A medical literature review works best with a tight question, transparent methods, careful synthesis, and a clean order.
Why Structure Matters
Editors and busy clinicians skim fast. A fixed order cuts noise, shows how evidence was found, and makes claims traceable. You save time, since the same map guides search, screening, and write up.
Core Sections Of A Medical Literature Review
Most reviews share a common spine. Use the section list below as your base, then tune length to scope, audience, and journal rules.
| Section | What It Does | Practical Tips |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Names the topic and review type. | Keep it plain and searchable; add design or population tags sparingly. |
| Abstract | Gives a compact map of the review. | Use headings like context, data sources, study selection, extraction, synthesis, results, and limits. |
| Introduction | Sets the need and the exact objective. | One to three short paragraphs; end with the review question. |
| Methods | Shows how the work was done. | Include protocol, eligibility rules, data sources, full search strings, selection process, data items, risk of bias assessment, effect measures, synthesis methods, and any tools used. |
| Results | Presents study flow, traits, bias, and main findings. | Lead with the flow diagram and counts; point to tables and figures. |
| Discussion | Interprets what the results mean in practice. | State the main finding, its limits, and how it fits with prior work. |
| Limits | Spells out constraints that shape confidence. | Be candid on search dates, language, missing data, or small samples. |
| Conclusion | Delivers the take home tied to the question. | One short paragraph; no new data here. |
| References | Lists all sources cited. | Follow the journal style and check every link. |
| Appendices | Holds full search strings and checklists. | Paste exact database strategies and any completed forms. |
How Should A Medical Literature Review Be Structured: Step-By-Step
Frame The Question
Pick a tight question you can answer with the studies you plan to gather. For clinical topics, PICO or a close cousin helps: patient or problem, intervention, comparison, outcome. Name the setting, care level, and study designs that fit. A clear question keeps scope, screening, and synthesis aligned.
Set Eligibility Rules
Write inclusion and exclusion rules before any search. Name study types, time windows, languages, and outcomes that qualify. State how you will treat preprints, registries, and non English work. Save this plan in a protocol so changes are tracked.
Plan The Search
List each source you will search. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL span most clinical work; add trial registers and regulatory sources when needed. Record exact strings, dates, and limits. Copy final strategies into an appendix so others can run them again. For guidance on reporting, the PRISMA 2020 checklist shows the items readers expect to see.
Screen And Select
Use two reviewers at title and abstract stage, then again at full text. Resolve conflicts with a third person. Track records from first hits through final studies. A flow chart keeps this trail clear; templates appear on the PRISMA site. The Cochrane Handbook chapter on searching also lays out sources, filters, and record keeping.
Extract And Appraise
Build a form to capture study traits, outcomes, effect measures, and notes on bias. Run pilot entries on a few papers, then revise the form. Use paired extraction where you can. Pick a risk of bias tool that fits the design, such as RoB 2 for trials or ROBINS-I for non randomised studies, and state how you will handle disagreements.
Synthesize The Evidence
Say whether you will use a narrative approach, meta analysis, or both. Group studies by design, population, exposure, or outcome. Explain any model choice and how you handled heterogeneity, small study effects, or missing data. Share planned subgroups and any sensitivity checks that test the strength of the signal.
Write The Results
Start with the flow counts, then a table of study features. Present risk of bias figures. When you pool data, report models, effect sizes, and confidence intervals in text and in a clean forest plot. Keep guidance lines short so readers can jump between text, table, and figure without getting lost.
Write The Discussion
Open with the central finding. Link back to the clinical or policy question. Compare with prior reviews or guidance in a few lines. Explain what the data can and cannot back, and why. Point to any gaps that block strong advice.
State Limits
Be direct about constraints: search windows, database coverage, language, missing outcomes, small samples, high bias, or unmeasured confounding. Say how each one may tilt size or direction of the effect and where more data would help.
Close With A Clear Conclusion
Give a one paragraph take home that ties back to the question and the end user. Keep it tight and actionable, and avoid claims the data cannot back.
Style And Tone That Fit Medical Readers
Short sentences keep pace brisk. Active voice beats long noun strings. Use hedge words when the data are thin. Define acronyms on first use, write doses with SI units, and use generic drug names. Tables should compress detail, not repeat the text line for line.
When A Scoping Review Fits Better
Pick a scoping review when the field is wide, measures vary, or the aim is to map types of evidence and gaps. The section order is similar, but the lens is breadth, not pooled effects. You still need a clear question, rules, a broad search, two person screening, data charting, and a map of what was found.
Section By Section Checklist
| Section | Approx. Words | Must-Have Elements |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | 250–350 | Exact question, review type, sources searched, selection, core result, limits. |
| Introduction | 350–500 | Context, gap, and a single sentence objective. |
| Methods | 600–900 | Protocol, eligibility, sources, search strings, selection, data items, bias tools, synthesis plan. |
| Results | 600–900 | Flow counts, study traits, bias profile, effect sizes or narrative groups. |
| Discussion | 400–700 | Main finding, use case, caveats, and gaps. |
| Limits & Conclusion | 200–300 | Constraints and a tight take home. |
| Appendices | As needed | Full strategies, checklists, forms, and any code. |
Reporting And Transparency Signals
Readers should be able to trace every step. State whether you had a registered protocol and where it lives. Give clear dates for each search. Describe how you removed duplicates and how many records fell at each stage. Note who did each task and whether roles were masked during screening. Add a filled reporting checklist in the appendix so the audit trail sits with the paper.
Eligibility Rules In Action
Spell out the PICO pieces as bullet points inside the methods. Patient or problem: age bands, setting, diagnosis method. Intervention: dose, route, timing, delivery. Comparison: placebo, standard care, or another active choice. Outcomes: clinical end points, harms, surrogate markers, and follow up windows. Study design: trials, cohort, case series, or mixed. Write one or two sample “include” and “exclude” statements so future readers can mirror your intent.
Search Craft That Saves Time
Draft test strings, run them in one database, and scan the first hundred hits. Tweak subject headings and text words until known key studies appear near the top. Add spelling variants and common trade names where needed. Use adjacency and truncation with care to balance breadth and noise. Save all runs with dates. Export full results, not just the first page, then dedupe before screening starts.
Screening Workflow That Scales
Split the title and abstract queue into equal sets and cross check a sample to validate agreement. Keep reasons for full text exclusion short and consistent, since they feed the flow diagram. When texts are hard to find, reach out to authors or use interlibrary help. Log every attempt so the trail is complete.
Data Extraction And Risk Of Bias
Design the form to match your question. Common fields include sample size, setting, dose, follow up, outcome timing, and analysis set. Record adjustments used in observational work. For bias, note sequence generation, concealment, blinding, missing data, selective reporting, and other concerns for trials, and the parallel domains for non randomised studies. Add quotes or page numbers that back each judgment.
Synthesis Choices And Presentation
Spell out why you grouped studies the way you did. If you pool, name the model and justify effect measures such as risk ratio, odds ratio, or mean difference. Describe how you handled zero events and cluster designs. Report heterogeneity with I² alongside a short read on likely sources. When you cannot pool, write a tight narrative that walks the reader theme by theme without repeating tables verbatim.
Quick Outline You Can Copy
Ready To Paste
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Limits
Conclusion
References
Appendices
Final Pass And Submission
Run a spell check and a journal style pass. Check numbers across text, tables, and figures. Click every link. Ask a colleague for a quick read of the abstract and the main claim. Submit when the story is tight, the files are named cleanly, and the checklist is complete.