For a medical review, build clear sections: question, methods, results, discussion, limits, and references aligned with accepted reporting rules.
Readers come for a clear plan. This guide gives you a no-nonsense layout you can follow today, plus checklists and templates that save edits later. You’ll see what belongs in each section, where common snags hit, and how to meet journal expectations without padding or jargon.
Structuring A Medical Literature Review: Tried-And-True Layout
Editors want a clean arc from question to answer. That arc rests on a handful of sections that do the heavy lifting. Use the outline below as your base and adapt to your study type and target journal.
Section-By-Section Checklist
| Section | Purpose | What To Include |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | Signal the topic and method | Clear question, population, design, main outcome; brief numbers where possible |
| Question | Frame the problem | Scope, PICO/PEO elements, why the topic matters for care decisions |
| Methods | Make the process reproducible | Protocol, databases, dates, search strings, selection, bias tools, synthesis plan |
| Results | Show what you found | Study flow, characteristics, bias ratings, effect sizes, heterogeneity, certainty |
| Discussion | Interpret responsibly | What the findings mean, context versus prior work, practice and research notes |
| Limitations | Be transparent about gaps | Search gaps, small samples, bias risks, indirectness, imprecision |
| Conclusion Line | Give a precise takeaway | One or two sentences tied to the question and certainty |
| References | Show your trail | Consistent style, primary sources, reporting standards |
Set Your Question And Scope
A tight question drives every later choice. For intervention topics, PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) keeps the scope crisp. For prognosis, diagnosis, or qualitative work, pick a fit-for-purpose variant such as PEO or SPIDER. State the main outcome first, then list key secondary outcomes. Write the inclusion window by years and languages, and name the study designs you will admit. If you already registered a protocol, cite it here.
Pick A Target Journal Early
Read aims and scope, then download the author instructions. Page limits and figure caps change how you present forest plots, tables, and appendices. Align the tone and depth with that house style from the start so you’re not shrinking figures at the eleventh hour.
Methods That Pass Editorial Checks
This section earns trust. A reader should be able to replicate your steps and reach the same pool of papers. Plain language wins here. Use short subheads and present choices in the order you actually worked.
Protocol And Registration
If you registered a protocol, place the registry link near the top of Methods. If you didn’t, add a one-line reason and attach the protocol as an appendix. A dated protocol shows discipline and helps readers judge deviations later.
Information Sources And Dates
List each database and the last search date. Add grey sources if used: trial registries, theses, preprints, conference abstracts, or regulatory reports. Tell readers whether you hand-searched reference lists or contacted authors for missing data.
Search Strategy
Include the full strategy for at least one database. Show the logic blocks for population, index treatment or exposure, and outcomes. Report filters used for trials, humans, or language. Place complete strategies in an appendix so they’re copy-and-paste ready.
Eligibility Criteria And Study Selection
Define inclusion and exclusion with plain rules. State who screened titles and abstracts, whether screening was double-blinded, how disagreements were resolved, and which tool you used to manage citations. Report counts for each phase with a study flow figure.
Data Collection And Bias Appraisal
Name your extraction template fields and who piloted them. For bias, cite the exact tool by study design. Many teams use well-known tools for trials and non-randomized studies. Summarize how you applied the tool and how you handled disagreements.
Outcomes, Synthesis, And Certainty
Pre-specify the main effect metrics and which random or fixed model you chose. List subgroup or sensitivity checks only if they were set before the analysis. Describe how you judged small-study effects and how you graded certainty across outcomes.
Results That Answer The Question
Open with the study flow and totals. Then present study features, risk of bias, and the synthesis. Keep tables lean: one for characteristics, one for bias, and one for outcomes if space allows. Use short, descriptive subheads so readers can jump to the answer fast.
Study Flow And Yield
Report the number of records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included. Add reasons for exclusions at the full-text stage. A flow figure helps readers scan the path from search to included set.
Characteristics And Bias
Summarize populations, settings, comparators, and follow-up times. Then give a brief map of bias domains across studies. If a domain drives your confidence down, say so in clear terms.
Effect Estimates And Heterogeneity
State the pooled effect and range. Name your model and note between-study variance with a common metric. If heterogeneity is wide, show planned subgroup or sensitivity checks and what changed. Keep the prose tight and number-led.
Write A Grounded Discussion
Your discussion connects the dots without overselling. Lead with the main answer to the question, then set it beside prior syntheses or large trials. Explain plausible reasons for differences: populations, dosing, length of follow-up, or outcome definitions. Speak plainly about strengths and gaps, then give one line for practice and one for research.
Transparency About Limits
Surface constraints that matter to decision-makers. Common ones include narrow search windows, language limits, small samples, missing outcome data, or bias risks that remain after checks. Tie each limit to its expected direction and size of impact.
One-Line Takeaway
Close with a crisp sentence that answers the opening question and signals certainty. Keep adjectives out and let the numbers carry the weight.
Reporting Standards To Anchor Your Draft
Journals ask authors to align with well-known reporting rules. Two anchors help most teams land clean reviews: the PRISMA family and the Cochrane methods manual. You can link to their checklists inside your Methods and upload them with your submission.
Use PRISMA Items As Your Section Map
The PRISMA 2020 checklist lays out items for title, abstract, methods, results, and the study flow figure. Many journals ask you to submit that checklist with page numbers. Linking your subheads to the items keeps your draft tidy and reduces back-and-forth during peer review. See the official PRISMA 2020 checklist and the overview of items and flow diagrams on the PRISMA 2020 page.
Lean On The Cochrane Handbook For Methods Choices
When you need precise guidance on search, selection, synthesis, or bias tools, the Cochrane Handbook gives step-by-step methods and plain-language rationales. Its chapters cover planning, data collection, analysis, and grading certainty. You can browse the current edition online via the Cochrane Handbook.
Abstracts And Titles That Pull Their Weight
Write the abstract last. Mirror the full text in miniature: background line, objective, data sources and dates, selection, extraction and bias tools, synthesis, main numbers, certainty, and limits. Many journals cap abstracts by word count, so pack numbers and cut filler. The title should name the population, the condition or exposure, the intervention if relevant, and that it’s a review. Avoid cute phrases that hide the topic.
Keywords And Indexing
Pick controlled terms where your field uses them. In medicine, MeSH terms help searchers find your paper. Add a few free-text variants that match how clinicians search.
Tables, Figures, And Appendices That Save Words
Use text for narrative and figures for structure. A flow figure shows study counts. A characteristics table can move detail out of the main text. Put full search strategies, bias forms, and sensitivity plans in appendices. Journals often allow online supplements; use that space to stay concise in the main file.
Common Pitfalls And Fixes
| Pitfall | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Vague Question | Scope creeps, messy selection | Lock PICO/PEO; set outcomes and designs up front |
| Shallow Methods | Editors flag reproducibility | Name databases, dates, strategies, tools, and who did what |
| Weak Flow Reporting | Readers can’t follow selection | Add a flow figure with counts and reasons |
| No Bias Plan | Confidence drops | Pick a validated tool, train raters, present domain-level ratings |
| Mixed Outcomes | Apples-to-oranges synthesis | Pre-specify metrics, time points, and subgroup rules |
| Over-statement | Conclusions outpace data | Tie claims to effect size, certainty, and bias profile |
| Style Drift | Round-trip edits from the journal | Match author instructions on length, tables, figures, and file types |
Manuscript Style And Ethics Basics
Follow the target journal’s style for headings, numbers, drug names, and units. Keep tables under control and label figures clearly. Name funding, role of sponsors, and conflicts. List contributions by author with a standard taxonomy if requested. Be clear about data and code access, even when the review uses published studies only.
Plain Language Summary
Many journals welcome a short summary for non-specialists. State the question in a sentence, then the main result with a number and time frame. Add one line about confidence in the evidence and one line on what patients or clinicians can do next with that knowledge.
Submission-Ready Final Checks
Before you upload, print the checklist that matches your method and tick items with page numbers. Cross-check tables and plots against the numbers in text. Confirm reference style. Check figure export settings and alt text. Make sure every claim about benefit or harm pairs with a number and a measure of certainty.
One-Page Template You Can Reuse
Copy this block into your notes app and fill it in before you write:
- Question: PICO/PEO item by item
- Scope: Years, languages, designs, settings
- Sources: Databases, registries, grey routes, last search date
- Strategy: Logic blocks and filters, attached in full
- Selection: Screeners, rounds, software, conflict resolution
- Data: Extraction fields, pilot plan, contact plan for missing data
- Bias: Tool, rater training, calibration plan
- Synthesis: Effect metrics, model, heterogeneity checks
- Certainty: Approach and summary table plan
- Outputs: Flow figure, tables, supplement list
Frequently Missed Details That Cost Weeks
Small lapses delay acceptance. Spell out exact dates for searches, not just months. Keep raw extraction files and bias forms; editors may ask for them. If you changed the protocol after starting, add a dated note in Methods and explain why. If you used automation to speed screening or extraction, name the tool and the step where you applied it.
From Draft To Decision
Once you send the paper, expect to revise. Reviewers often ask for a clearer question, a longer search window, or extra subgroup checks. Respond point-by-point. Keep responses short, numbered, and friendly. When a request goes beyond your scope, explain why and offer a narrow test you can run with current data.
A Mini Blueprint You Can Follow Today
1) Write the one-line question. 2) Build the Methods skeleton with sources, dates, and tools. 3) Draft the study flow and table shells. 4) Fill Results with numbers before prose. 5) Draft a Discussion that leads with the answer, then context and limits. 6) Run the checklist and fix gaps. 7) Trim words; keep numbers.