narrative literature review example pdf

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
• J Chiropr Med
• v.5(3); Fall 2006

Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade

Bart n. green.

a Associate Editor, National University of Health Sciences

Claire D. Johnson

b Editor, National University of Health Sciences

c Vice President of Academic Affairs and Program Development, Texas Chiropractic College

This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions .

To describe and discuss the process used to write a narrative review of the literature for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication of narrative overviews of the literature should be standardized to increase their objectivity.

In the past decade numerous changes in research methodology pertaining to reviews of the literature have occurred. These changes necessitate authors of review articles to be familiar with current standards in the publication process.

Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts.

An overview of the use of three types of reviews of the literature is presented. Step by step instructions for how to conduct and write a narrative overview utilizing a ‘best-evidence synthesis’ approach are discussed, starting with appropriate preparatory work and ending with how to create proper illustrations. Several resources for creating reviews of the literature are presented and a narrative overview critical appraisal worksheet is included. A bibliography of other useful reading is presented in an appendix.

Narrative overviews can be a valuable contribution to the literature if prepared properly. New and experienced authors wishing to write a narrative overview should find this article useful in constructing such a paper and carrying out the research process. It is hoped that this article will stimulate scholarly dialog amongst colleagues about this research design and other complex literature review methods.

Sources of support: This article is reprinted with permission. Its original citation is: Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil 2001;15:5–19.

• DOI: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
• Corpus ID: 43921542

Writing narrative style literature reviews

• Rossella Ferrari
• Published 23 December 2015
• Medical Writing

Figures and Tables from this paper

785 Citations

Systematic review methods, critiquing the past for solidifying the future: understanding the synthesizing facet of reviewing the social studies: critical approach, writing a scientific review article: comprehensive insights for beginners, narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers, a comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies, the systematic review: plurality of approaches and methodologies., questions and answers about conducting systematic reviews in sport and exercise psychology.

• Highly Influenced

Best Practices for Meta-Reviews in Physical Activity and Health Research: Insights From the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Scientific Report.

The systematic review: plurality of approaches and methodologies, the classification of online consumer reviews: a systematic literature review and integrative framework, 21 references, writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade..

• Highly Influential

Writing an Effective Review Article

Rameses publication standards: meta-narrative reviews, writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors, structured abstracts: narrative review., systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly, balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews., a typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies., epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews, comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

• January 2019
• Annual Review of Psychology 70(1)

• University of Glasgow

• The London School of Economics and Political Science

• Northwestern University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Zhaoying Li

• Sayoko Kawabata
• Nancy Bagatell

• Willy Apostel Putra
• Hafizullah Mosavi

• Ronny R. Forney
• Mary Peacock

• Asaah Sumaila Mohammed
• Matthew C Carey

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Search term Advanced Search Citation Search
• Individual login
• Institutional login

The Structure and Conduct of a Narrative Literature Review

Marco Pautasso

Forest Pathology and Dendrology, Institute for Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Animal and Plant Health Unit, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

Mohammadali Shoja

Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran, Division of General Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago Metropolitan Group Hospitals, Chicago, IL, United States

Anastasia Arynchyna

Pediatric Neurosurgery, Children's of Alabama, Birmingham, 35233 Alabama, United States

Marios Loukas

St. George's University School of Medicine, St. Georg's, Department of Anatomical Sciences, Grenada, West Indies

Anthony V. D'Antoni

Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Division of Anatomy, New York, United States

Sandra M. Buerger

College of General Studies, Boston University, Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Boston, United States

Marion Karl

Lure Animations, Reno, United States

R. Shane Tubbs

Seattle Science Foundation, Seattle, United States

Writing a narrative literature review requires careful planning. This chapter summarizes some key steps in reviewing the literature. First, a team needs to be formed. Second, a topic needs to be chosen. This needs to be relevant to the author's research/teaching interests and a well-defined issue. Third, a thorough search strategy using a variety of pertinent keywords and databases is needed. Inspecting papers cited in and citing the retrieved material is helpful. Fourth, efficient reading is required. My advice is to start taking notes alongside the literature search. Fifth, a decision is needed on whether to write a mini- or a full review. Sixth, whilst revising and restructuring the first draft, it is important to keep the review focused, but to make it interesting for a broad audience. Seventh, a good review of the literature does not just list the main achievements in the field but is also critical, consistent, and objective. Eighth, the sections of the review need to be linked in a logical way. Ninth, it is helpful to obtain peer feedback on the manuscript before submitting it for peer-review. Finally, dissemination of the review on social media and online repositories can help increase the review's audience.

• Aveyard, H. ( 2010 ). Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide . Maidenhead, UK : McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
• Bastian, H. , Glasziou, P. , and Chalmers, I. ( 2010 ). Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine 7 : e1000326 . 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R.F. ( 2013 ). Writing a literature review . In: The Portable Mentor – Expert Guide to a Successful Career in Psychology (ed. M.F. Prinstein ), 119 – 132 . Berlin : Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_8 Google Scholar
• Bearfield, D.A. and Eller, W.S. ( 2007 ). Writing a literature review: the art of scientific literature . In: Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration (ed. G.J. Miller and K. Yang ), 61 – 72 . Boca Raton : CRC Press. Google Scholar
• Bekhuis, T. , Tseytlin, E. , Mitchell, K.J. et al. ( 2014 ). Feature engineering and a proposed decision-support system for systematic reviewers of medical evidence . PLoS One 9 ( 1 ): e86277 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0086277 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Bertamini, M. and Munafò, M.R. ( 2012 ). Bite-size science and its undesired side effects . Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 : 67 – 71 . 10.1177/1745691611429353 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Boell, S.K. and Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. ( 2014 ). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches . Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34 ( 1 ): 12 . Google Scholar
• Bolderston, A. ( 2008 ). Writing an effective literature review . Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Science 39 ( 2 ): 86 – 92 . 10.1016/j.jmir.2008.04.009 PubMed Google Scholar
• Boote, D.N. and Beile, P. ( 2005 ). Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher 34 : 3 – 15 . 10.3102/0013189X034006003 Google Scholar
• Bramer, W.M. , Giustini, D. , Kramer, B.M.R. et al. ( 2013 ). The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews . Systematic Reviews 2 : 115 . 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115 PubMed Google Scholar
• Budgen D and Brereton P ( 2006 ) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference i Software Engineering , ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. Google Scholar
• Carnwell, R. and Daly, W. ( 2001 ). Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature . Nurse Education in Practice 1 : 57 – 63 . 10.1054/nepr.2001.0008 CAS PubMed Google Scholar
• Cheruvelil, K.S. , Soranno, P.A. , Weathers, K.C. et al. ( 2014 ). Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 : 31 – 38 . 10.1890/130001 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Cocchio, C. and Awad, N. ( 2014 ). The scholarly merit of social media use among clinical faculty . Journal of Pharmacy Technology 30 : 61 – 68 . 10.1177/8755122513518497 Google Scholar
• Colebunders, R. , Kenyon, C. , and Rousseau, R. ( 2014 ). Increase in numbers and proportions of review articles in tropical medicine, infectious diseases, and oncology . Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65 : 201 – 205 . 10.1002/asi.23026 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Cook, D.A. and West, C.P. ( 2012 ). Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach . Medical Education 46 : 943 – 952 . 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Cronin, P. , Ryan, F. , and Coughlan, M. ( 2008 ). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach . British Journal of Nursing 17 ( 1 ): 38 – 43 . 10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059 PubMed Google Scholar
• Dijkers, M. ( 2013 ). Want your systematic review to be used by practitioners? Try this! KT Update 1 ( 4 ): 1 – 4 . Google Scholar
• Dijkers, M. and The Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines ( 2009 ). The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing . American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 88 : 423 – 430 . 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31819c59c6 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Eco, U. ( 1977 ). Come si fa una tesi di laurea . Milan, Italy : Bompiani. Google Scholar
• Erren, T.C. , Cullen, P. , and Erren, M. ( 2009 ). How to surf today's information tsunami: on the craft of effective reading . Medical Hypotheses 73 : 278 – 279 . 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.05.002 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Hampton, S.E. and Parker, J.N. ( 2011 ). Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis . Bioscience 61 : 900 – 910 . 10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Hart, C. ( 1998 ). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . London : SAGE. Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J.P.A. , Greenland, S. , Hlatky, M.A. et al. ( 2014 ). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis . The Lancet 383 : 166 – 175 . 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Kelleher, C. and Wagener, T. ( 2011 ). Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications . Environmental Modelling and Software 26 : 822 – 827 . 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Ketcham, C.M. and Crawford, J.M. ( 2007 ). The impact of review articles . Laboratory Investigation 87 : 1174 – 1185 . 10.1038/labinvest.3700688 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Khoo, C.S.G. , Na, J.C. , and Jaidka, K. ( 2011 ). Analysis of the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews . Online Information Review 35 : 255 – 271 . 10.1108/14684521111128032 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Logan, D.W. , Sandal, M. , Gardner, P.P. et al. ( 2010 ). Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia . PLoS Computational Biology 6 : e1000941 . 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Maggio, L.A. , Tannery, N.H. , and Kanter, S.L. ( 2011 ). Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews . Academic Medicine 86 : 1049 – 1054 . 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Maier, H.R. ( 2013 ). What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter? Environmental Modelling and Software 43 : 3 – 4 . 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.02.004 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• May, R.M. ( 2011 ). Science as organized scepticism . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369 : 4685 – 4689 . 10.1098/rsta.2011.0177 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• McMenamin, I. ( 2006 ). Process and text: teaching students to review the literature . PS: Political Science and Politics 39 ( 1 ): 133 – 135 . 10.1017/S1049096506060306 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Morris, T. , Harding, G. , Miles, L. et al. ( 2007 ). Getting R&D results into the press . In: Communicating European Research 2005 (ed. M. Claessens ), 183 – 188 . Berlin : Springer. 10.1007/1-4020-5358-4_31 Google Scholar
• Oxman, A.D. and Guyatt, G.H. ( 1988 ). Guidelines for reading literature reviews . Canadian Medical Association Journal 138 : 697 – 703 . CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Pautasso, M. ( 2010 ). Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases . Scientometrics 85 : 193 – 202 . 10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Pautasso, M. ( 2012 ). Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability . Sustainability 4 : 3234 – 3247 . 10.3390/su4123234 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Pautasso, M. ( 2013 ). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Computational Biology 9 ( 7 ): e1003149 . 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Rapple, C. ( 2011 ) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper . Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013. Google Scholar
• Ridley, D. ( 2008 ). The Literature Review: A Step-By-Step Guide for Students . London : SAGE. Google Scholar
• Roberts, P.D. , Stewart, G.B. , and Pullin, A.S. ( 2006 ). Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine . Biological Conservation 132 : 409 – 423 . 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld, R.M. ( 1996 ). How to systematically review the medical literature . Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 115 : 53 – 63 . 10.1016/S0194-5998(96)70137-7 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Steward, B. ( 2004 ). Writing a literature review . British Journal of Occupational Therapy 67 ( 11 ): 495 – 500 . 10.1177/030802260406701105 Google Scholar
• Sutherland, W.J. , Fleishman, E. , Mascia, M.B. et al. ( 2011 ). Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy . Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2 : 238 – 247 . 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Tannery, N.H. and Maggio, L.A. ( 2012 ). The role of medical librarians in medical education review articles . Journal of the Medical Library Association 100 ( 2 ): 142 – 144 . 10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.015 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Torraco, R.J. ( 2005 ). Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples . Human Resources Development Review 4 : 356 – 367 . 10.1177/1534484305278283 Google Scholar
• Tsafnat, G. , Dunn, A. , Glasziou, P. et al. ( 2013 ). The automation of systematic reviews . British Medical Journal 346 : f139 . 10.1136/bmj.f139 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• vom Brocke, J. , Simons, A. , Niehaves, B. et al. ( 2009 ). Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process . In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2009 (ed. S. Newell , E. Whitley , N. Pouloudi , et al.), 2206 – 2217 . Google Scholar
• Wagner, C.S. , Roessner, J.D. , Bobb, K. et al. ( 2011 ). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature . Journal of Informetrics 5 : 14 – 26 . 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004 Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Yasin A and Hasnain MI ( 2012 ) On the quality of grey literature and its use in information synthesis during systematic literature reviews . Master Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden. Google Scholar

Citing Literature

A Guide to the Scientific Career: Virtues, Communication, Research and Academic Writing

Information

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Log in to Wiley Online Library

Change password, your password must have 10 characters or more:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Forgot your password.

Enter your email address below.

Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Ask a Librarian

How can I help you today?

A live human is ready to help.

Find & Cite | Research Help | Collections | Services | About

• Cook Library
• Research Guides

Planning For Your Expert Literature Review

Narrative literature reviews.

• Types of Expert Literature Reviews

Further Reading

• Standards and Guidelines
• The Systematic Review Process
• Review Tools and Platforms
• Screening Tools and Software This link opens in a new window
• Where to Publish
• Searching for Evidence in the Health Professions This link opens in a new window

Narrative or traditional literature reviews can take many shapes and forms. They do not need to follow any specific guideline or standard. A narrative literature view may be assigned as part of your coursework or capstone.

A narrative literature review can be a first step to building on other research in the field. After all, if it's a topic that you're interested in, you need to know what's already been done, right?

Your Narrative Literature Review Should Have...

• A clearly defined topic
• A search for relevant literature
• A logical organization structure
• An interpretation and discussion of the selected relevant literature

A common structure for narrative literature reviews is IMRaD, or:

• Introduction
• What is your topic?
• What are you interested in finding out?
• Why did you select this topic?
• How did you look for the literature?
• Where did you look?
• What search terms did you use?
• What kind of literature did you find?
• Did the literature you found change your opinion on the topic?
• Did you find out something new?
• What were the key concepts?
• and Discussion
• Evaluate and summarize the major concepts
• Connect the major concepts to future research potential

While the structure above may be sufficient for your topic, you may also consider using the similar but more robust structure IAMRDC, or:

• Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24 (4), 230-235. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
• Sollaci, L. B., & Pereira, M. G. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. Journal of the Medical Library Association 92 (3), 364–367. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442179/

• << Previous: Types of Expert Literature Reviews
• Next: Standards and Guidelines >>
• Last Updated: Sep 10, 2024 5:04 PM
• URL: https://towson.libguides.com/expert-reviews