How To Do A Medical Literature Review Outline | Clear Step Plan

A clean outline saves time, cuts rework, and makes peer review smoother. This guide shows you how to shape a medical literature review outline that stands up to scrutiny and reads well. You will map a precise question, plan methods that match that question, and turn evidence into clear sections that any editor can follow.

The steps below pull from trusted guides that journal editors rely on. Where it helps, you will see short checklists, sample wording, and tiny tricks that reduce errors. Keep your text tight, keep your records tidy, and write as you work, not months later.

What A Medical Literature Review Outline Does

An outline is more than a table of contents. It is a living plan that links your question, your search, your appraisal, and your write-up. It helps a team split duties, avoid drift, and document choices as they happen. When the paper moves to submission, the outline becomes the spine of the final manuscript.

Pick a review type that fits your goal. A tightly scoped question on effects points to a systematic review, while a broad map of a field calls for a scoping review. A rapid review trims steps to meet a deadline. A narrative review can work for method overviews or theory, but it still needs structure and sources that readers can check.

Doing A Medical Literature Review Outline: Core Steps

Define A Tight, Answerable Question

Start with the problem you want to solve for readers. Use PICO for intervention questions, PEO for exposure, or SPIDER for qualitative topics. Write one primary question and list any secondary angles you will check if data allow. Avoid scope creep by writing what sits outside your plan.

Quick Formats

• PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome
• PEO: Population, Exposure, Outcome
• SPIDER: Sample, Phenomenon of interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type

Write A Protocol And Register It

Draft a short protocol before you search. Record aims, eligibility, outcomes, databases, the screening plan, tools, and the analysis plan. Assign two independent screeners and a tie-breaker. If your topic suits it, register the protocol on PROSPERO so readers can verify your plan and timing.

Choose Databases And Grey Sources

Use at least two major databases so coverage is broad. Common picks include MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and trial registries. For theses, conference work, and preprints, add grey sources. Record the platforms, dates, and any filters. Do a pilot search to test if known key papers appear.

Design Search Strings You Can Reproduce

Blend subject headings with free-text terms. Link concepts with Boolean logic, use truncation with care, and avoid over-tight filters that drop eligible records. Save full strategies for each database, including the date run. Keep a log that notes tweaks and why you made them.

Deduplicate, Then Screen In Two Stages

Export results to a reference manager and remove duplicates. Screen titles and abstracts against your criteria in pairs. Move to full-text screening with two people, logging reasons for exclusion in standard buckets such as wrong population or wrong outcome. Resolve conflicts by discussion or a third reviewer.

Track Study Flow For Transparency

Keep counts for every step from records found to studies included. Prepare a flow diagram that shows where records dropped out and why. This diagram anchors the Results section and reassures readers that the process matched the plan.

Appraise Risk Of Bias With The Right Tool

Pick tools that match study design. RoB 2 works for randomized trials; ROBINS-I suits non-randomized comparisons; JBI has short checklists for prevalence and qualitative designs. Calibrate on a few studies, then rate in pairs. Record judgments and quotes that support each call.

Build A Lean Data Extraction Form

Include study ID, setting, eligibility notes, participant traits, intervention and comparator detail, outcomes and measures, time points, analysis notes, and funding. Pilot the form on three to five papers and trim fields that do not move your answer forward.

Plan Synthesis Before You Crunch Numbers

State effect measures for each outcome, the model you will use if meta-analysis is possible, and thresholds for pooling. Describe how you will handle heterogeneity, small-study effects, and missing data. When pooling is not sound, plan a structured narrative that groups studies by design, setting, dose, or risk of bias.

Rate Certainty Of Evidence

Use GRADE to judge certainty for each critical outcome. Look at risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Summarize the rating in a short table with plain-language footnotes that explain any downgrades or upgrades.

Draft As You Work

Write Methods text while steps are fresh. Drop templated sentences into the outline and refine later. Store tables for characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes as separate files that you can update without touching the prose.

Medical Literature Review Outline Template: Practical Build

• Title: Clear, specific, and search-friendly; include the design and population
• Abstract: Structured mini-version of the paper with background, methods, results, and a short take-home message
• Introduction: What matters about the topic, the gap, and the aim; end with the exact question
• Methods: Protocol, eligibility, information sources, full search strategies, screening setup, risk of bias tools, data items, and planned synthesis
• Results: Flow diagram counts, study characteristics, risk of bias, main findings by outcome, and any subgroup or sensitivity work
• Discussion: What the findings mean for practice and research, strengths and limits of the body of evidence, and how the methods may shape the findings
• Other sections: Funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and acknowledgments

Turn that list into headings in your document and keep each part brief. Readers want the answer first, then detail. Tables carry much of the weight, so design them early and reuse formats across outcomes. Keep units, time points, and labels consistent across the file set.

Search Strategy Building Blocks

Write one master strategy in your strongest database, then translate to others. Use subject headings where they add recall, and pair them with phrases that catch new records. Keep a clean copy of the final strings in an appendix.

PICO
Population: adults with type 2 diabetes
Intervention: GLP-1 receptor agonists
Comparator: placebo or standard care
Outcome: weight change and hypoglycemia

PubMed strategy (sketch)
("Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2"[Mesh] OR "type 2 diabetes" OR T2D)
AND ("Glucagon-Like Peptide 1"[Mesh] OR GLP-1 OR "GLP 1 receptor agonist*")
AND (weight OR "body weight" OR hypoglycemia)
Filters: none; Humans

Note: Replace terms and MeSH to match your own topic; translate to Embase with Emtree.

Common Pitfalls And Simple Fixes

• A vague question: Tighten the PICO or other frame and drop side topics that dilute the aim.
• Missing protocol: Write a one-page plan and stick to it unless you have a clear reason to change.
• One screener: Use pairs for screening and appraisal to cut missed studies and bias.
• Weak search record: Save full strategies, platforms, and dates so anyone can rerun the work.
• Outcome switching: Pre-label primary outcomes and keep that label in the tables and text.
• Mixing designs without logic: Group by design or risk of bias and explain why you pooled or did not pool.
• Late writing: Add lines to the outline during each step so Methods and Results write themselves.

Ethics, Transparency, And Data Management

Disclose funding, roles, and any ties to makers of the interventions you study. Declare if you used screening or writing aids and name the version. Share extraction sheets and analytic code where your institution allows it. A short readme that explains files and variable names helps readers reuse your work.

State author roles with a taxonomy such as CRediT so readers know who handled each part. Record any protocol changes with dates and reasons. If your review touches patient care, run a quick check against current practice guidelines and note alignment or mismatch.

Final Checks Before Submission

• Run a PRISMA 2020 checklist and fix gaps in reporting.
• Ask a teammate to reproduce a search from the strategy text.
• Open every link in the paper, including protocol and data links.
• Confirm numbers match across abstract, text, tables, and figures.
• Shorten long sentences and swap jargon for plain words.
• Strip claims that the evidence cannot support.
• Check journal scope, word limits, and file formats before you upload.

Team Setup, Roles, And Tools

A small, steady team outperforms a big one that meets rarely. Name a lead, a search specialist, two screeners, a data lead, and a methods advisor. One person may wear more than one hat, yet each task should have an owner and a backup. Hold short stand-ups where blockers surface early. Keep a shared tracker that lists milestones, owners, and due dates.

Lean on a health sciences librarian for strategy checks and database quirks. Use a citation manager to store records and a screening tool that supports blind decisions and conflict flags. Store forms in a version-controlled folder so changes are traceable. Give each step a standard file name so the trail is easy to follow months later.

Create a codebook for decisions that come up again and again: how to treat multi-arm trials, cluster designs, cross-overs, or interim analyses. Note how you will handle duplicate publications and companion papers. Decide in advance how you will contact authors when numbers do not add up.

Plain-Language Writing Tips For Every Section

Readers scan, then read. Lead with the answer in each paragraph, and keep sentences under two lines when you can. Swap heavy nouns for crisp verbs. Prefer short words over stock phrases. Replace hedging with measured, sourced claims. If the data are thin, say so plainly and show the numbers that support that call.

Use consistent terms for groups, outcomes, and measures. If a term varies across studies, define the one you will use and map others to it in a table. Avoid buzzwords and vague intensifiers. When you must use an acronym, define it on first use and keep a small glossary near the front of the file.

Charts and tables should earn their keep. Label axes in full words, not codes. Add brief footnotes that explain any filters, units, or imputed values. A reader should be able to read a figure without flipping back to the Methods. If a figure does not advance the story, cut it.

Tables And Figures To Prepare Early

Plan three core tables on day one. First, a study characteristics table with design, setting, sample size, follow-up, and risk of bias. Second, a risk-of-bias table with domains and judgments for each study. Third, an outcome table that lists effect sizes and confidence intervals for each critical outcome. Build templates that match your topic.

Add a flow diagram that matches your counts. If you run meta-analysis, sketch forest plots with space for subgroup or sensitivity work. Keep a minimal set of colors and avoid decoration. File names should match figure numbers so renumbering later is painless.

If you expect many outcomes or time points, create a matrix that maps outcomes to studies and time windows.