A medical literature review should state a sharp question, use transparent methods, and present a balanced, scannable synthesis.
What A Strong Medical Literature Review Delivers
Readers want two things: confidence and clarity. Your review earns both by showing what you searched, why studies were included, how evidence was grouped, and what the takeaways mean for practice or policy. Keep the tone neutral and the path traceable so another team could repeat the work.
How A Medical Literature Review Should Look: Structure That Works
Most journals expect a predictable flow. The outline below fits narrative, scoping, and systematic formats with small tweaks. Adjust scope and depth to match the review type and the journal’s word limit.
Core Sections At A Glance
| Review Type | When To Use | Hallmarks |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Broad topic mapping or concept overview | Flexible search, expert framing, qualitative synthesis |
| Scoping | Map of evidence, gaps, definitions | Structured search, charting, no pooled effect |
| Systematic | Focused question that guides decisions | Protocol, exhaustive search, risk-of-bias appraisal, meta-analysis when fit |
| Rapid | Time-sensitive topic with constraints | Streamlined steps with stated shortcuts |
| Umbrella | When many systematic reviews exist | Appraises reviews, compares conclusions |
Title, Abstract, And Keywords
Signal the review type and the question. Add PICO or a close variant in the abstract so readers see population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes. State the main objective and one crisp line on methods, then the headline results and the plain-language meaning. Include three to six keywords that match indexing terms used by the field.
Introduction: Problem, Gap, Aim
Open with the clinical or policy problem and the size of that problem. Summarize what is known from recent syntheses. Show the gap your review fills. End with a one-sentence aim that names the question and the target audience.
Methods: Transparent And Reproducible
Methods sell the review. Show enough detail for replication without turning the section into a protocol dump. Use subheads so readers can jump to the parts they need.
Eligibility Criteria
Define study designs, participants, settings, interventions or exposures, comparators, outcomes, time frames, and language limits. Predefine subgroup plans and any thresholds for data sufficiency. If you changed criteria during screening, state what changed and why.
Information Sources And Search
List all databases, date ranges, and the day you ran the final search. Include at least one medical database plus a preprint server if your topic moves fast. Provide the full search strings in an appendix or supplement. Note any hand searching, citation chasing, or contact with authors for missing data.
Screening And Selection
Describe how many reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. State the software used and the rule for breaking ties. Report main reasons for exclusion. Keep a flow diagram that shows counts at each stage from records found to studies included.
Data Items And Extraction
List prespecified variables: study design, setting, sample size, arms, endpoints, follow-up, analysis set, and funding or conflicts. Describe the extraction form and whether two reviewers worked independently.
Risk Of Bias Appraisal
Pick tools that match study design. Randomized trials pair with RoB 2. Non-randomized studies pair with ROBINS-I. State how many raters judged each study and how disagreements were handled. Keep judgments separate from results; the goal is a fair read of internal validity.
Effect Measures And Synthesis Plan
State planned metrics up front: risk ratio, odds ratio, hazard ratio, mean difference, or standardized mean difference. Explain when a meta-analysis is planned and how you will handle heterogeneity, small-study effects, and sensitivity runs. If pooling is not fit, explain the approach for narrative or tabular synthesis.
Certainty Of Evidence
Plan a GRADE table when the aim is clinical guidance. Name domains that can reduce or raise certainty and how the team will judge them. If GRADE is not fit, state the alternative and the reason.
Where To Place Your Two External Links
Add them after methods and before results to aid readers who want checklists or deeper guidance. Link the specific PRISMA 2020 checklist page and the current Cochrane Handbook page. Set target attributes so they open in a new tab.
See the PRISMA 2020 checklist and the Cochrane Handbook chapters for authoritative detail.
Results: From Flow To Findings
Start with the flow diagram totals and the final study count. Then give study features, risk-of-bias patterns, and the synthesis. Keep numeric claims exact and consistent with tables and figures.
Study Selection Flow
Report records identified, screened, and excluded with main reasons. Include counts for duplicates removed and any updates to the search before submission.
Study Characteristics
Summarize design, geography, settings, sample sizes, and follow-up windows. Name the outcome definitions that varied and how that affected grouping.
Risk Of Bias Summary
Present bar charts or traffic lights when the journal allows figures. In text, state the share of studies at low, some concerns, or high risk. Tie this to the confidence readers should have in the pooled and unpooled findings.
Synthesis Of Results
Report effect estimates with confidence intervals and a clear direction of effect. If you pooled, include the model type and the heterogeneity statistic with a short read of what that means for decision making. When you did not pool, group studies by design or outcome and tell the story in clear blocks.
Subgroups And Sensitivity Checks
State which subgroups were prespecified and what moved the needle. Note any post-hoc probes and frame them as hypothesis-generating. If results change with study quality filters or model choices, say so in plain terms.
Discussion: What The Evidence Says
Open with the central answer. Lay out strengths and caveats, including any small-study bias, outcome variability, or gaps in populations. Align claims with the certainty rating. Name the practical next steps for research or policy.
Practical Formatting That Signals Quality
Editors scan for markers that build trust. The list below keeps presentation tight and credible.
House Style And Readability
Stick to one tense per section. Use short sentences and plain words for methods and results. Avoid rhetorical claims and figurative language. Prefer numerators and denominators over lone percentages. Round sensibly and keep units consistent. Use active voice, concise clauses, concrete nouns to cut clutter and keep meaning clear and intact across long sections.
Tables And Figures
Include a study summary table with design, setting, sample sizes, arms, outcomes, and risk-of-bias ratings. Place forest plots and funnel plots where fit. Keep captions self-contained so figures travel well on their own.
Data Availability And Registration
State where extraction files, code, and supplements live. If you registered a protocol, include the registry number in the abstract and the methods.
One-Page Checklist For Authors
Use this snapshot while drafting. It mirrors journal expectations and keeps the review tight.
| Section | What To Show | Quality Cue |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | Review type, question, main result | Plain-language meaning present |
| Methods | Eligibility, search, selection, bias tools | Dates and databases named |
| Results | Flow, study features, synthesis | Effect sizes with intervals |
| Discussion | Answer, caveats, next steps | Claims match certainty |
| Data & Code | Links to files and forms | Repository cited |
Ethics, Conflicts, And Funding
While reviews rarely need ethics board approval, they still need clean reporting. Disclose funding and any roles sponsors played in design, screening, extraction, or interpretation. Declare conflicts for every author. State whether you contacted study authors for clarifications and whether any data were shared under agreement.
Style Choices That Help Peer Review
Write headings that match the content below them. Use consistent labels for outcomes across text, tables, and figures. Keep acronyms to a minimum and define them once. Place abbreviations and symbols in a short list near the end if the journal asks for it.
Common Pitfalls To Avoid
Vague Questions
Overwide questions lead to shallow answers. Tighten the population, exposure or intervention, comparator, and outcomes until the scope fits a single paper.
Weak Search Reporting
Readers need the exact strings, the dates, and the sources. Missing pieces signal missed studies. Save your full strategies in a supplement and mirror the core fields in the main text.
Mixing Quality Judgments With Results
Keep appraisal in its own section. Do not fold bias judgments into effect sizes. Say what the bias means for confidence without changing the numbers.
Outcome Switching
Stick to prespecified outcomes. If you add new ones after reading studies, label them and explain why they matter.
Trusted Guides And Where To Link Them
When the journal allows one or two external links, steer readers to gold-standard guides. Link the PRISMA 2020 checklist and the Cochrane Handbook chapter list in the body where they add the most value.
Final Checks Before Submission
Read the abstract and the headings alone; the core message should stand without the rest. Scan numbers across text and tables. Rerun one or two searches before submission to catch late additions. Confirm author contributions, conflicts, and data links. Add a short plain-language summary if the journal asks for one.
Sample Phrases And Sentences You Can Reuse
Method Lines
“We prespecified eligibility using the PICOS structure and registered the protocol before screening.”
“Two reviewers screened records independently at each stage with a third reviewer resolving ties.”
“We used RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies.”
Result Lines
“Across 18 studies (n=7,432), the pooled risk ratio favored the intervention with moderate heterogeneity.”
“Narrative synthesis was used because outcome measures differed across studies.”
Discussion Lines
“Findings suggest benefit in short-term pain but limited data on long-term function.”
“Well-designed trials with standardized outcomes would close the largest gaps.”