functioning: a meta-analysis. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 19 , 249–277 (1997).

McMorris, T. & Hale, B. J. Differential effects of differing intensities of acute exercise on speed and accuracy of cognition: a meta-analytical investigation. Brain Cogn. 80 , 338–351 (2012).

Neva, J. L. et al. Acute exercise modulates the excitability of specific interneurons in human motor cortex. Neuroscience 475 , 103–116 (2021).

Lulic, T., El-Sayes, J., Fassett, H. J. & Nelson, A. J. Physical activity levels determine exercise-induced changes in brain excitability. PLoS One 12 , e0173672 (2017).

Neva, J. L., Brown, K. E., Mang, C. S., Francisco, B. A. & Boyd, L. A. An acute bout of exercise modulates both intracortical and interhemispheric excitability. Eur. J. Neurosci. 45 , 1343–1355 (2017).

Singh, A. M., Duncan, R. E., Neva, J. L. & Staines, W. R. Aerobic exercise modulates intracortical inhibition and facilitation in a nonexercised upper limb muscle. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 6 , 23 (2014).

Yamazaki, Y. et al. Acute low-intensity aerobic exercise modulates intracortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits in an exercised and a non-exercised muscle in the primary motor cortex. Front. Physiol. 10 , 1361 (2019).

Mooney, R. A. et al. Acute aerobic exercise modulates primary motor cortex inhibition. Exp. Brain Res. 234 , 3669–3676 (2016).

Smith, A. E., Goldsworthy, M. R., Garside, T., Wood, F. M. & Ridding, M. C. The influence of a single bout of aerobic exercise on short-interval intracortical excitability. Exp. Brain Res. 232 , 1875–1882 (2014).

McMorris, T., Tomporowski, P. D. & Audiffren, M. Exercise and cognitive function. Wiley Blackwell , 1–377 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470740668 (2009)

McMorris, T. & Hale, B. J. Is there an acute exercise-induced physiological/biochemical threshold which triggers increased speed of cognitive functioning? A meta-analytic investigation. J. Sport Health Sci. 4 , 4–13 (2015).

Davranche K., Giraud D., Hays A., Gajdos T. Exploring Decision-making Processes: The Impact of Acute High-Intensity Aerobic Exercise. bioRxiv; https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.14.528466 (2023).

Tomporowski, P. D. Effects of acute bouts of exercise on cognition. Acta Psychol. 112 , 297–324 (2003).

Ayaz, A., Saleem, A. B., Schölvinck, M. L. & Carandini, M. Locomotion controls spatial integration in mouse visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 23 , 890–894 (2013).

Fu, Y. et al. A cortical circuit for gain control by behavioral state. Cell 156 , 1139–1152 (2014).

Kaneko, M., Fu, Y. & Stryker, M. P. Locomotion induces stimulus-specific response enhancement in adult visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 37 , 3532–3543 (2017).

Keller, G. B., Bonhoeffer, T. & Hübener, M. Sensorimotor mismatch signals in primary visual cortex of the behaving mouse. Neuron https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.040 (2012)

Maimon, G., Straw, A. D. & Dickinson, M. H. Active flight increases the gain of visual motion processing in Drosophila. Nat. Neurosci . 13 , 393–399 (2010).

Niell, C. M. & Stryker, M. P. Modulation of visual responses by behavioral state in mouse visual cortex. Neuron https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.033 (2010)

Polack, P.-O., Friedman, J. & Golshani, P. Cellular mechanisms of brain state-dependent gain modulation in visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 16 , 1331–1339 (2013).

Bullock, T., Cecotti, H. & Giesbrecht, B. Multiple stages of information processing are modulated during acute bouts of exercise. Neuroscience 307 , 138–150 (2015).

Bullock, T., Elliott, J. C., Serences, J. T. & Giesbrecht, B. Acute exercise modulates feature-selective responses in human cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 29 , 605–618 (2017).

Cao, L. & Händel, B. Walking enhances peripheral visual processing in humans. PLOS Biol. 17 , e3000511 (2019).

Brouwer, G. J. & Heeger, D. J. Decoding and reconstructing color from responses in human visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 29 , 13992–14003 (2009).

Bullock, T. et al. Eye movements disrupt EEG alpha-band coding of behaviorally relevant and irrelevant spatial locations held in working memory. J. Neurophysiol. 129 , 1191–1211 (2023).

Foster, J. J., Sutterer, D. W., Serences, J. T., Vogel, E. K. & Awh, E. The topography of alpha-band activity tracks the content of spatial working memory. J. Neurophysiol. 115 , 168–177 (2016).

MacLean, M. H., Bullock, T. & Giesbrecht, B. Dual process coding of recalled locations in human oscillatory brain activity. J. Neurosci. 39 , 6737–6750 (2019).

Samaha, J., Sprague, T. C. & Postle, B. R. Decoding and reconstructing the focus of spatial attention from the topography of alpha-band oscillations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 28 , 1090–1097 (2016).

Sprague, T. C., Saproo, S. & Serences, J. T. Visual attention mitigates information loss in small- and large-scale neural codes. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19 , 215–226 (2015).

Garrett, J., Bullock, T. & Giesbrecht, B. Tracking the contents of spatial working memory during an acute bout of aerobic exercise. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 33 , 1271–1286 (2021).

Mordkoff, J. T. & Egeth, H. E. Response time and accuracy revisited: converging support for the interactive race model. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 19 , 981–991 (1993).

Santee, J. L. & Egeth, H. E. Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 8 , 489–501 (1982).

Basso, J. C., Shang, A., Elman, M., Karmouta, R. & Suzuki, W. A. Acute exercise improves prefrontal cortex but not hippocampal function in healthy adults. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 21 , 791–801 (2015).

Chang, Y. K. et al. Effect of acute aerobic exercise on cognitive performance: role of cardiovascular fitness. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 15 , 464–470 (2014).

Davranche, K., Hall, B. & McMorris, T. Effect of acute exercise on cognitive control required during an Eriksen Flanker task. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 31 , 628–639 (2009).

Faulkner, J., Lambrick, D., Kaufmann, S. & Stoner, L. Effects of upright and recumbent cycling on executive function and prefrontal cortex oxygenation in young healthy men. J. Phys. Act. health 13 , 882–887 (2016).

Kunzler, M. R. & Carpes, F. P. Intense cycling exercise improves acute cognitive responses. Int. J. Sports Med. 41 , 879–884 (2020).

Yanagisawa, H. et al. Acute moderate exercise elicits increased dorsolateral prefrontal activation and improves cognitive performance with Stroop test. NeuroImage 50 , 1702–1710 (2010).

Hung, T. M., Tsai, C. L., Chen, F. T., Wang, C. C. & Chang, Y. K. The immediate and sustained effects of acute exercise on planning aspect of executive function. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14 , 728–736 (2013).

Bae, S. & Masaki, H. Effects of acute aerobic exercise on cognitive flexibility required during task-switching paradigm. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13 , 1–9 (2019).

Pesce, C. & Audiffren, M. Does acute exercise switch off switch costs? A study with younger and older athletes. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 33 , 609–626 (2011).

McMorris, T. Exercise and decision-making in team games. Exercise and cognitive function 179–192 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470740668.CH9 (2009)

Kao, S. C., Drollette, E. S., Ritondale, J. P., Khan, N. & Hillman, C. H. The acute effects of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous exercise on declarative memory and inhibitory control. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 38 , 90–99 (2018).

Kujach, S. et al. Acute sprint interval exercise increases both cognitive functions and peripheral neurotrophic factors in humans: the possible involvement of lactate. Front. Neurosci. 13 , 1455 (2020).

Dietrich, A. & Audiffren, M. The reticular-activating hypofrontality (RAH) model of acute exercise. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35 , 1305–1325 (2011).

Mehren, A. et al. Intensity-dependent effects of acute exercise on executive function. Neural Plast. 2019 , 1–17 (2019).

Kao, S.-C., Wang, C.-H., Kamijo, K., Khan, N. & Hillman, C. Acute effects of highly intense interval and moderate continuous exercise on the modulation of neural oscillation during working memory. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 160 , 10–17 (2021).

Rattray, B. & Smee, D. J. The effect of high and low exercise intensity periods on a simple memory recognition test. J. Sport Health Sci. 5 , 342 (2016).

Li, L. et al. Acute aerobic exercise increases cortical activity during working memory: a functional MRI study in female college students. PLoS One 9 , e99222 (2014).

Weng, T. B. et al. The acute effects of aerobic exercise on the functional connectivity of human brain networks. Brain Plast. 2 , 171–190 (2017).

Baniqued, P. L. et al. Brain network modularity predicts exercise-related executive function gains in older adults. Front. Aging Neurosci. 9 , 426 (2018).

Firth, J. et al. Effect of aerobic exercise on hippocampal volume in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NeuroImage 166 , 230–238 (2018).

Voss, M. W., Nagamatsu, L. S., Liu-Ambrose, T. & Kramer, A. F. Exercise, brain, and cognition across the life span. J. Appl. Physiol. 111 , 1505–1513 (2011).

Voss, M. W. et al. Neurobiological markers of exercise-related brain plasticity in older adults. Brain Behav. Immun. 28 , 90–99 (2013).

Ludyga, S., Gerber, M., Pühse, U., Looser, V. N. & Kamijo, K. Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating moderators of long-term effects of exercise on cognition in healthy individuals. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 603–612 (2020)

Ferguson, H. J., Brunsdon, V. E. A. & Bradford, E. E. F. The developmental trajectories of executive function from adolescence to old age. Sci. Rep. 11 , 1382 (2021).

Hartshorne, J. K. & Germine, L. T. When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the lifespan. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 433–443 (2015).

Bullock, T., Giesbrecht, B., Beaudin, A. E., Goodyear, B. G. & Poulin, M. J. Effects of changes in end-tidal PO2 and PCO2 on neural responses during rest and sustained attention. Physiol. Rep. 9 , e15106 (2021).

Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A. & Yonelinas, A. P. The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: a meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neurosci. Biobehav Rev. 68 , 651–668 (2016).

Gordon, J. et al. The road towards understanding embodied decisions. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 131 , 722–736 (2021).

Raichlen, D. A. & Alexander, G. E. Adaptive capacity: an evolutionary-neuroscience model linking exercise, cognition, and brain health. Trends Neurosci. 40 , 408–421 (2017).

Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 485 (2002).

Hogervorst, E., Riedel, W., Jeukendrup, A. & Jolles, J. Cognitive performance after strenuous physical exercise. Percept. Mot. Skills 83 , 479–488 (1996).

Pesce, C., Capranica, L., Tessitore, A. & Figura, F. Focusing of visual attention under submaximal physical load. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1 , 275–292 (2003).

Pesce, C., Tessitore, A., Casella, R., Pirritano, M. & Capranica, L. Focusing of visual attention at rest and during physical exercise in soccer players. J. Sports Sci. 25 , 1259–1270 (2007).

Vickers, J. N. & Williams, A. M. Performing under pressure: the effects of physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety, and gaze control in biathlon. J. Mot. Behav. 39 , 381–394 (2007).

Lo Bue-Estes, C. et al. Short-term exercise to exhaustion and its effects on cognitive function in young women. Percept. Mot. Skills 107 , 933–945 (2008).

Coles, K. & Tomporowski, P. D. Effects of acute exercise on executive processing, short-term and long-term memory. J. Sports Sci. 26 , 333–344 (2008).

Fontana, F. E., Mazzardo, O., Mokgothu, C., Furtado, O. & Gallagher, J. D. Influence of exercise intensity on the decision-making performance of experienced and inexperienced soccer players. J. Sport Exerc Psychol. 31 , 135–151 (2009).

Luft, C. D. B., Takase, E. & Darby, D. Heart rate variability and cognitive function: effects of physical effort. Biol. Psychol. 82 , 186–191 (2009).

Pontifex, M. B., Hillman, C. H., Fernhall, B., Thompson, K. M. & Valentini, T. A. The effect of acute aerobic and resistance exercise on working memory. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 41 , 927–934 (2009).

Srygley, J. M., Mirelman, A., Herman, T., Giladi, N. & Hausdorff, J. M. When does walking alter thinking? Age and task associated findings. Brain Res. 1253 , 92–99 (2009).

Thomson, K., Watt, A. P. & Liukkonen, J. Differences in ball sports athletes speed discrimination skills before and after exercise induced fatigue. J. Sports Sci. Med. 8 , 259–264 (2009).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Norling, J. C., Sibthorp, J., Suchy, Y., Hannon, J. C. & Ruddell, E. The benefit of recreational physical activity to restore attentional fatigue: the effects of running intensity level on attention scores. J. Leis. Res. 42 , 135–152 (2010).

Young, W. et al. Acute effect of exercise on kicking accuracy in elite Australian football players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 13 , 85–89 (2010).

Chang, Y.-K. et al. Effects of acute exercise on executive function: a study with a tower of London task. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 33 , 847–865 (2011).

Green, A. L. & Helton, W. S. Dual-task performance during a climbing traverse. Exp. Brain Res. 215 , 307–313 (2011).

Ohlinger, C. M., Horn, T. S., Berg, W. P. & Cox, R. H. The effect of active workstation use on measures of cognition, attention, and motor skill. J. Phys. Act. Health 8 , 119–125 (2011).

Hope, L., Lewinski, W., Dixon, J., Blocksidge, D. & Gabbert, F. Witnesses in action: the effect of physical exertion on recall and recognition. Psychol. Sci. 23 , 386–390 (2012).

Lambourne, K. The effects of acute exercise on temporal generalization. Q J. Exp. Psychol. 65 , 526–540 (2012).

Moore, R. D., Romine, M. W., O’connor, P. J. & Tomporowski, P. D. The influence of exercise-induced fatigue on cognitive function. J. Sports Sci. 30 , 841–850 (2012).

Roberts, A. P. J. & Cole, J. C. The effects of exercise and body armor on cognitive function in healthy volunteers. Mil. Med. 178 , 479–486 (2013).

Bullock, T. & Giesbrecht, B. Acute exercise and aerobic fitness influence selective attention during visual search. Front. Psychol. 5 , 1290 (2014).

Byun, K. et al. Positive effect of acute mild exercise on executive function via arousal-related prefrontal activations: an fNIRS study. NeuroImage 98 , 336–345 (2014).

Darling, K. A. & Helton, W. S. Dual-task interference between climbing and a simulated communication task. Exp. Brain Res. 232 , 1367–1377 (2014).

Nibbeling, N., Oudejans, R. R. D., Ubink, E. M. & Daanen, H. A. M. The effects of anxiety and exercise-induced fatigue on shooting accuracy and cognitive performance in infantry soldiers. Ergonomics 57 , 1366–1379 (2014).

Pontifex, M. B., Parks, A. C., Henning, D. A. & Kamijo, K. Single bouts of exercise selectively sustain attentional processes. Psychophysiology 52 , 618–625 (2015).

Schmidt-Kassow, M. et al. Treadmill walking during vocabulary encoding improves verbal long-term memory. Behav. Brain Funct. 10 , 24 (2014).

Tsai, C. L. et al. Executive function and endocrinological responses to acute resistance exercise. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8 , 1–12 (2014).

Bantoft, C. et al. Effect of standing or walking at a workstation on cognitive function: a randomized counterbalanced trial. Hum. Factors 58 , 140–149 (2016).

Larson, M. J. et al. Slow walking on a treadmill desk does not negatively affect executive abilities: an examination of cognitive control, conflict adaptation, response inhibition, and post-error slowing. Front. Psychol. 6 , 723 (2015).

Osgood, J. M. Acute cardiovascular exercise counteracts the effect of ego-depletion on attention: how ego-depletion increases boredom and compromises directed attention. Int. J. Psychol. Stud. 7 , 85–96 (2015).

Perciavalle, V., Maci, T., Perciavalle, V., Massimino, S. & Coco, M. Working memory and blood lactate levels. Neurol. Sci. 36 , 2129–2136 (2015).

Shia, R. M. et al. Individual differences in biophysiological toughness: sustaining working memory during physical exhaustion. Mil. Med. 180 , 230–236 (2015).

Stevens, D. J., Arciuli, J. & Anderson, D. I. Concurrent movement impairs incidental but not intentional statistical learning. Cogn. Sci. 39 , 1081–1098 (2015).

Weng, T. B., Pierce, G. L., Darling, W. G. & Voss, M. W. Differential effects of acute exercise on distinct aspects of executive function. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 47 , 1460–1469 (2015).

Alloway, R. G., Alloway, T. P., Magyari, P. M. & Floyd, S. An exploratory study investigating the effects of barefoot running on working memory. Percept. Mot. Skills 122 , 432–443 (2016).

Ando, S. et al. Effects of strenuous exercise on visual perception are independent of visual resolution. Physiol. Behav. 106 , 117–121 (2012).

Brush, C. J. et al. Dose–response and time course effects of acute resistance exercise on executive function. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 38 , 396–408 (2016).

Connell, C. J. W., Thompson, B., Kuhn, G. & Gant, N. Exercise-induced fatigue and caffeine supplementation affect psychomotor performance but not covert visuo-spatial attention. PLoS One 11 , e0165318 (2016)

Hsieh, S.-S., Chang, Y.-K., Hung, T.-M. & Fang, C.-L. The effects of acute resistance exercise on young and older males’ working memory. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 22 , 286–293 (2016).

Hsieh, S.-S. Acute resistance exercise facilitates attention control in adult males without an age-moderating effect. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 38 , 247–254 (2016).

Lowe, C. J., Kolev, D. & Hall, P. A. An exploration of exercise-induced cognitive enhancement and transfer effects to dietary self-control. Brain Cogn. 110 , 102–111 (2016).

Torbeyns, T. et al. Cycling on a bike desk positively influences cognitive performance. PloS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165510 (2016)

Tsukamoto, H. et al. Greater impact of acute high-intensity interval exercise on post-exercise executive function compared to moderate-intensity continuous exercise. Physiol. Behav. 155 , 224–230 (2016).

Zach, S. & Shalom, E. The influence of acute physical activity on working memory. Percept. Mot. Skills 122 , 365–374 (2016).

Chang, Y.-K. et al. Acute exercise has a general facilitative effect on cognitive function: a combined ERP temporal dynamics and BDNF study. Psychophysiology 54 , 289–300 (2017).

Crush, E. A. & Loprinzi, P. D. Dose-response effects of exercise duration and recovery on cognitive functioning. Percept. Mot. Skills 124 , 1164–1193 (2017).

González Fernández, F. T., Etnier, J., Zabala, M. & Sanabria, D. Vigilance performance during acute exercise. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 48 , (2017).

Lindheimer, J. B., OʼConnor, P. J., McCully, K. K. & Dishman, R. K. The effect of light-intensity cycling on mood and working memory in response to a randomized, placebo-controlled design. Psychosom. Med. 79 , 243–253 (2017).

Lowe, C. J., Staines, W. R. & Hall, P. A. Effects of moderate exercise on cortical resilience: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Psychosom. Med. 79 , 143–152 (2017).

Luu, K. & Hall, P. A. Examining the acute effects of hatha yoga and mindfulness meditation on executive function and mood. Mindfulness 8 , 873–880 (2017).

Randolph, D. D. & O’Connor, P. J. Stair walking is more energizing than low dose caffeine in sleep deprived young women. Physiol. Behav. 174 , 128–135 (2017).

Slutsky, A. B. et al. The effects of low-intensity cycling on cognitive performance following sleep deprivation. Physiol. Behav. 180 , 25–30 (2017).

Sudo, M. et al. Executive function after exhaustive exercise. Eur. J. Appl Physiol. 117 , 2029–2038 (2017).

Cuttler, C., Connolly, C. P., LaFrance, E. M. & Lowry, T. M. Resist forgetting: effects of aerobic and resistance exercise on prospective and retrospective memory. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 7 , 205 (2017).

Daikoku, T., Takahashi, Y., Tarumoto, N. & Yasuda, H. Auditory statistical learning during concurrent physical exercise and the tolerance for pitch, tempo, and rhythm changes. Mot. Control 22 , 233–244 (2018).

Elkana, O. et al. Conscientiousness is associated with improvement in visuospatial working memory and mood following acute physical exercise: a randomized controlled trial. Pers. Individ. Differ. 132 , 126–132 (2018).

Fenesi, B., Lucibello, K., Kim, J. A. & Heisz, J. J. Sweat so you don’t forget: exercise breaks during a university lecture increase on-task attention and learning. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 7 , 261–269 (2018).

Kendall, B. The effects of acute exercise on postural control, information processing, motor skill acquisition, and executive function. Wayne State University Dissertations (2018).

Legrand, F. D. et al. Brief aerobic exercise immediately enhances visual attentional control and perceptual speed. Testing the mediating role of feelings of energy. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 191 , 25–31 (2018).

Samani, A. & Heath, M. Executive-related oculomotor control is improved following a 10-min single-bout of aerobic exercise: evidence from the antisaccade task. Neuropsychologia 108 , 73–81 (2018).

Siddiqui, A. & Loprinzi, P. D. Experimental investigation of the time course effects of acute exercise on false episodic memory. J. Clin. Med. 7 , 157 (2018).

Sng, E., Frith, E. & Loprinzi, P. D. Temporal effects of acute walking exercise on learning and memory function. Am. J. Health Promot. 32 , 1518–1525 (2018).

Wade, B. & Loprinzi, P. D. The experimental effects of acute exercise on long-term emotional memory. J. Clin. Med. 7 , 486 (2018).

Yamazaki, Y. et al. Inter-individual differences in working memory improvement after acute mild and moderate aerobic exercise. PLoS One 13 , e0210053 (2018).

Baker, R., Coenen, P., Howie, E., Williamson, A. & Straker, L. The musculoskeletal and cognitive effects of under-desk cycling compared to sitting for office workers. Appl. Ergon. 79 , 76–85 (2019).

Du Rietz, E. et al. Beneficial effects of acute high-intensity exercise on electrophysiological indices of attention processes in young adult men. Behav. Brain Res. 359 , 474–484 (2019).

Engeroff, T., Niederer, D., Vogt, L. & Banzer, W. Intensity and workload related dose-response effects of acute resistance exercise on domain-specific cognitive function and affective response – a four-armed randomized controlled crossover trial. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 43 , 55–63 (2019).

Haynes, J. T., Frith, E., Sng, E. & Loprinzi, P. D. Experimental effects of acute exercise on episodic memory function: considerations for the timing of exercise. Psychol. Rep. 122 , 1744–1754 (2019).

Johnson, L. & Loprinzi, P. D. The effects of acute exercise on episodic memory function among young university students: moderation considerations by biological sex. Health Promot. Perspect. 9 , 99–104 (2019).

McGowan, A. L., Chandler, M. C. & Brascamp, J. W. & Pontifex, M. B. Pupillometric indices of locus-coeruleus activation are not modulated following single bouts of exercise. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 140 , 41–52 (2019).

Schmidt, S. L. et al. Decrease in attentional performance after repeated bouts of high intensity exercise in association-football referees and assistant referees. Front. Psychol. 10 , 2014 (2019).

Stenling, A., Moylan, A., Fulton, E. & Machado, L. Effects of a brief stair-climbing intervention on cognitive performance and mood states in healthy young adults. Front. Psychol. 10 , 2300 (2019).

Wu, C.-H. et al. Effects of acute aerobic and resistance exercise on executive function: an ERP study. J. Sci. Med. Sport 22 , 1367–1372 (2019).

Zhou, F. & Qin, C. Acute moderate-intensity exercise generally enhances attentional resources related to perceptual processing. Front. Psychol. 10 , 2547 (2019).

Aly, M. & Kojima, H. Acute moderate-intensity exercise generally enhances neural resources related to perceptual and cognitive processes: a randomized controlled ERP study. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 19 , 100363 (2020).

Chacko, S. C. et al. A single bout of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise affects reactive, but not proactive cognitive brain functions. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 147 , 233–243 (2020).

Morris, T. P. et al. Light aerobic exercise modulates executive function and cortical excitability. Eur. J. Neurosci. 51 , 1723–1734 (2020).

Walsh, J. J. et al. Acute aerobic exercise impairs aspects of cognitive function at high altitude. Physiol. Behav. 223 , 112979 (2020).

Kim, H. J., Bae, S., Huh, J. H., Lee, J. W. & Han, D. H. Hemodynamic changes in response to aerobic exercise: near-infrared spectroscopy study. Int. J. Sports Med. 42 , 377–385 (2021).

Klatt, S. & Smeeton, N. J. Attentional and perceptual capabilities are affected by high physical load in a simulated soccer decision-making task. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 10 , 205–216 (2021).

Kuhne, L. A. et al. The effects of acute cardiovascular exercise on memory and its associations with exercise-induced increases in neurotrophic factors. Front. Aging Neurosci. 13 , 750401 (2021).

Manocchio, F. & Lowe, C. J. Investigating cortical buffering effects of acute moderate intensity exercise: a cTBS study targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15 , 645326 (2021).

Miyashiro, S. et al. Activation of the orbitofrontal cortex by both meditation and exercise: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. PLoS One 16 , e0247685 (2021).

Trammell, J. P. & Aguilar, S. C. Natural is not always better: the varied effects of a natural environment and exercise on affect and cognition. Front. Psychol. 11 , 575245 (2020).

Zhu, Y., Sun, F., Chiu, M. M. & Siu, A. Y.-S. Effects of high-intensity interval exercise and moderate-intensity continuous exercise on executive function of healthy young males. Physiol. Behav. 239 , 113505 (2021).

Aguirre-Loaiza, H. et al. Effect of acute physical exercise on inhibitory control in young adults: high-intensity indoor cycling session. Physiol. Behav. 254 , 113902 (2022).

Drollette, E. S. & Meadows, C. C. The effects of acute high-intensity interval exercise on the temporal dynamics of working memory and contralateral delay activity. Psychophysiology 59 , e14112 (2022).

Engeroff, T., Banzer, W. & Niederer, D. The impact of regular activity and exercise intensity on the acute effects of resistance exercise on cognitive function. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 32 , 94–105 (2022).

Frith, E., Miller, S. E. & Loprinzi, P. D. Effects of verbal priming with acute exercise on convergent creativity. Psychol. Rep. 125 , 375–397 (2022).

Kao, S.-C. et al. Acute effects of aerobic exercise on conflict suppression, response inhibition, and processing efficiency underlying inhibitory control processes: an ERP and SFT study. Psychophysiology 59 , e14032 (2022).

LaCount, P. A. et al. Acute effects of physical exercise on cognitive and psychological functioning in college students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 22 , 100443 (2022).

Loprinzi, P. D. & Storm, B. C. Acute exercise on memory: application of the retrieval-induced forgetting paradigm. Psychol. Res. 87 , 1417–1428 (2023).

Shirzad, M. et al. Passive exercise increases cerebral blood flow velocity and supports a postexercise executive function benefit. Psychophysiology 59 , e14132 (2022).

Zheng, K. et al. Changes in working memory performance and cortical activity during acute aerobic exercise in young adults. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 16 , 884490 (2022).

Chueh, T.-Y., Hung, C.-L., Chang, Y.-K., Huang, C.-J. & Hung, T.-M. Effects of cognitive demand during acute exercise on inhibitory control and its electrophysiological indices: a randomized crossover study. Physiol. Behav. 265 , 114148 (2023).

Yamada, Y. et al. Improved interference control after exercise with blood flow restriction and cooling is associated with but not mediated by increased lactate. Physiol. Behav. 270 , 114291 (2023).

Zhang, B., Meng, X., Yu, Y., Han, Y. & Liu, Y. Effects of moderate-to-vigorous acute exercise on conscious perception and visual awareness. J. Mot. Behav. 55 , 262–268 (2023).

Zhang, D., Jin, X., Wang, L. & Jin, Y. Form and color visual perception in green exercise: positive effects on attention, mood, and self-esteem. J. Environ. Psychol. 88 , 102028 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center Measuring and Advancing Soldier Tactical Readiness and Effectiveness (MASTR-E) program through award W911NF-19F-0018 under US Army Research Office contract W911NF-19-D-0001 for the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official policies or positions of the Department of Army, the Department of Defense, or any other department or agency of the U.S. government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Thank you to Grace Giles, Ph.D., Julie Cantelon, Ph.D., and Neil Dundon, Ph.D., for providing guidance in conducting analyses and interpreting results. Lastly, thank you to Emily Machniak and Riddhima Chandra for assisting in data collection efforts.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

Jordan Garrett, Carly Chak, Tom Bullock & Barry Giesbrecht

Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.G., C.C., T.B., and B.G., designed the study, created the literature search criterion, and performed initial article screenings. J.G., C.C., and B.G. performed screenings of articles based on their full text. J.G., extracted effect sizes, conducted statistical analyses, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. B.G., T.B., and C.C. provided edits to the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jordan Garrett or Barry Giesbrecht .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Psychology thanks Sebastian Ludyga and Nicole Logan for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Daniel Quintana, Antonia Eisenkoeck and Jennifer Bellingtier. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary material, 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

Cite this article.

Garrett, J., Chak, C., Bullock, T. et al. A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis provide evidence for an effect of acute physical activity on cognition in young adults. Commun Psychol 2 , 82 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00124-2

Download citation

Received : 12 June 2023

Accepted : 31 July 2024

Published : 28 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00124-2

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

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

Literature Review: Outline, Strategies, and Examples
A Complete Guide on How to Write Good a Literature Review
Types of literature reviews
15 Literature Review Examples (2024)
Different literature review styles for a dissertation
Types of literature review.

VIDEO

Part 03: Literature Review (Research Methods and Methodology) By Dr. Walter
2. Literature Review
Review of Literature
✅Understanding a Literature Review
Identifying Sources for Literature Review
Types of Literature Review #avikroy #libraryscience #research #researchmethodology

COMMENTS

Types of Literature Review
A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the ...
Types of Literature Review
The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies: Narrative literature review, also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about ...
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines
This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. Therefore, questions can be raised about the quality and trustworthiness of these types of reviews.
Literature Review: Types of literature reviews
The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study. ... Assesses what is known about an issue by using a systematic review method to search and appraise research and determine best ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Types of Literature Reviews
Rapid review. Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research. Completeness of searching determined by time constraints. Time-limited formal quality assessment. Typically narrative and tabular.
Literature Review
Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ...
Literature Review Types, Taxonomies
Mixed Studies Review (Mixed Methods Review) - Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.
Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
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.
Methodological Approaches to Literature Review
A literature review is defined as "a critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles." (The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison 2022) A literature review is an integrated analysis, not just a summary of scholarly work on a specific topic.
Literature Review Research
Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.. Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:
Types of reviews
Definition: "A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265). Characteristics: Provides examination of recent or current literature on a wide range of subjects. Varying levels of completeness / comprehensiveness, non-standardized methodology.
14 Types Of Literature Review
4 Major Types Of Literature Review. The four major types include, Narrative Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Scoping Review. These are known as the major ones because they're like the "go-to" methods for researchers in academic and research circles. Think of them as the classic tools in the researcher's toolbox.
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: Choosing a Type of Review
LITERATURE REVIEW. Often used as a generic term to describe any type of review. More precise definition: Published materials that provide an examination of published literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness. Identifies gaps in research, explains importance of topic, hypothesizes future work, etc.
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review may itself be a scholarly publication and provide an analysis of what has been written on a particular topic without contributing original research. These types of literature reviews can serve to help keep people updated on a field as well as helping scholars choose a research topic to fill gaps in the knowledge on that topic.
What is a Literature Review?
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 Reviews, Introduction to Different Types of
The State-of-the-Art Review is conducted periodically, with a focus on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic, and highlights where are there still disagreements. Source: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and ...
Literature Reviews
A literature review is an assessment of a body of research that addresses a particular topic or research question. It aims to review the critical points of current knowledge, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Purpose of a Literature Review: it is a building block for your thesis or dissertation
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: Types of Reviews
This guide is designed to help you get started researching and writing literature reviews. Types of Reviews. Literature Review. Integrative Review. Systematic Review. Meta Analysis. Meta-Synthesis. Traditional Literature Reviews. Analyzes, synthesizes, and critiques a body of literature.
Types of Reviews
Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature: Scoping review: Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints.
Types of Reviews and Their Differences
A student may do a review for an assignment, while a researcher could include a literature review as support in their grant proposal. Rigor: Some reviews may want to achieve a higher scholarly or objective standard, so they include pre-established or inclusion criteria for what publications can be included. Discipline norms: a literature review ...
Research Guides: Capstone and PICO Project Toolkit: Types of Literature
Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic. While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.. Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and ...
Research Guides: Research at NJAES : Literature Reviews
There are many different types of literature reviews from traditional literature reviews to rigorous systematic reviews. Each has its own methodology. Please review resources on this page and familiarize yourself with the task, commitment, and purpose of each before trying to decide on the type of review best fitting your research question.
Tips for Writing a Literature Review
A literature review is a compilation of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.. Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic ...
Types of Literature Reviews
A selection of the common review types found in the literature is presented and compared in the following table using the SALSA framework developed by Grant and Booth (2009). ... categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature. Completeness of searching ...
Types of Reviews
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. Defines 14 types of reviews and provides a helpful summary table on pp. 94-95. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.
Choosing a review type
Not every research question requires systematic review methodology. Be sure to select the review type that matches the purpose and scope of your project. All reviews should be methodical - conducted in a careful and deliberate manner. Questions to ask yourself: What is the purpose of this review? What is the research question?
Equity in Grant-Making: A Review of Barriers and Strategies for Funders
In 2023 the Chief Evaluation Office partnered with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to fund a study focused on exploring approaches to measure and increase equity in ETA's discretionary grant-making programs. This study sought to explore how grant-makers - such as Federal agencies, State and local government agencies, and philanthropic organizations - define, assess, and ...
The intellectual base and research fronts of IL-18: A ...
Our analysis covers interleukin-18 (IL-18) literature from 2012 to 2022, exploring research trends comprehensively. Key institutions like Yale University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University emerged as significant contributors. ... This bibliometric review offers insights into IL-18 research trends over the past decade, guiding future ...
A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis provide ...
Description of studies. The literature search yielded 15,900 peer reviewed journal articles, and after removing duplicates 8295 remained. Subsequent an initial screening based off the titles and ...

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

What is a Literature Review?

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Types of Literature Review

1. Narrative Literature Review

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Define the research question or topic:

Conduct a thorough literature search

Select relevant studies

Critically analyze the literature

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Discussion and conclusion

Write a cohesive narrative review

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

2. Systematic Review

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Screening and selecting studies

Data extraction

Critical appraisal

Data synthesis

Interpretation and conclusion

The final step — Report writing

Structure of a systematic literature review

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

3. Scoping Literature Review

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

4. Integrative Literature Review

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

5. Rapid Literature Review

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Reference management software

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Frequently Asked Questions

You might also like

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

ChatPDF Showdown: SciSpace Chat PDF vs. Adobe PDF Reader

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

Types of Literature Review

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

Types of literature reviews

What's the difference between reviews?

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

Books on Literature Reviews

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Systematic Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review