1. Homepage
  2. Services & Support
  3. Education and Research Support
  4. Tutorials
  5. Systematic literature review

Systematic literature review

A systematic literature review is a type of a standalone review article (not an introduction to a thesis or dissertation). In scientific communication, this means an article summarizing and/or analyzing current scientific evidence on a given topic. It uses a rigorous method to comprehensively answer a specific question using the available research on the topic. This guide aims to provide an overview of the basic principles of a systematic literature review and a variety of resources and tools that can help with compiling this type of article.

There are many types of literature reviews, and the first and most important task of a prospective author is to choose which type of review is suitable for your goals. If you are not sure about what type of review to choose, please do not hesitate to schedule a consultation with us. Systematic literature reviews should not be confused with book reviews, and they also differ from the following common review types:

Standard literature review: the introduction to a thesis, dissertation, or scholarly article.

Bibliometric review: analyzes publication trends and patterns in a given field rather than focusing on the content of articles. Bibliometric analysis is suitable for fields with much ongoing research that cannot be realistically summarized in a systematic or scoping review.

Example ↓

  • Sweileh, W. M. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature on climate change and human health with an emphasis on infectious diseases. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00576-1

Umbrella review: review of reviews. Compiles evidence from multiple reviews without including primary sources.

Example ↓

  • Oussalah, A., Levy, J., Berthezène, C., Alpers, D. H., & Guéant, J.-L. (2020). Health outcomes associated with vegetarian diets: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clinical Nutrition, 39(11), 3283–3307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.037

Scoping review: provides an overview of research on a given topic. Especially useful for those who want to familiarize themselves with current knowledge on a certain topic. Usually does not formally assess the quality of resources.

Example ↓

  • Hall, A. J., Lang, I. A., Endacott, R., Hall, A., & Goodwin, V. A. (2017). Physiotherapy interventions for people with dementia and a hip fracture—A scoping review of the literature. Physiotherapy, 103(4), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2017.01.001

Meta-analysis: combines results gathered from different studies and statistically evaluates them. This type of article is on the border between a literature review and original research. The key aspect is a quantitative evaluation, using data from other studies to determine the answer to a research question. Usually considered an extremely specialized type of review.

Example ↓

Systematic review: synthesizes available evidence on a given question or problem. Its main features are:
  • Specificity: aims to answer a clearly formulated, narrowly defined question.
  • Comprehensiveness: contains a detailed description of search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria for resources, often follows a standardized protocol.
  • Methodological rigor: resources undergo a formal assessment of quality.

A systematic literature review is designed to provide reliable, transparent, and well-documented results.

Some examples of systematic literature reviews ↓

  • Atta, M. R., Lal, B., Abdulwahab, A., Manjusha, A., Shariff, A. M., & Foo, K. S. (2025). Regenerated Monoethylene Glycol: A comprehensive systematic review of contaminant profiles and hydrate inhibition efficacy. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 147, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2024.12.007
  • Barriguinha, A., de Castro Neto, M., & Gil, A. (2021). Vineyard yield estimation, prediction, and forecasting: A systematic literature review. Agronomy, 11(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091789
  • Datta, P., Behera, B., & Rahut, D. B. (2022). Climate change and Indian agriculture: A systematic review of farmers’ perception, adaptation, and transformation. Environmental Challenges, 8, 100543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100543
  • Gohari, A., Ahmad, A. B., Rahim, R. B. A., Elamin, N. I. M., Gismalla, M. S. M., Oluwatosin, O. O., Hasan, R., Latip, A. S. A., & Lawal, A. (2023). Drones for road accident management: A systematic review. IEEE Access, 11, 109247–109256. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3321142
  • Modrzejewski, D., Hartung, F., Lehnert, H., Sprink, T., Kohl, C., Keilwagen, J., & Wilhelm, R. (2020). Which factors affect the occurrence of off-target effects caused by the use of CRISPR/Cas: A systematic review in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 574959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.574959
  • Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M. W., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R., Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001

This guide is primarily about systematic reviews. Interested in learning how to write an introductory literature review? Discover more:

1. Preparation. In the interest of transparency, it is imperative that your search strategy and the process of selection of included resources are meticulously described. Some journals have their own established methods and frameworks, specified in their Author’s Guidelines. If there is no requirement from the journal, you can use, e.g., the PRISMA Search checklist to document your search. First, define your research questions and then define your criteria for including/excluding sources.

For inspiration on developing research questions:

2. Search. The next step is forming a query and searching for resources (typically, using citation databases). You can gather inspiration from other reviews from your discipline and see what databases other authors use.

  • If you are interested in learning more about the two most widely used citation databases, Web of Science and Scopus, see our guide.
  • Web of Science and Scopus enable you to download your search results as a file to later be used in a citation manager or in a spreadsheet.
  • For translating queries between databases, you can use SR Accelerator Polyglot tool which translates, e.g., PubMed queries to those suitable for other databases.
  • If it is relevant for your topic and discipline, you can also include grey literature or dissertations (NTK patrons can search dissertations with ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global or other repositories).

3. Screening. Downloading results from multiple databases (or even just one) might mean you may need to deduplicate the records you have retrieved. For this purpose, you can use, e.g., the SR Accelerator Deduplicator or Rayyan applications (you can upload a library from your citation manager of choice and perform a quick and reliable deduplication).

Tip: Download search results in a .ris format. This format can be directly uploaded in a citation manager or deduplicator, making the process much easier and faster.

Next, you should screen your results and exclude those which do not fit your established criteria. The PRISMA flow diagrams guide you through this screening process and are often required for published systematic reviews. You can create your own diagram, tailored to your process, using this online tool.

  • If you are interested in a detailed article about best practices in results screening, see Polanin et al. (2019)

4. Synthesis. After you have screened your results, you then synthesize them. Quantitative synthesis (statistical evaluation of results obtained) is called meta-analysis. Qualitative synthesis usually focuses on summarizing and characterizing the studies retrieved by coding information in the texts and subsequently analyzing themes (Thomas and Harden 2008).

If you have more questions, please do not hesitate to schedule an individual consultation or simply ask us.

For managing results, a citation manager can be helpful.

Other tools:

  • PRISMA checklist: tool for documenting the search process.
  • PRISMA extensions: tools for different disciplines and research aims, more specific than the general PRISMA checklist.
  • PRISMA flow diagram: online tool for creating a flow diagram describing your screening process.
  • Systematic Review Accelerator: useful free toolkit offering functions such as deduplicating results, tools for screening, sorting through results, and more.
  • Rayyan: another online toolkit that can be used for deduplication and screening of the search results.
  • Risk of Bias tools: protocols that help define the risk of bias in a given study.
  • Right Review: short survey that can help you determine what type of review is suitable for your research problem.
  • Critical Appraisal Checklists: free checklists you can use while screening and appraising results.
  • Systematic Review Toolbox: search for additional systematic review tools.

Videos:

Scientific articles on the topic for further reading ↓

  • Carrera-Rivera, A., Ochoa, W., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX, 9, 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101895
  • Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  • Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2018). ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: Pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
  • Nightingale, A. (2009). A guide to systematic literature reviews. Surgery (Oxford), 27(9), 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpsur.2009.07.005
  • Paul, J., Khatri, P., & Duggal, H. K. (2024). Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: What, why and how? Journal of Decision Systems, 33(4), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2023.2197700
  • Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
  • Polanin, J. R., Pigott, T. D., Espelage, D. L., & Grotpeter, J. K. (2019). Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(3), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1354
  • Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Your contact

Barbora Vobrubová

Barbora Vobrubová

Subjects

Predatory journals and conferences, Systematic literature review

See also

Editor: Barbora Vobrubová Last modified: 8.7. 2025 08:07