literature review in mean

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

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

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

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

Table of contents

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.

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 21, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 1:59 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Maps & Floorplans
• Libraries A-Z

• Ellis Library (main)
• Engineering Library
• Geological Sciences
• Journalism Library
• Law Library
• Mathematical Sciences
• MU Digital Collections
• Veterinary Medical
• More Libraries...
• Instructional Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Guides
• Schedule a Library Class
• Class Assessment Forms
• Recordings & Tutorials
• Research & Writing Help
• More class resources
• Places to Study
• Borrow, Request & Renew
• Call Numbers
• Computers, Printers, Scanners & Software
• Digital Media Lab
• Equipment Lending: Laptops, cameras, etc.
• Subject Librarians
• Writing Tutors
• More In the Library...
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Researcher Support
• Distance Learners
• International Students
• More Services for...
• View my MU Libraries Account (login & click on My Library Account)
• View my MOBIUS Checkouts
• Renew my Books (login & click on My Loans)
• Place a Hold on a Book
• Request Books from Depository
• View my ILL@MU Account
• Set Up Alerts in Databases
• More Account Information...

Introduction to Literature Reviews

Introduction.

• Step One: Define
• Step Two: Research
• Step Three: Write
• Suggested Readings

A literature review is a written work that :

• Compiles significant research published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers;
• —Surveys scholarly articles, books, dissertations, conference proceedings, and other sources;
• —Examines contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, results, conclusions.
• —Reviews critically, analyzes, and synthesizes existing research on a topic; and,
• Performs a thorough “re” view, “overview”, or “look again” of past and current works on a subject, issue, or theory.

From these analyses, the writer then offers an overview of the current status of a particular area of knowledge from both a practical and theoretical perspective.

Literature reviews are important because they are usually a  required  step in a thesis proposal (Master's or PhD). The proposal will not be well-supported without a literature review. Also, literature reviews are important because they help you learn important authors and ideas in your field. This is useful for your coursework and your writing. Knowing key authors also helps you become acquainted with other researchers in your field.

Look at this diagram and imagine that your research is the "something new." This shows how your research should relate to major works and other sources.

Olivia Whitfield | Graduate Reference Assistant | 2012-2015

• Next: Step One: Define >>
• Last Updated: Jul 9, 2024 9:53 AM
• URL: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/literaturereview

• 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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 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. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• 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.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• 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 . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• 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 . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• 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.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

• Study resources
• Calendar - Graduate
• Calendar - Undergraduate
• Class schedules
• Class cancellations
• Course registration
• Important academic dates
• More academic resources
• Campus services
• IT services
• Job opportunities
• Mental health support
• Student Service Centre (Birks)
• Calendar of events
• Latest news
• Media Relations
• Faculties, Schools & Colleges
• Arts and Science
• Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
• John Molson School of Business
• School of Graduate Studies
• All Schools, Colleges & Departments
• Directories

• My Library Account (Sofia) View checkouts, fees, place requests and more
• Interlibrary Loans Request books from external libraries
• Zotero Manage your citations and create bibliographies
• E-journals via BrowZine Browse & read journals through a friendly interface
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
• Course Reserves Online course readings
• Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
• WebPrint Upload documents to print with DPrint
• Sofia Discovery tool
• Databases by subject
• Course Reserves
• E-journals via BrowZine
• E-journals via Sofia
• Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
• Intercampus Delivery of Bound Periodicals/Microforms
• Interlibrary Loans
• Spectrum Research Repository
• Special Collections & Archives
• Additional resources & services
• Loans & Returns (Circulation)
• Subject & course guides
• Learn with the Library
• Instructional Services
• Open Educational Resources Guide
• General guides for users
• Ask a librarian
• Bibliometrics & research impact guide
• Concordia University Press
• Copyright Guide
• Digital Scholarship
• Digital Preservation
• Open Access
• ORCID at Concordia
• Research data management guide
• Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
• Systematic Reviews
• Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
• Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
• Desktop computers, software & availability maps
• Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
• Printers, copiers & scanners
• Technology Sandbox
• Visualization Studio
• Webster Library
• Vanier Library
• Grey Nuns Reading Room
• Book a group study room/scanner
• Study spaces
• Floor plans
• Room booking for academic events
• Exhibitions
• Librarians & staff
• University Librarian
• Memberships & collaborations
• Indigenous Student Librarian program
• Wikipedian in residence
• Researcher-in-Residence
• Feedback & improvement
• Annual reports & fast facts
• Annual Plan
• Library Services Fund
• Giving to the Library
• Webster Transformation blog
• Policies & Code of Conduct

The Campaign for Concordia

Library Research Skills Tutorial

Log into...

• My Library account (Sofia)
• Interlibrary loans
• Article/chapter scan
• Course reserves

Quick links

How to write a literature review

What is a literature review.

The literature review is a written overview of major writings and other sources on a selected topic. Sources covered in the review may include scholarly journal articles, books, government reports, Web sites, etc. The literature review provides a description, summary and evaluation of each source. It is usually presented as a distinct section of a graduate thesis or dissertation.

Purpose of the literature review

The purpose of the literature review is to provide a critical written account of the current state of research on a selected topic:

• Identifies areas of prior scholarship
• Places each source in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the specific issue, area of research, or theory under review.
• Describes the relationship of each source to the others that you have selected
• Identifies new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Points the way forward for further research.

Components of the literature review

The literature review should include the following:

• Objective of the literature review
• Overview of the subject under consideration.
• particular position, those opposed, and those offering completely different arguments.
• Discussion of both the distinctiveness of each source and its similarities with the others.

Steps in the literature review process

Preparation of a literature review may be divided into four steps:

• Define your subject and the scope of the review.
• Search the library catalogue, subject specific databases and other search tools to find sources that are relevant to your topic.
• Read and evaluate the sources and to determine their suitability to the understanding of topic at hand (see the Evaluating sources section).
• Analyse, interpret and discuss the findings and conclusions of the sources you selected.

Evaluating sources

In assessing each source, consideration should be given to:

• What is the author's expertise in this particular field of study (credentials)?
• Are the author's arguments supported by empirical evidence (e.g. quantitative/qualitative studies)?
• Is the author's perspective too biased in one direction or are opposing studies and viewpoints also considered?
• Does the selected source contribute to a more profound understanding of the subject?

Examples of a published literature review

Literature reviews are often published as scholarly articles, books, and reports. Here is an example of a recent literature review published as a scholarly journal article:

Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past literature and a look to the future. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 206-222. Link to the article

Additional sources on writing literature reviews

Further information on the literature review process may be found below:

• Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review
• Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper
• Galvin, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences
• Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success

Adapted with permission and thanks from How to Write a Literature Review originally created by Kenneth Lyons, McHenry Library, University of California, Santa Cruz.

WashU Libraries

Library services for undergraduate research.

• Creating an Abstract
• What is a Literature Review?
• Creating a Poster
• Presenting Your Research
• Share Your Undergraduate Research
• Contact a Subject Librarian This link opens in a new window
• Conducting Research
• College Writing: Citizen Scientist

Literature Review: A Definition

What is a literature review, then.

A literature review discusses and analyses published information in a particular subject area.   Sometimes the information covers a certain time period.

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

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

While the main focus of an academic research paper is to support your own argument, the focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others. The academic research paper also covers a range of sources, but it is usually a select number of sources, because the emphasis is on the argument. Likewise, a literature review can also have an "argument," but it is not as important as covering a number of sources. In short, an academic research paper and a literature review contain some of the same elements. In fact, many academic research papers will contain a literature review section. What aspect of the study (either the argument or the sources) that is emphasized determines what type of document it is.

( "Literature Reviews" from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone.

For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field.

For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation.

Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Journal Articles on Writing Literature Reviews

• Research Methods for Comprehensive Science Literature Reviews Author: Brown,Barry N. Journal: Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship Date: Spring2009 Issue: 57 Page: 1 more... less... Finding some information on most topics is easy. There are abundant sources of information readily available. However, completing a comprehensive literature review on a particular topic is often difficult, laborious, and time intensive; the project requires organization, persistence, and an understanding of the scholarly communication and publishing process. This paper briefly outlines methods of conducting a comprehensive literature review for science topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR];
• Research: Considerations in Writing a Literature Review Authors: Black,K. Journal: The New Social Worker Date: 01/01; 2007 Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Page: 12 more... less... Literature reviews are ubiquitous in academic journals, scholarly reports, and social work education. Conducting and writing a good literature review is both personally and professionally satisfying. (Journal abstract).
• How to do (or not to do) A Critical Literature Review Authors: Jesson,Jill; Lacey,Fiona Journal: Pharmacy Education Pub Date: 2006 Volume: 6 Issue: 2 Pages:139 - 148 more... less... More and more students are required to perform a critical literature review as part of their undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Whilst most of the latest research methods textbooks advise how to do a literature search, very few cover the literature review. This paper covers two types of review: a critical literature review and a systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
• Conducting a Literature Review Authors: Rowley,Jennifer; Slack,Frances Journal: Management Research News Pub Date: 2004 Volume: 27 Issue: 6 Pages:31-39 more... less... Abstract: This article offers support and guidance for students undertaking a literature review as part of their dissertation during an undergraduate or Masters course. A literature review is a summary of a subject field that supports the identification of specific research questions. A literature review needs to draw on and evaluate a range of different types of sources including academic and professional journal articles, books, and web-based resources. The literature search helps in the identification and location of relevant documents and other sources. Search engines can be used to search web resources and bibliographic databases. Conceptual frameworks can be a useful tool in developing an understanding of a subject area. Creating the literature review involves the stages of: scanning, making notes, structuring the literature review, writing the literature review, and building a bibliography.

Some Books from the WU Catalog

• The SAGE handbook of visual research methods [electronic resource] by Edited by Luc Pauwels and Dawn Mannay. ISBN: 9781526417015 Publication Date: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2020.

Helpful Websites

• "How to do a Literature Review" from Ferdinand D. Bluford Library
• "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It." from the University of Toronto
• << Previous: Creating an Abstract
• Next: Creating a Poster >>
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2024 3:18 PM
• URL: https://libguides.wustl.edu/our

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

This article was published on 2024-02-26

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Robust portfolio mean-variance optimization for capital allocation in stock investment using the genetic algorithm: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. selection method, 2.1.1. identification stage, 2.1.2. screening stage, 2.1.3. eligibility stage, 2.1.4. inclusion phase, 2.2. bibliometric analysis, 3.1. bibliometric results, 3.1.1. the most globally cited documents in dataset 1, 3.1.2. the representation network of dataset 1, 3.1.3. mapping the themes in dataset 1, 3.1.4. the theme evolution of dataset 1, 3.2. results from slr, 3.2.1. rq1: study objectives, 3.2.2. rq2: study methodologies used to obtain maximum portfolio return, 3.2.3. rq3: study methodologies for portfolios under uncertainty.

• Generate an initial population of multiple chromosomes.
• Assess the fitness of each chromosome in the population.
• Select “parents” from the population.
• Form the next generation by combining parents through crossover and mutation.
• Evaluate the fitness of the new generation.
• Replace part or all of the current population with the new generation.
• Repeat steps 3 to 6 until a satisfactory solution is achieved.

3.2.4. RQ4: Types of Stocks

3.2.5. rq5: role of gas, 4. discussion, 4.1. limitations in handling uncertainty, 4.2. simple assumptions on robust portfolio parameters, 4.3. limited empirical validation, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Schottle, K.; Werner, R. Robustness Properties of Mean-Variance Portfolios. Optimization 2009 , 58 , 641–663. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Markowitz, H. Portfolio Selection. J. Financ. 1952 , 7 , 77–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markowitz, H. Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investment ; Yale University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollad, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence ; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnone, S.; Loraschi, A.; Andrea, T. A Genetic Approach to Portfolio Selection. Neural Netw. World 1993 , 6 , 597–604. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang, T.J.; Meade, N.; Beasly, Y.M.; Sharaina, Y.M. Heuristics for Cardinality Constrained Portfolio Optimisation. Comput. Oper. Res. 2000 , 27 , 1271–1302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soleimani, H.; Golmakani, H.R.; Salimi, M.H. Markowitz-based Portfolio Selection with Minimum Transaction Lots, Cardinality Constraints and Sector Capitalization Using Genetic Algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009 , 36 , 5058–5063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chang, T.J.; Yang, S.C.; Chang, K.J. Portfolio Optimization Problem in Different Risk Measures Using Genetic Algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009 , 36 , 10529–10537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mandal, P.K.; Thakur, M. Higher-Order Moments in Portfolio Selection Problems: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024 , 238 , 121625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xidonas, P.; Steuer, R.; Hassapis, C. Robust Portfolio Optimization: A Categorical Bibliographic Review. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020 , 292 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalayci, C.B.; Ertenlice, O.; Akyer, H.A.H. A Review on the Current Applications of Genetic Algorithm in Mean-Variance Portfolio Optimization. Pamukkale Univ. J. Eng. Sci. 2017 , 23 , 470–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalayci, O.; Ertenlice, M.A.; Akbay, M.A. A Comprehensive Review of Deterministic Models and Applications for Mean-Variance Portfolio Optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019 , 129 , 345–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Guo, S. Portfolio Selection Problems with Markowitz’s Mean–Variance Framework: A Review of Literature. Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak. 2018 , 17 , 125–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sadjadi, S.J.; Gharakhani, M.; Safari, E. Robust Optimization Framework for Cardinality Constrained Portfolio Problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012 , 12 , 91–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chou, Y.-H.; Kuo, S.-y.; Lo, Y.-t. Portfolio Optimization Based on Funds Standardization and Genetic Algorithm. IEEE Access 2017 , 5 , 21885–21900. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Zhou, Y.S. Robust Multiobjective Portfolio with Higher Moment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018 , 100 , 165–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caçador, S.; Dias, J.M.; Godinho, P. Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: A New Methodology for Computing Relative-Robust Solutions. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2019 , 28 , 1296–1329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salehpoor, B.; Molla-Alizadeh, Z.S. A Constrained Portfolio Selection Model Considering Risk-Adjusted Measure by Using Hybrid Meta-Heuristic Algorithms. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2019 , 75 , 233–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Y.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, J.H.; Jang, J.R.; Kim, W.C. Sparse and Robust Portfolio Selection via Semi-Definite Relaxation. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2019 , 71 , 687–699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Lu, C.Y.; Lim, C.-B. An Intelligence Approach for Group Stock Portfolio Optimization with a Trading Mechanism. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2019 , 62 , 287–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caçador, S.; Dias, J.M.; Godinho, P. Global Minimum Variance Portfolios under Uncertainty: A Robust Optimization Approach. J. Glob. Optim. 2020 , 76 , 267–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khodamoradi, T.; Salahi, M.; Najafi, A. Robust CCMV Model with Short Selling and Risk-Neutral Interest Rate. Physica A 2020 , 547 , 124429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiaoa, H.; Renb, T.; Zhoub, Z.; Liu, W. Parameter Uncertainty in Estimation of Portfolio Efficiency: Evidence from an Interval Diversification-Consistent DEA Approach. Omega 2021 , 103 , 102357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quintana, D.; Moreno, D. Resampled Efficient Frontier Integration for MOEAs. Entropy 2021 , 23 , 422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Farid, F.; Rosadi, D. Portfolio Optimization Based on Self-Organizing Maps Clustering and Genetics Algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Intell. Inform. 2022 , 8 , 33–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, L.; Han, Y.; Xiang, Y. A Two-Stage Robust Omega Portfolio Optimization with Cardinality Constraints. Int. J. Appl. Math. 2023 , 53 , 86–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosadi, D.; Setiawan, E.P.; Templ, M.; Filzmoser, P. Robust Covariance Estimators for Mean-Variance Portfolio Optimization with Transaction Lots. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2020 , 7 , 1000154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The Bibliometric Analysis of: How Great is the Impact? Scientometrics 2015 , 105 , 1809–1831. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual ; Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017 , 11 , 959–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Markowitz, H. Portfolio Selection , 2nd ed.; Wiley: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertsimas, D.; Sim, M. The Price of Robustness. Oper. Res. 2004 , 52 , 35–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, W.C.; Fabozzi, F.J.; Cheridito, P.; Fox, C. Controlling Portfolio. Econ. Lett. 2014 , 122 , 1554–1558. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beasley, J.E. OR-library: Distributing Test Problems by Electronic Mail. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1990 , 41 , 1069–1072. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jegadeesh, N.; Titman, S. Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency. J. Financ. 1993 , 48 , 65–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bondt, W.F.M.; Thaler, R. Does the Stock Market Overreact? J. Financ. 1985 , 40 , 793–805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Faccini, D.; Maggioni, F.; Potra, F.A. Robust and Distributionally Robust Optimization Models for Linear Support Vector Machine. Comput. Oper. Res. 2022 , 147 , 105930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sehgal, R.; Jagadesh, P. Data-Driven Robust Portfolio Optimization with Semi Mean Absolute Deviation via Support Vector Clustering. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023 , 224 , 1200000. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savaei, E.S.; Alinezhad, E.; Eghtesadifard, M. Stock Portfolio Optimization for Risk-Averse Investors: A Novel Hybrid Possibilistic and Flexible Robust Approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024 , 250 , 123754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Fransisca, D.C.; Sukono; Chaerani, D.; Halim, N.A. Robust Portfolio Mean-Variance Optimization for Capital Allocation in Stock Investment Using the Genetic Algorithm: A Systematic Literature Review. Computation 2024 , 12 , 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation12080166

Fransisca DC, Sukono, Chaerani D, Halim NA. Robust Portfolio Mean-Variance Optimization for Capital Allocation in Stock Investment Using the Genetic Algorithm: A Systematic Literature Review. Computation . 2024; 12(8):166. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation12080166

Fransisca, Diandra Chika, Sukono, Diah Chaerani, and Nurfadhlina Abdul Halim. 2024. "Robust Portfolio Mean-Variance Optimization for Capital Allocation in Stock Investment Using the Genetic Algorithm: A Systematic Literature Review" Computation 12, no. 8: 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation12080166

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

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.

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

Slow the Roll-up: Help Shine a Light on Serial Acquisitions

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

Avoiding outages and preventing widespread system failures.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, ftc to hold oral hearing on dyson’s comment to proposed changes to the energy labeling rule for air cleaners.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Horseracing integrity and safety authority evidentiary hearing before administrative law judge dania l. ayoubi.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

Playing it Safe: Explore the FTC's Top Video Game Cases

Learn about the FTC's notable video game cases and what our agency is doing to keep the public safe.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials

• Consumer Protection
• Bureau of Consumer Protection
• Endorsements, Influencers, and Reviews
• Online Advertising and Marketing

The Federal Trade Commission today announced a final rule that will combat fake reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase and allow the agency to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “By strengthening the FTC’s toolkit to fight deceptive advertising, the final rule will protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

The final rule announced today follows an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and  a notice of proposed rulemaking announced in November 2022 and June 2023, respectively. The FTC also held an informal hearing on the proposed rule in February 2024. In response to public comments, the Commission made numerous clarifications and adjustments to its previous proposal.

The final rule prohibits:

• Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, and Celebrity Testimonials: The final rule addresses reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist, such as AI-generated fake reviews, or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the experience of the person giving it. It prohibits businesses from creating or selling such reviews or testimonials. It also prohibits them from buying such reviews, procuring them from company insiders, or disseminating such testimonials, when the business knew or should have known that the reviews or testimonials were fake or false.
• Buying Positive or Negative Reviews: The final rule prohibits businesses from providing compensation or other incentives conditioned on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative. It clarifies that the conditional nature of the offer of compensation or incentive may be expressly or implicitly conveyed.
• Insider Reviews and Consumer Testimonials: The final rule prohibits certain reviews and testimonials written by company insiders that fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose the giver’s material connection to the business. It prohibits such reviews and testimonials given by officers or managers. It also prohibits a business from disseminating such a testimonial that the business should have known was by an officer, manager, employee, or agent. Finally, it imposes requirements when officers or managers solicit consumer reviews from their own immediate relatives or from employees or agents – or when they tell employees or agents to solicit reviews from relatives and such solicitations result in reviews by immediate relatives of the employees or agents.
• Company-Controlled Review Websites: The final rule prohibits a business from misrepresenting that a website or entity it controls provides independent reviews or opinions about a category of products or services that includes its own products or services.
• Review Suppression: The final rule prohibits a business from using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.
• Misuse of Fake Social Media Indicators: The final rule prohibits anyone from selling or buying fake indicators of social media influence, such as followers or views generated by a bot or hijacked account. This prohibition is limited to situations in which the buyer knew or should have known that the indicators were fake and misrepresent the buyer’s influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

As the Commission noted previously, case-by-case enforcement without civil penalty authority might not be enough to deter clearly deceptive review and testimonial practices. The Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act. This rule will enhance deterrence and strengthen FTC enforcement actions.

The Commission vote to approve the final rule and accompanying statement of basis and purpose was 5-0. The rule will become effective 60 days after the date it’s published in the Federal Register.

The primary staff members on this matter are Michael Ostheimer and Michael Atleson in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. 

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers .  The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov , or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at  ReportFraud.ftc.gov . Follow the FTC on social media , read consumer alerts and the business blog , and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts .

Press Release Reference

Contact information, media contact.

Mitchell J. Katz Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2161

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
• Updates for Workforce Professionals
• 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.   

• Open access
• Published: 17 August 2024

Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature

• Graziano Ceccarelli 1 ,
• Fausto Catena 2 ,
• Pasquale Avella 3 , 4 ,
• Brian WCA Tian 5 ,
• Fabio Rondelli 1 ,
• Germano Guerra 4 ,
• Michele De Rosa 1 &
• Aldo Rocca 3 , 4  

World Journal of Emergency Surgery volume  19 , Article number:  28 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

185 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Backgrounds

Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.

We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).

36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.

Introduction

Abdominal Emergency Surgery (AES) can be defined as a procedure requiring to deal with an acute threat to life, organ, trauma, acute disease process, acute exacerbation of a chronic disease process, or complication of a surgical or other interventional procedure, normally within hours of decision to operate [ 1 , 2 ].

Further, “expedited surgery” refers to the clinical situation exemplified by a patient in need of prompt treatment but not in imminent danger to life or organ survival; this procedure often takes place a few days after the decision to operate [ 3 ].

Nowadays, minimally invasive laparoscopic approach to urgent abdominal surgery (cholecystitis, acute appendicectomies, bowel perforation or obstruction, etc.) represents the standard of care in many cases and recent guidelines recommend it [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ].

Nevertheless, after more than 20 years from clinical introduction, Robotic Surgery (RS) represents the most important technological evolution and a revolutionary concept of computer-assisted technology in minimally invasive surgery [ 8 ]. It allows to overcome many limits of conventional laparoscopy and to expand the use of minimally invasive approaches.

Its peculiar features include a three-dimensional high-definition view, articulated instruments, tremor eradication, and improved ergonomics for surgeons, enable the performance of extremely accurate procedures (micro-sutures, fine dissections, etc.) with consequently lowering conversion rates and postoperative complications, particularly in case of challenging surgical procedures [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. In addition, compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery, RS demonstrated shorter learning curves for several complex procedures [ 12 , 13 ]. On the other hand, the main drawbacks of robotic technology are linked to its limited diffusion also due to expensive costs [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

Nevertheless, robotic surgical technologies have expanded and evolved over the past 20 years, bringing new devices, and improving the most established ones [ 21 , 22 ].

The spreading of robotic platforms and their easier management led to increased RS applications in all abdominal surgical specialities including upper gastrointestinal surgery [ 15 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], colorectal surgery [ 26 , 27 , 28 ], HBP surgery [ 14 , 18 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], abdominal wall surgery and many others [ 7 ].

Despite the huge diffusion of RS in all surgical fields, its application in urgent scenarios has never been investigated representing a new field of interest, with limited literature experiences [ 32 ].

So considering that our experience in RS has been implemented since 2002 and it raised from general to major complex surgery [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ], we aim to set the state of art of Robotic Emergency Surgery sharing our experience through the analysis of our peri-operative outcomes and indications in RS. Furthermore, due to the limited evidence available, we have as a secondary endpoint an extensive analysis of previous literature experiences.

Study design and patient selection

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing RS at General and Robotic Surgery Unit of San Giovanni Battista Hospital (Foligno, Italy) and General Surgery Unit of San Donato Hospital (Arezzo, Italy) from January 2014 to December 2023.

The patients’ data were analyzed according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) [ 39 ]. All patients signed an informed consent allowing the anonymous scientific use of clinical data and images. The study was carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Molise (protocol number 10/21, approved date: May 12, 2021).

In all participating centres, data were prospectively collected from electronic patient records.

We selected 834 consecutive robotic procedures for abdominal surgery performed by both centres. Patients were divided into two cohorts: elective surgery and urgent or emergency surgery groups.

Urgent surgery was defined as a condition requiring surgery within 72 h in stable patients, but not suitable for discharge. Moreover, emergency surgery was defined as a clinical scenario requiring within 24 h in stable patients, with a low risk of deterioration. All patients < 18 years old and affected by hemodynamical instability were excluded.

Criteria adopted to assess baseline characteristics of patients, surgical issues and technologies that allow to benefit of RS in urgent and emergency settings are summarized in Table  1 .

Furthermore, to analyze the diagnosis and intraoperative data we carried out a specialities classification as reported in Table  2 .

Implementation of the robotic surgery program and learning curve completion

Our experience with RS started in September 2002 with the da Vinci S ® platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California, USA), and over time, its application in abdominal surgery grew as well as platform technologies. During the study period, the da Vinci Si ® platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California, USA) and, since 2017, da Vinci Xi ® (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California, USA) were available at our institutions.

Beginning from colorectal surgery, hiatal hernia repairs and cholecystectomies, our surgical team have gradually selected more challenging procedures by carrying out liver and pancreatic resections, oesophageal benign and malignant disorders, bariatric surgery, abdominal wall hernia repairs and nephrectomies [ 14 , 15 , 25 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ].

All procedures were performed by a well-trained surgeon in minimally invasive surgery (G.C.) with 10 years of previous experience in RS.

36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis and treated as urgent or emergent procedures.

All patients signed an informed consent allowing the anonymous scientific use of clinical data and images. The study was carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Molise (protocol number 10/21, approved date: 12 May 2021).

The collected data included demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and preoperative comorbidities classified according to the Charlson comorbidity Index (CCI) [ 48 ]. The anesthetic risk assessment was performed thanks to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score [ 49 ].

We reviewed pre-operative diagnosis, main and associated surgical procedures, operative time and intraoperative complications, and conversion to open rate. Postoperative complications were stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [ 50 ] and were considered severe when ≥ 3. Patients were monitored until their 30th postoperative day.

Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages, while quantitative data were collected as means or medians and interquartile ranges.

Literature review

We performed literature research on the PubMed Dataset (US National Library of Medicine, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed ), using the subsequent keywords: “robotic surgery”, “urgent surgery”, and “emergency surgery”. We selected only English studies. Original articles, case reports and case series were included, while editorials, letters, and reviews were excluded. Number of treated patients does not represent an exclusion criterion. Articles were first evaluated by title and abstract examination, then a full-text read was performed. More than 50 studies described RS in AES. An extensive analysis was performed to summarize similarities and differences among RS approaches according to abdominal surgery specialities.

Pre-, intra- e post-operative outcomes

36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis. Baseline characteristics of patients are listed in Table  3 .

According to surgical procedures, Fig.  1 shows AES performed thanks to RS compared to elective surgery.

Over the cohort of 36 patients treated, 16 (44.44%) were males while 20 (56.56%) were females. The mean age was 63.20 years (range: 43–88 years): 30.55% [ 11 ] of patients were ≥ 70 years. The mean Body Mass Index was 26.68 kg/m 2 (range: 23–42). According to the ASA score, 8 (22.22%) patients were classified as ASA 3. No ASA 4 was treated. Patients’ CCI are listed in Table  3 . The da Vinci Si platform was used for the first 15 (41.67%) cases, while Xi for the last 21 (58.33%). 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to Clavien-Dindo grade, 2 (5.55%) major complication was collected: 1 after urgent surgery and 1 after emergency setting. Two minor complications requiring conservative treatments were observed: both complications were related to primary disorders and not to RS. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%. The mean length of stay was 4.92 days (range: 1–21). The mean follow-up was 26.53 months (range: 7–68).

Number of elective and urgent/emergency procedures ( A ) and percentage of overall surgical procedures performed in emergency settings ( B ) according to abdominal surgery specialities. Abbreviations: HPB, Hepatopancreatic and Biliary Surgery;

Our experience demonstrates the safety and feasibility of RS also in urgent and emergency abdominal settings in patients not affected by hemodynamic instability. To date, the minimally invasive approaches in emergency scenarios are mainly validated for laparoscopy, as reported by several literature experiences included in the last WSES review [ 51 ]. Despite the diagnostic role of MIS, authors demonstrated several benefits of laparoscopic approaches in hemodynamically stable patients undergone AES, including trauma. However, patient selection, surgeons’ expertise as well as specific surgical training represent crucial key points [ 51 ].

In literature, RS in AES studies is related to high-volume centres, and well-trained surgeons’ experiences and their optimal outcomes should encourage further applications and Randomized Clinical Trials [ 32 , 52 ]. We further analyzed short- and long-term outcomes of RS in AES according to specialties (Table  4 ).

Robotic surgery in emergency setting

In the literature, RS in the emergency setting is reported by a limited number of experiences, especially case reports and case series.

The urologist experience described by Capibaribe et al. [ 53 ] demonstrated the safety and efficacy of robotic treatment in the case of vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis after open radical prostatectomy, providing better continence results, without pubectomy.

Globally, the major barrier to RS adoption is due to limited device access resulting from a shared use policy by several surgical teams (gynaecologists, general surgeons, thoracic surgeons, and urologists). Furthermore, the lack of dedicated teams (surgeons, nurses, and anaesthesiologists) during the night shift might further limit RS.

On the other hand, in emergency settings, the “time-sparing” concept is largely known. Commonly, to avoid useless costs due to waste disposable instruments, a hybrid approach should be discussed by the whole surgical team: before robotic docking, a laparoscopic exploration could be the first surgical step to verify clinical environments for doing RS.

A crucial issue is represented by frequent operating table position changes, especially during explorative steps (tilting, Trendelenburg, or reverse-Trendelenburg positions) and rapid conversion to open surgery when necessary [ 54 ]. It could be underlined that quick and safe docking and undocking are performed by skilled teams and well-trained surgeons in elective procedures [ 54 , 55 ].

In the last years, the RS technologies have also impacted operative time [ 56 ]: The Xi robot represents a radical evolution from the Si robot. Literature experiences demonstrated better docking ability during Da Vinci Xi surgery when compared to previous robotic systems (Da Vinci S, Si, X) [ 57 , 58 ]. These features were due to laser targeting and improved cannula mounts that resulted in a simplified “linear” port configuration and an abbreviated docking time.

Besides, the ability to exchange the robotic camera from port-to-port increased versatility for multi-quadrant surgeries thanks to the smaller 8 mm camera [ 59 , 60 ]. The multi-quadrant operations represent challenges due to the axis of visualization shift up to 360°. This procedure requires undocking the robot and rotating it on the axis. It is crucial for many colorectal surgeries that require access to the entire abdomen such as subtotal colectomy and total proctocolectomy.

Furthermore, it was reported that the Xi system’s better fluency is also due to thinner robotic arms that reduce their collisions during surgery and synchronous movements with the operating Table [ 56 ]. In addition, Da Vinci Xi integrates the Indocyanine-Green technology that could be easily used to better identify bile duct during cholecystectomy in patients affected by acute cholecystitis, to assess organ vascularization during their resections and anastomosis, as reported in our experience.

Bianchi et al. [ 61 ] performed an extensive comparison of Da Vinci Si and Xi systems to define their advantages and disadvantages. 89 patients (64 in the Si system vs. 25 in the Xi system group) who underwent liver surgery were included. The Si system group experienced a greater total incisional length (+ 8.99 mm; p  < 0.0001) due to a higher number of robotic/laparoscopic ports. Nevertheless, no differences were described regarding operative time, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, mortality, use of analgesics, and costs. The authors concluded that da Vinci Xi represents an effective technological advancement.

Hill et al. [ 62 ] hypothesized that Da Vinci Xi will allow for greater efficiency and result in shorter operative times if compared to Da Vinci Si. To validate their hypothesis, the authors performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing sigmoid colon resection or Low Anterior Rectal resection. A total of 93 patients underwent sigmoid resection thanks to RS (Si, n  = 52 vs. Xi, n  = 41). The Xi group had significantly shorter surgical times for Low Anterior Rectal and sigmoid resection (162 vs. 238 min, p  = 0.0001). Nowadays, no data are available on the Da Vinci Si and Xi comparison in AES.

However, according to the type of procedures, the mean operative times of Da Vinci Xi were superimposable to the Si group in our experience.

The robotic technology in hemodynamically stable patients could potentially reduce the conversion to open rate (0% in our short series), thanks to high-definition view and accuracy of dissection and fine micro-sutures.

In 2022, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) published a position paper on RS in AES after the literature evaluation by a steering committee and an international expert panel [ 32 ]. Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort articles) were found and 6 statements were proposed. Experts concluded that RS can be considered safe, and feasible in selected cases represented by hemodynamically stable patients. It should be emphasized that the WSES team reported some RS drawbacks: it is mandatory to perform dedicated surgical training, RS showed longer operative times, higher costs and difficult availability and accessibility represent the main issues during night shifts [ 32 ].

These aspects probably may change in the future with RS diffusion and new robotic devices in the health market.

In our experience, the mean age of patients was 63 years. Therefore, more than 30% of patients were older than 70 years (range: 43–88 years) and it is in line with RS literature experiences that showed good outcomes also in the elderly population [ 28 , 41 ]. Nevertheless, operative time represents a crucial point in this frail cohort. Despite RS showing longer operative time when compared to open and laparoscopic surgery, this disadvantage may be offset by lower postoperative complication rates, shorter hospital stays, and lower conversion rates [ 28 , 41 , 63 , 64 , 65 ].

Another key aspect is represented by enhanced vision through near-infrared imaging. It may be useful in AES in case of tissue perfusion evaluations or biliary tree identification in challenging procedures. This feature is not routinely available in laparoscopic surgery [ 66 , 67 ].

Figure  2 shows an emergency scenario due to splenic artery aneurysm repair thanks to RS.

The robotic approach during Emergency Setting for patients affected by splenic artery aneurysms using a vessel resection and end-to-end vascular anastomosis

Robotics in emergency upper-GI and bariatric surgery

One of the earliest studies on RS in AES was published in 2012 [ [ 68 ]]: Sudan et al. experience in complex bariatric surgery involved 2 patients affected by a stomach stricture and an acute abdomen due to perforation with biliary peritonitis after biliopancreatic diversion, respectively. The perforation was treated through an initial laparoscopic investigation followed by a handsewn robotic stitch reparation of duodenal stump dehiscence.

In 2020, Cubas et al. [ 69 ] presented an RS procedure for incarcerated Morgagni Hernia in a 29-year-old male. The hernia defect (reported as 10 × 7 cm) was corrected via mesh placement. Patient discharge was possible on POD 5. No recurrence was detected at 1-year follow-up.

During the same year, Ceccarelli et al. [ 45 ] published a series of 5 patients affected by strangulated Giant Hiatal Hernia: 3 (60%) patients experienced RS while 2 (40%) laparoscopic approach. The authors described an easier incarcerated stomach management thanks to RS, maybe due to better surgeon ergonomic position and more accurate dissection preserving pleural integrity and vagus nerve.

Kim et al. [ 70 ] reported a case of robotic transthoracic repair of a right-sided traumatic diaphragmatic rupture in a 45-year-old male with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presented as a restrained driver in a low-speed motor vehicle collision. The patient was effectively operated after a 48-hour observation.

In 2021, 300 USA hospitals were involved in retrospective data collection of adult patients affected by Hiatal Hernia and treated in elective and urgent/emergency scenarios from 2015 to 2017 [ 71 ]. Data analysis revealed that laparoscopy (64%) was the most frequent approach used during AES, followed by open surgery (30%). A limited number of patients (6%) experienced RS. After cost evaluations and outcomes analysis, authors declared the technical feasibility of minimally invasive approaches when compared to open surgery due to lower cost, lower length of hospital stay, complications, and mortality.

Robinson et al. [ 72 ], in 2021, performed a statistical analysis of “in-room-to-surgery-start time” in a retrospective cohort study of 44 patients affected by emergent perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The comparison between RS and laparoscopic (24 and 20 cases respectively) showed encouraging results for RS (25 versus 31 min, p  = 0.01). Furthermore, no statistical differences were observed in terms of intra- and post-operative outcomes (operative time, complication rate, complication severity, hospital length of stay, discharge to home, and 30-day readmission). Despite RS showing higher surgical costs, authors concluded that emergency gastric perforation could be safely approached thanks to RS.

No complications were reported in all studies reported in our review [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ].

Robotics in emergency colorectal surgery and appendectomies

Nowadays, emergency laparoscopy represents a safe and valid approach to colorectal disorders such as perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis [ 73 ], iatrogenic colonoscopy perforations [ 74 ], bowel obstructions and anastomotic leaks management [ 75 , 76 , 77 ].

In 2012, Pedraza et al. [ 78 ] showed successful robotic colectomy due to iatrogenic colon perforation following colonoscopy.

Two years later, Felli et al. [ 79 ] described a case of an 86-year-old woman admitted to the emergency unit for massive intestinal bleeding due to ascending colon cancer. After patient resuscitation thanks to blood transfusions, surgeons carried out a robotic right colectomy. The postoperative period was uneventful.

Several series compared laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery [ 80 , 81 , 82 ], suggesting the potential role of RS in this surgical field. Nevertheless, an interesting analysis was performed by Beltzer et al. [ 83 ] in 2019. 106 patients were treated for uncomplicated, complicated, or recurrent diverticulitis. The authors concluded that RS achieves better outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery in challenging cases (abscess or relapsing diverticulitis).

Three monocentric experiences reported by Kudsi et al. [ 84 , 85 , 86 ] showed the effectiveness of urgent RS for the treatment of obstructive transverse colon cancer, bleeding sigmoid diverticulosis and caecal volvulus.

However, RS could represent a crucial approach also in colorectal autoimmune diseases. Concerning this field, Anderson et al. [ 87 ] in 2020 reported a matched case-control study of 6 patients treated by urgent subtotal colectomy for ulcerative colitis using the robotic platform. In addition, authors compared patients who underwent RS to laparoscopic urgent procedures (6 versus 13 cases) concluding that no differences in perioperative outcomes were observed.

According to Yang et al. [ 88 ] estimation, more than 17 millions of patients were affected by appendicitis in 2019, making it the most common surgical emergency worldwide. Nevertheless, regarding urgent robotic appendectomies, only 5 literature experiences reported robotic approaches [ 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. A total of 11 patients were collected and 3 (27.27%) required an appendix stump suture. No complications or conversions were reported. Moreover, Hüttenbrink et al. [ 94 ] described incidental appendicectomy during robotic prostatectomy.

Figure  3 shows our experience during RS for complicated sigmoid diverticulitis with sigmoid-bladder fistula.

Lunardi et al. [ 95 ] presented an interesting analysis of temporal trends in the use of minimally invasive surgery in Abdominal Emergency and Urgent Settings. The authors compared 89,098 emergency colectomies performed between 2013 and 2021. The increase per year for robotic colectomy was 0.9% (from 1.4% of total procedures in 2013 to 8.8% in 2021). As a result of this increase, a 0.7% decrease was registered for the open approach. Furthermore, patients who underwent RS were older, had more comorbidities and had higher BMI when compared to laparoscopic and open groups. Intraoperative outcomes were encouraging for RS: after Propensity Score Matching, a conversion rate of 25.5% (860/3,375 patients) was registered during laparoscopic surgery, while in 11.2% (379/3,375 patients) of RS cases, a conversion to open was required ( p  < 0.001). After Propensity Score Marching of patients underwent Emergency surgery only, RS demonstrated advantages in terms of conversion to open (27.5% vs. 12% in laparoscopic and robotic groups respectively, p  < 0.001) and post-operative LOS (7.12 vs. 6.85 days respectively, p  = 0.001).

In conclusion, conventional open surgery should be recommended for unstable and frail patients who require time-critical surgery. Nevertheless, it could be underlined that stable and frail patients may benefit from an enhanced recovery after surgery associated with RS in the acute setting when compared to open surgery.

Robotic approach during emergency setting for patients affected by complicated sigmoid diverticulitis with sigmoid-bladder fistula. We performed a fistula resection and bladder suture in double-layer barbed suture

Robotics in acute cholecystitis and biliary tree diseases

Another interesting field of application in AES may be the biliary tree and gallbladder diseases including cholecystitis, Mirizzi syndromes, biliary fistulas, iatrogenic diseases and common bile duct stones.

In 2016, Kubat et al. [ 96 ] published a retrospective series of 150 consecutive robotic single-site cholecystectomies (74 versus 76 cases treated in emergency scenarios and elective settings respectively). The mean operative time for ES cohort was significantly longer (95.0 ± 4.4 versus 71.9 ± 2.6 min; p  < 0.001). Both cohorts required 1 conversion to open (1.35% for the emergency group and 1.31% for the elective group). One bile duct injury (0.7%) was reported in patients treated in emergency conditions. The authors concluded that robotic single-site cholecystectomy can be performed safely and effectively in both elective and urgent scenarios with a learning curve of about 48 cases to reach acceptable perioperative outcomes.

Mirizzi syndrome represents one of the most challenging complications of cholelithiasis [ 97 , 98 , 99 ].

In 2014, Lee et al. [ 97 ] evaluated the outcomes of five patients treated by endoscopic biliary stent placement and subsequent robotic partial cholecystectomy due to Mirizzi syndrome. No conversion to open was reported and all patients experienced an uneventful postoperative course.

In 2017 Magge et al. [ 98 ] reported a 6-patient series. All cases were treated performing a combined endoscopic and robotic approaches. In 3 cases (50%) a Roux-en-Y hepatico-jejunostomy was carried out. In these challenging scenarios, RS showed relevant benefits when compared to laparoscopy, facilitating complex dissections, and reducing conversion to open rate.

The most representative cohort of patients was described by Gangemi et al. [ 100 ] in 2017. Authors compared a large series of 676 patients receiving a robotic cholecystectomy with 284 treated by conventional laparoscopy: data analysis showed a significantly lower conversion to open in RS group, especially in patients affected by acute or gangrenous cholecystitis.

A 3-patient experience was described by Milone et al. [ 101 ] in 2019, achieving good perioperative outcomes in acute cholecystitis treatment.

Major bile duct injuries after cholecystectomy require complex surgical repairs that are usually performed with a conventional open approach [ 102 ]. This field may represent an interesting application of RS to safety perform biliary anastomosis. Cubisino et al. presented a systematic review of 13 literature experiences on minimally invasive biliary anastomosis after iatrogenic bile duct injury [ 103 ]. 198 patients were included. 135 patients (63.1%) underwent laparoscopic biliary anastomosis, while 73 (36.1%) received an analogue robotic procedure. According to Strasberg’s classification [ 104 ], all Bile Duct Injuries were types D and E (E1–E5). No conversions occurred in the RS series, while 4 patients required conversion to open surgery among the laparoscopic ones. Postoperative complications were superimposable (18.7% and 19.7% in laparoscopic and robotic approaches, respectively). Nevertheless, the overall reoperation rate was 4.4%, 5.5% in laparoscopic and 2.6% in robotic repairs.

During the follow-up period (median 24.6 months), 9 patients developed an anastomotic stricture: 5 (3.70%) in laparoscopic and 4 (5.48%) in robotic series that required a redo-anastomosis in 60% and 25% respectively.

When compared to open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in AES, RS showed an increase of 0.7% per year in Lunardi et al. cohort of 793’800 cholecystectomies [ 95 ], ranging from 2.5 to 8.8% between 2013 and 2021. It could be underlined that conversion rate and LOS were statistically lower in RS group ( p  < 0.001). Despite these findings, laparoscopic cholecystectomy yet represents the preferred approach in AES.

Robotics emergencies in hernia and abdominal wall surgery

Only a few studies analyzed urgent hernia operations treated using robotic surgery.

In 2020, Bou-Ayash et al. [ 105 ] published a retrospective series of 19 patients (including 23 surgical procedures) affected by inguinal hernia, treated from 2013 to 2020. The authors concluded that the robotic approach represents a safe procedure in selected patients, with a short length of stay and a low complication rate compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

In 2021, Kudsi et al. [ 106 ] described perioperative outcomes of RS in a 34-patient cohort treated between 2013 and 2019. All patients experienced robotic ventral and incisional hernia repair in an emergency setting. 20% of patients were classified as Clavien-Dindo I or II, while about 11% Clavien-Dindo III and IV. Only 3% of the population experienced a recurrence.

Muysoms et al. [ 107 ] performed an extensive analysis of robotic cost. They retrospective evaluate laparoscopic (272 procedures of which 6 were emergency cases) and robotic (404 procedures of which 8 were emergency cases) inguinal hernia repairs. As reported in other literature experiences, authors concluded that Robotic inguinal hernia repair was significantly ( p  < 0.001) more expensive if compared to laparoscopic surgery (mean cost €2612 versus €1963, respectively). Nevertheless, in the robotic group, a larger number of patients were treated as outpatients with lower postoperative complications.

Regarding inguinal and ventral hernia repair, the analysis conducted by Lunardi et al. [ 95 ] showed encouraging data for RS approach: from 2013 to 2021 RS increased of 1.9% per year and 1.1% per year respectively. After propensity score matching, authors reported superimposable data in terms of CCI and BMI, comparing laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Nonetheless, RS showed benefits also in these fields: lower conversion rates were reported both in inguinal hernia repairs (18.1% vs. 3.8%, p  < 0.001) and in ventral hernia repair (16.2% vs. 4.8%, p  < 0.001). In addition, a statistically significant shorter postoperative LOS was registered in the RS group (the mean LOS in the inguinal hernia group was 3.34 vs. 3 days in laparoscopic and robotic approaches respectively, and the mean LOS in the ventral hernia group was 3.87 vs. 3.73 days, respectively).

Other abdominal emergency surgery and future perspectives

A rare indication for urgent RS was post-traumatic splenic bleeding reported by Giulianotti et al. [ 108 ].

Until now, no reports of RS in adhesive intestinal obstruction have been published.

A possible and useful application of RS is represented by telementoring and telesurgery [ 32 , 109 , 110 , 111 ]. The original aim of RS and the recent COVID-19 pandemic gave an important incentive in these directions. The advantage of telementoring and telepresence of an expert surgeon in a virtual way is nowadays possible and may be improved thanks to the modern and future highspeed internet connection (5G networks) as well as the telesurgery in ultra-remote countries, in low-volume centers and in an emergent civil or battlefield surgical scenarios [ 112 , 113 , 114 ].

The development of new modular robotic platforms may contribute to increase RS applications in emergency settings. Nowadays, several different robotic platforms are approved for human use, such as CMR Versius (Cambridge Medical Robotics, Cambridge, UK), Distalmotion Dexter (Distalmotion, Epalinges, Switzerland) and Medtronic Hugo (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, USA). Most of them share the opportunity of switching from a conventional laparoscopic setting to a robot-assisted one.

Limitations

The main bias of our study was represented by hospital organisations: RS devices are available in the same building as the General Surgery Unit at San Donato Hospital (Arezzo, Italy) facilitating emergency surgical procedures. On the other hand, Da Vinci Xi is situated in a separate building specifically dedicated to RS at the General and Robotic Surgery Unit of San Giovanni Battista Hospital (Foligno, Italy).

Furthermore, these findings represented a limit when the surgeons’ team wanted to perform a laparoscopic exploration to validate a minimally invasive robotic approach in emergency scenarios.

In our experience, it should also underline that the COVID-19 era has contributed to limiting RS adoption.

Future shreds of evidence from randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are required to define the potential role of RS in AES. Nevertheless, the unavailable data on the cost-effectiveness of RS in AES are linked to lower use of robotic devices if compared to laparoscopic approaches. Our experience suggested that RS costs are superimposable to laparoscopic surgery if we analyse LOS and conversion rate data. To optimize the delivery of robotic technology in AES, a well-coordinated effort among health systems, clinicians, payers, and policymakers and dedicated training program for robotic teams are imperative.

Our study demonstrates that RS may be an useful and reliable approach also to emergency surgical procedures, especially when performed in selected patients in very well trained robotic centers allowing a safe managing of surgical challenging procedures as main indications for this technology, reducing the conversion rate when compared to laparoscopy.

As for laparoscopy the patient selection for robotic approach need hemodinamically stable condition and require a sharing of the surgical strategy by all the team: surgeons, nurses and anaesthesiologists. All the staff need to be trained in laparoscopic and robotic elective surgery, including technology functioning. The hybrid use of robotic/laparoscopic technology may be taken into consideration (a laparoscopic exploration may be the first step) to decide the following approach. The robotic approach may be reserved to challenging steps of the operation (suture/microsuture/dissections).

The availability of the device is the sine qua non condition for emergent and of course urgent use. The current organization in which the platform is shared by different teams, represent for the diffusion of its use in the emergent setting.

The cost reduction of platforms and instruments, together with new robotic devices in the health market, may represent a future perspective for emergencies use of robotic technology. So, the robotic technology may be one of the tools available in every operating theatre, to use in selected cases according to patient condition and surgical team experience.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Surlin V. Emergency and trauma surgery. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2021;116:643–4.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

E. U. o. M. S. S. o. S. a. E. B. o. Surgery. (2024), vol. 2024.

De Simone B, et al. The new timing in acute care surgery (new TACS) classification: a WSES Delphi consensus study. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18:32.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Crepaz L, et al. Minimally invasive approach to incisional hernia in elective and emergency surgery: a SICE (Italian Society of endoscopic surgery and new technologies) and ISHAWS (Italian society of hernia and abdominal wall surgery) online survey. Updates Surg. 2023;75:1671–80.

Coletta D, Patriti A. in Updates Surg . Italy. 2023;75:2047–2048.

Wakabayashi G, et al. Tokyo guidelines 2018: surgical management of acute cholecystitis: safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:73–86.

Gorter RR, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4668–90. EAES consensus development conference 2015.

Jara RD, Guerrón AD, Portenier D. Complications of robotic surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2020;100:461–8.

Rocca A, et al. Robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastases resection: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot. 2021;17:e2330.

Martins RS, et al. Quality of life after robotic versus conventional minimally invasive cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:171.

Gomez Ruiz M, et al. Robotic surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: feasibility and oncological quality. Updates Surg. 2023;75:589–97.

Chatterjee S, Das S, Ganguly K, Mandal D. Advancements in robotic surgery: innovations, challenges and future prospects. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:28.

Minamimura K, et al. Current status of robotic gastrointestinal surgery. J Nippon Med Sch. 2023;90:308–15.

Rocca A, et al. Robotic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases in a referral centre Hub&Spoke learning program. A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of perioperative outcomes. Heliyon. 2024;10:e24800.

Ceccarelli G, et al. Robotic revision surgery after failed Nissen anti-reflux surgery: a single center experience and a literature review. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:1517–24.

Knitter S, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023;408:214.

Liu R, Liu Q, Wang Z. Worldwide diffusion of robotic approach in general surgery. Updates Surg. 2021;73:795–7.

Daskalaki D, et al. Financial impact of the robotic approach in liver surgery: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs between the robotic and open technique in a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:375–82.

de’Angelis N, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastric resection for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors > 5 cm: a size-matched and location-matched comparison. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017;27:65–71.

van Dam P et al. Are costs of robot-assisted surgery warranted for gynecological procedures? Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:973830.

Vicente E, Quijano Y, Ferri V, Caruso R. Robot-assisted cholecystectomy with the new HUGO™ robotic-assisted system: first worldwide report with system description, docking settings, and video. Updates Surg. 2023;75:2039–42.

Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40:2550–7.

Sarkaria IS et al. Early operative outcomes and learning curve of robotic assisted giant paraesophageal hernia repair. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13.

Felder SI, et al. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery. Curr Probl Surg. 2018;55:198–246.

Ceccarelli G et al. Minimally invasive approach to gastric GISTs: analysis of a multicenter robotic and laparoscopic experience with literature review. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13.

Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1–11.

Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A. Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59:535–42.

de’Angelis N, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in elderly patients: a propensity score match analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28:1334–45.

Cheung TT, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥ 10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2023;12:205–15.

Cillo U, D’Amico FE, Furlanetto A, Perin L, Gringeri E. Robotic hepatectomy and biliary reconstruction for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a pioneer western case series. Updates Surg. 2021;73:999–1006.

Giulianotti PC, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg. 2003;138:777–84.

de’Angelis N, et al. Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper. World J Emerg Surg. 2022;17:4.

Solaini L, et al. Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumour resections: a multicentre cohort study. Int J Med Robot. 2021;17:e2198.

Wei D, Johnston S, Goldstein L, Nagle D. Minimally invasive colectomy is associated with reduced risk of anastomotic leak and other major perioperative complications and reduced hospital resource utilization as compared with open surgery: a retrospective population-based study of comparative effectiveness and trends of surgical approach. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:610–21.

Giovannetti A, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) versus robotic redo hiatal hernia repair with fundoplication: which approach is better? Am Surg. 2019;85:978–84.

Colvin J, et al. A comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients with primary hyperaldosteronism. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017;27:391–3.

Tolboom RC, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA. Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic redo hiatal hernia and antireflux surgery: a cohort study. J Robot Surg. 2016;10:33–9.

Kim HI, et al. Multicenter prospective comparative study of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2016;263:103–9.

Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1500–24.

Ceccarelli G, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eur Surg Res. 2009;43:198–203.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ceccarelli G, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in elderly and very elderly population: our experience in oncologic and general surgery with literature review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29:55–63.

Ceccarelli G, et al. A new robot-assisted Billroth-I reconstruction: details of the technique and early results. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2018;28:e33–9.

Ceccarelli G, et al. Robot-assisted liver surgery in a general surgery unit with a referral centre hub&spoke learning program. Early outcomes after our first 70 consecutive patients. Minerva Chir. 2018;73:460–8.

Ceccarelli G, et al. Robot-assisted Toupet fundoplication and associated cholecystectomy in symptomatic giant hiatal hernia with situs viscerum inversus-A case report and literature review. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019;60:371–5.

Ceccarelli G, et al. Minimally invasive laparoscopic and robot-assisted emergency treatment of strangulated giant hiatal hernias: report of five cases and literature review. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:37.

Ceccarelli G, et al. Minimally invasive robotic-assisted combined colorectal and liver excision surgery: feasibility, safety and surgical technique in a pilot series. Updates Surg. 2021;73:1015–22.

Costa G, et al. Clinico-pathological features of colon cancer patients undergoing emergency surgery: a comparison between elderly and non-elderly patients. Open Med (Wars). 2019;14:726–34.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.

Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:239–43.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

Sermonesi G, et al. Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma. World J Emerg Surg. 2023;18:57.

Reinisch A, Liese J, Padberg W, Ulrich F. Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:275–90.

Capibaribe DM, Avilez ND, Sacomani CAR, Lucena A, Reis LO. Robotic approach to vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis and resection of remaining prostate after radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2023;49:158–60.

Huser AS, et al. Simulated life-threatening emergency during robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28:717–21.

Ballas DA, Cesta M, Gothard D, Ahmed R. Emergency undocking curriculum in robotic surgery. Cureus. 2019;11:e4321.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

van der Schans EM, Hiep MAJ, Consten ECJ, Broeders I. From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:835–9.

Alfieri S, et al. Short-term and long-term outcomes after robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs): a multicenter comparative study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019;404:459–68.

Abdel Raheem A, et al. Da Vinci Xi and Si platforms have equivalent perioperative outcomes during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: preliminary experience. J Robot Surg. 2017;11:53–61.

Yuh B, et al. Use of a mobile tower-based robot–the initial Xi robot experience in surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113:5–7.

Hollandsworth HM, et al. Multiquadrant surgery in the robotic era: a technical description and outcomes for Da Vinci Xi robotic subtotal colectomy and total proctocolectomy. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:5153–9.

Bianchi G, et al. Short-term outcomes of Da Vinci Xi versus Si robotic systems for minor hepatectomies. Acta Biomed. 2022;93:e2022223.

Hill A, McCormick J. In experienced hands, does the robotic platform impact operative efficiency? Comparison of the Da Vinci Si versus Xi robot in colorectal surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:789–92.

Oldani A, Bellora P, Monni M, Amato B, Gentilli S. Colorectal surgery in elderly patients: our experience with DaVinci Xi ® system. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29:91–9.

Gallotta V, et al. Robotic surgery in elderly and very elderly gynecologic cancer patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:872–7.

Buchs NC, et al. Safety of robotic general surgery in elderly patients. J Robot Surg. 2010;4:91–8.

Barberio M, et al. Quantitative fluorescence angiography versus hyperspectral imaging to assess bowel ischemia: a comparative study in enhanced reality. Surgery. 2020;168:178–84.

Liot E, et al. Does near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence angiography modify operative strategy during emergency procedures? Surg Endosc. 2018;32:4351–6.

Sudan R, Desai SS. Emergency and weekend robotic surgery are feasible. J Robot Surg. 2012;6:263–6.

Cubas R, Garcia M, Mukherjee K. Robotic repair of incarcerated morgagni hernia in an adult on the acute care surgery service. Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba. 2021;78:91–4.

Kim JK, Desai A, Kunac A, Merchant AM, Lovoulos C. Robotic Transthoracic Repair of a Right-Sided Traumatic Diaphragmatic Rupture. Surg J (N Y). 2020;6(3):e164–e166.

Hosein S, Carlson T, Flores L, Armijo PR, Oleynikov D. Minimally invasive approach to hiatal hernia repair is superior to open, even in the emergent setting: a large national database analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:423–8.

Robinson TD, et al. Emergent robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for perforated gastrojejunal ulcers: a retrospective cohort study of 44 patients. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:1573–7.

Sartelli M, et al. 2020 update of the WSES guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:32.

de’Angelis N, et al. 2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:5.

Marano A, Giuffrida MC, Giraudo G, Pellegrino L, Borghi F. Management of peritonitis after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: can we stick to laparoscopy? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27:342–7.

Wind J, et al. Laparoscopic reintervention for anastomotic leakage after primary laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2007;94:1562–6.

Vennix S, et al. Emergency laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis: a systematic review. Dig Surg. 2016;33:1–7.

Pedraza R, Ragupathi M, Martinez T, Haas EM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic primary repair of acute iatrogenic colonic perforation: case report. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8:375–8.

Felli E, et al. Robotic right colectomy for hemorrhagic right colon cancer: a case report and review of the literature of minimally invasive urgent colectomy. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9:32.

Chen ZL, Du QL, Zhu YB, Wang HF. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:167.

Alkhamis A, et al. Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:152.

de Almeida Leite RM et al. Surgical and medical outcomes in robotic compared to laparoscopic colectomy global prospective cohort from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. Surg Endosc. 2024.

Beltzer C, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease: a single-center experience of 106 cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29:1451–5.

Kudsi OY, Gokcal F. Urgent robotic mesocolic excision for obstructing proximal transverse colon cancer - a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21:1093–4.

Kudsi OY, Bou-Ayash N. Bleeding sigmoid diverticulosis - urgent stapleless totally robotic sigmoidectomy-a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2020;22:1205.

Kudsi OY, Bou-Ayash N. Caecal volvulus - urgent totally robotic right colectomy - a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2020;22:1448–9.

Anderson M, et al. Early experience with urgent robotic subtotal colectomy for severe acute ulcerative colitis has comparable perioperative outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:249–53.

Yang Y, et al. The global burden of appendicitis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Clin Epidemiol. 2022;14:1487–99.

Cadière GB, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg. 2001;25:1467–77.

Kelkar D, Borse MA, Godbole GP, Kurlekar U, Slack M. Interim safety analysis of the first-in-human clinical trial of the versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted device for use in minimal access surgery. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:5193–202.

Kibar Y, Yalcin S, Kopru B, Kaya E, Topuz B, Ebiloglu T. Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Repair of Spontaneous Appendicovesical Fistula. J Endourol Case Rep. 2016;2(1):111–3.

Yi B, et al. The first clinical use of domestically produced Chinese minimally invasive surgical robot system micro hand S. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:2649–55.

Yi B, et al. Domestically produced Chinese minimally invasive surgical robot system micro hand S is applied to clinical surgery preliminarily in China. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:487–93.

Hüttenbrink C, et al. Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy-safe and worth to perform? Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403:265–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lunardi N, et al. Robotic technology in emergency general surgery cases in the era of minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg. 2024;159:493–9.

Kubat E, Hansen N, Nguyen H, Wren SM, Eisenberg D. Urgent and elective robotic single-site cholecystectomy: analysis and learning curve of 150 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26:185–91.

Lee KF, et al. A minimally invasive strategy for Mirizzi syndrome: the combined endoscopic and robotic approach. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2690–4.

Magge D, et al. Performing the difficult cholecystectomy using combined endoscopic and robotic techniques: how I do it. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:583–9.

Valderrama-Treviño AI, et al. Updates in Mirizzi syndrome. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2017;6:170–8.

Gangemi A, Danilkowicz R, Bianco F, Masrur M, Giulianotti PC. Risk factors for open conversion in minimally invasive cholecystectomy. Jsls. 2017;21.

Milone M, et al. Robotic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: three case reports. Med (Baltim). 2019;98:e16010.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Giuliante F, et al. Bile duct injury after cholecystectomy: timing of surgical repair should be based on clinical presentation. The experience of a tertiary referral center with Hepp-Couinaud hepatico-jejunostomy. Updates Surg. 2023;75:1509–17.

Cubisino A, Dreifuss NH, Cassese G, Bianco FM, Panaro F. Minimally invasive biliary anastomosis after iatrogenic bile duct injury: a systematic review. Updates Surg. 2023;75:31–9.

Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ. An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:101–25.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bou-Ayash N, Gokcal F, Kudsi OY. Robotic inguinal hernia repair for incarcerated hernias. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021;31:926–30.

Kudsi OY, Bou-Ayash N, Chang K, Gokcal F. Perioperative and midterm outcomes of emergent robotic repair of incarcerated ventral and incisional hernia. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:473–81.

Muysoms F et al. Economic assessment of starting robot-assisted laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in a single-centre retrospective comparative study: the EASTER study. BJS Open. 2021;5.

Giulianotti PC, et al. Robot-assisted treatment of splenic artery aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25:377–83.

Smith AL, et al. Dual-console robotic surgery: a new teaching paradigm. J Robot Surg. 2013;7:113–8.

Thomas A, et al. Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:731–9.

Panteleimonitis S, et al. Implementation of robotic rectal surgery training programme: importance of standardisation and structured training. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403:749–60.

Zheng J, et al. 5G ultra-remote robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in China. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:5172–80.

Mohan A, Wara UU, Arshad Shaikh MT, Rahman RM, Zaidi ZA. Telesurgery and robotics: an improved and efficient era. Cureus. 2021;13:e14124.

Anvari M, Manoharan B, Barlow K. From telementorship to automation. J Surg Oncol. 2021;124:246–9.

Giulianotti PC, Quadri P, Durgam S, Bianco FM. Reconstruction/repair of iatrogenic biliary injuries: is the robot offering a new option? Short clinical report. Ann Surg. 2018;267:e7–9.

Cuendis-Velázquez A, et al. A new era of bile duct repair: robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:451–9.

Marino MV, Mirabella A, Guarrasi D, Lupo M, Komorowski AL. Robotic-assisted repair of iatrogenic common bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: surgical technique and outcomes. Int J Med Robot. 2019;15:e1992.

Sucandy I, et al. Robotic versus open extrahepatic biliary reconstruction for iatrogenic bile duct injury. Am Surg. 2022;88:345–7.

D’Hondt M, Wicherts DA. Robotic biliary surgery for benign and malignant bile duct obstruction: a case series. J Robot Surg. 2023;17:55–62.

Download references

This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of General Surgery, “San Giovanni Battista” Hospital, USL Umbria 2, Foligno, Perugia, Italy

Graziano Ceccarelli, Fabio Rondelli & Michele De Rosa

Division of General Surgery, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy

Fausto Catena

Department of General Surgery and Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pineta Grande Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy

Pasquale Avella & Aldo Rocca

Department of Medicine and Health Science “V. Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy

Pasquale Avella, Germano Guerra & Aldo Rocca

Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

Brian WCA Tian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

G.C.: study conception and design, literature search, data acquisition, interpretation and analysis; drafting and critically revising the article for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published. P.A.: literature search, data acquisition, interpretation and analysis; drafting and critically revising the article for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published. F.C.: drafting and critically revising the article for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published. B.W.T.: data acquisition, interpretation and analysis; final approval of the version to be published. F.R.: study conception and design, literature search, data acquisition, interpretation and analysis; final approval of the version to be published. All authors: data acquisition, interpretation, and analysis; final approval of the version to be published. A.R.: supervision, drafted and critically revised the article for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pasquale Avella .

Ethics declarations

Human ethics and consent to participate.

The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. An informed consent for treating personal and sensible data was obtained from all patients before the data collection and evaluation. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Molise (protocol number 10/21, approved date: May 12, 2021).

Consent to publish

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ceccarelli, G., Catena, F., Avella, P. et al. Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature. World J Emerg Surg 19 , 28 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-024-00555-6

Download citation

Received : 14 May 2024

Accepted : 22 July 2024

Published : 17 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-024-00555-6

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

• Abdominal emergency surgery
• Urgent robotic surgery
• Minimally invasive surgery
• Learning curve
• Complicated diverticulitis
• Emergency setting

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

ISSN: 1749-7922

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

Nonlinear thinking in ecology and evolution: The case for ecological scaling of the Threshold Elemental Ratio

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Benjamin Tumolo
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Carly Olson
• ORCID record for Erin Larson
• ORCID record for Halvor Halvorson
• ORCID record for Catherine E Wagner
• ORCID record for Amy Krist
• ORCID record for Felicia Osburn
• ORCID record for Eric Moody
• ORCID record for Linnea Rock
• ORCID record for Uchechukwu Ogbenna
• ORCID record for Briante Lewis Najev
• ORCID record for Anthony Pignatelli
• ORCID record for Jessica Corman
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Nonlinear dynamics govern ecological processes, thus understanding thresholds is important for measuring and forecasting effects of climate change and management of natural resources. However, identifying whether and how such thresholds scale across biological levels of organization remains challenging. Ecological stoichiometry, the study of the balance of multiple elements and energy in ecological systems, provides a framework for scaling thresholds. We broaden a key organismal concept from ecological stoichiometry theory, the Threshold Elemental Ratio (TER), to study how nonlinear dynamics operate in evolutionary and ecological processes across the organizational hierarchy. Traditionally, TERs are used to describe the elemental ratio at which the limitation of organismal growth shifts from one element to another. Following this definition, we make a case for broadening the ecological scale of the TER beyond organisms to include populations, clades, communities, and ecosystems. We show how TERs can be detected and translated across different scales of biological and evolutionary organization through simulation modeling, literature review, and synthesis of empirical examples from diverse systems and ecological scales including: cyanotoxin production in lakes, alder-salmon dynamics, and the Cambrian explosion. Collectively, we demonstrate that TERs are widespread and consequential across levels of biological organization and that such thresholds manifest from a diversity of mechanisms. Thus, scaling of the TER concept holds promise for advancing our understanding of nonlinear dynamics from the micro-evolutionary to macro-ecological.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10631796.

View the discussion thread.

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

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

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Animal Behavior and Cognition (5539)
• Biochemistry (12595)
• Bioengineering (9478)
• Bioinformatics (30899)
• Biophysics (15886)
• Cancer Biology (12965)
• Cell Biology (18559)
• Clinical Trials (138)
• Developmental Biology (10026)
• Ecology (15008)
• Epidemiology (2067)
• Evolutionary Biology (19197)
• Genetics (12768)
• Genomics (17573)
• Immunology (12719)
• Microbiology (29774)
• Molecular Biology (12400)
• Neuroscience (64892)
• Paleontology (480)
• Pathology (2008)
• Pharmacology and Toxicology (3468)
• Physiology (5355)
• Plant Biology (11125)
• Scientific Communication and Education (1729)
• Synthetic Biology (3065)
• Systems Biology (7702)
• Zoology (1732)