Organize a medical literature review by setting scope, running a reproducible search, screening studies, extracting data, and writing in PRISMA order.
Getting your medical literature review into shape starts with order. A clear plan saves time and keeps bias in check. The steps below move you from question to manuscript for narrative, scoping, or full systematic work. Each step says what to do and what to record so another reader can follow your trail.
First, map the full workflow. Use the table below as your master view. Keep it near while you work.
| Phase | What You Do | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Shape the question, set limits, pick study designs | Brief protocol and eligibility list |
| Search | Build database strings, combine MeSH and text words | Saved strategies and database log |
| Screen | Title/abstract pass, then full text pass by two screeners | Kept/excluded sets with reasons |
| Extract | Pull study details and outcomes into a form | Clean table for analysis |
| Appraise | Judge risk of bias with a fit-for-purpose tool | Item-level judgments and notes |
| Synthesize | Group results; run meta-analysis if planned | Figures, comparisons, and text |
| Report | Write in a standard order with a flow diagram | Complete draft and files |
Organize Your Medical Literature Review: Step-By-Step Plan
Start with the question. A clear question stops scope creep. PICO fits intervention reviews: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome. Use PEO for exposure or diagnostic topics when that fits. Write the question in one line and place it at the top of your protocol. Add short bullets for the patient group, settings, and study designs you will include. Keep outcomes broad so you do not miss eligible studies.
Draft a short, one-page protocol next. You do not need a long document to gain clarity. One page can carry the aim, the question line, the planned sources, the inclusion rules, and the basics of data handling. If you plan a full systematic review, register the protocol on a public registry before screening begins. That step locks your plan and gives readers confidence later.
Build the search strategy. List databases first. MEDLINE via PubMed is common; Embase or CINAHL fit many topics. Add trial registries and preprints when needed. For each source, craft two arms: controlled vocabulary terms and free text. In PubMed, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) pull in synonyms and spelling variants. Combine OR within arms and AND across concepts. Avoid date and language limits unless your protocol justifies them. Save each string with the date and database name.
Write clear eligibility rules. State the study designs you will include, the settings, the minimum sample size if you set one, and the outcomes you care about. Many methods groups advise against using outcomes to include or exclude at the first pass; keep that filter for extraction or analysis. Note any reasons to exclude, such as conference abstracts without full data or non-peer-reviewed material.
Plan screening as a two-person job. Start with a small pilot set so you and your partner interpret the rules the same way. Then run title and abstract screening on the full set. Move the keeps to full text screening. Record a count for each step. Track reasons for exclusion at the full text step. Keep disagreements visible and settle them by chat or a third reviewer when needed.
Keep a PRISMA-ready record while you screen. The flow diagram needs counts for found records, records after de-duplication, title/abstract exclusions, full text exclusions with reasons, and the final set. When you fill this as you go, the write-up becomes smooth and transparent.
Design the data extraction form before you open the first PDF. Include study ID, design, country, setting, sample size, follow-up length, population details, exposure or intervention, comparator, outcomes, effect measures, and risk of bias items. Add a free text notes field. Test the form on two studies and refine the labels so both extractors read them the same way.
Choose a risk of bias tool that matches your designs. RoB 2 fits randomized trials. ROBINS-I fits non-randomized comparisons. QUADAS-2 fits diagnostic accuracy work. Use item-level judgments and short quotes or page tags from the source articles so readers can trace your calls later.
Plan the synthesis up front. If a meta-analysis is likely, list the effect measure for each outcome, the model you will use, and how you will handle heterogeneity. If a meta-analysis is not a match, outline a structured narrative path: group by population, by exposure or intervention class, by outcome family, or by risk of bias level. Pre-set a small set of subgroup or sensitivity checks and avoid fishing late in the game.
Write in a standard order that readers expect. Draft the abstract once the body is close to done. Then move through Introduction, Methods, Results, and a closing section with practice points and gaps. Keep every claim tied to data in your tables or figures.
Two resources anchor good organization across fields. The PRISMA 2020 statement sets the reporting order and the flow diagram many journals request. For searching and selection details, the Cochrane Handbook chapter on study selection gives tested practices you can adopt.
Back up your searches with a clean log. For each source, write the exact string, the platform, the run date and time, and the results count. Save screenshots or export files in a shared drive with versioning. Store the de-duplication method and tool. A clear log lets another team rerun your work later. Keep notes during work.
Manage references with a stable system. Pick one style at the start and use it everywhere. AMA and Vancouver are common in clinical journals. Keep a shared library with folders that mirror your phases: keeps, full text, extracted, excluded. Add custom fields for study ID codes that match your extraction table.
Map the structure of the final review on one page. Use the outline below to keep the story steady while you write. Adjust order only when the reader benefit is clear.
Suggested Structure
Title And Abstract
Clear question words and the main comparison; a short abstract with the outcome family readers care about.
Introduction
One or two paragraphs that set the problem, the gap in knowledge, and the aim of your review.
Methods
Sources, dates, eligibility rules, screening flow, extraction form, bias tool, and planned synthesis steps.
Results
PRISMA flow, study table, risk of bias text, then outcome-by-outcome results.
Practical Takeaways
What the data show for care, policy, or research. Add the main caveats in plain terms.
Here is a lean data extraction template you can adapt. Keep labels short and consistent so screeners and extractors move fast without mix-ups.
| Field | What To Capture | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Study ID | First author, year, short code | Match to reference list |
| Design | Trial, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional | Include follow-up length |
| Setting | Country, care level, single or multi-center | Urban/rural when relevant |
| Participants | N, age range, sex, inclusion rules | Any special subgroups |
| Exposure/Intervention | Dose, timing, delivery | Comparator definition |
| Outcomes | Primary and secondary measures | Time points and units |
| Effect | Effect size and precision | Model and adjustments |
| Bias | Tool name and domain calls | Quotes or page tags |
| Notes | Anything that aids synthesis | Keep it brief |
Screening Rules That Save Time
De-duplicate before any screening pass. Sort by title to catch easy matches. Use one primary rule set for title/abstract and a fuller set for full text. When unsure at the first pass, keep and push to full text. Swap roles so both screeners see a mix of records. Create short reason codes for exclusions and store them inside your tracking sheet.
Writing Tips For Medical Reviews
Favor active voice and short sentences. Define abbreviations on first use. Report units the way the field expects. State setting and geography for each study. Use the same order for outcomes each time. When you draw a line between studies, name the design and the bias level that drives that line.
Quick Roles And Timeline
Set clear roles early. One person leads search strings and the log. Two people share screening and extraction. A third person can settle conflicts and run the bias tool cross-checks. A small sample timeline looks like this: week 1 protocol and strings; week 2 searches and de-duplication; weeks 3–4 screening; weeks 5–6 extraction and bias calls; week 7 synthesis plan and figures; week 8 writing and checks. Short topics move faster, broad topics take longer. Hold a 15-minute stand-up twice a week to spot blockers, merge changes, and keep naming rules in sync. Reserve buffer time for reference fixes and file housekeeping and checks.
Present tables and figures so a busy reader can scan and leave with the gist. Put the main study table early in the Results. Keep column headers short. Add footnotes for units and scales. Label axes on all plots and include the model used if you pool results. Readers value clear labels and stable terms throughout.
Write the closing section with care. State what the body of evidence shows, where the gaps sit, and what next steps make sense for research or practice. Keep claims tied to study designs and bias levels.
Before submission, run a checklist pass. Confirm that counts in the flow diagram match your logs. Check that every study in the text sits in the reference list and the extraction table. Confirm that the Methods can be followed by another team without direct help from you.
Small teams can still produce a high-grade review. Use short syncs, lock naming rules early, and store every core file in a shared folder with dates in the names. Keep a living README with links to the latest protocol, search strings, screening log, and extraction sheets.