A medical review article comes together by setting a focused question, searching widely, screening with criteria, and writing a clear, transparent report.
Here’s a complete, step-by-step playbook for drafting a medical review article that meets journal standards and feels smooth to read. You’ll see how to frame the question, plan the search, screen studies, extract data, synthesize findings, and shape a clean manuscript that stands up in peer review.
What Counts As A Review In Medicine
“Review” covers several formats with different aims. Some map a topic broadly; others answer a narrow clinical question with strict methods. Pick the format that matches your goal and timeline. The table below gives a quick scan of common types and where they shine.
Review Types And When To Use Them
| Type | Best Use | Typical Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative Review | Broad overview and context; expert synthesis without pooled stats | Major trials, landmark cohorts, guidelines |
| Systematic Review | Answers a focused question with predefined methods and reproducible screening | Database searches, registries, grey literature |
| Meta-analysis | Pools effect sizes across comparable studies | Included trials with extractable data |
| Scoping Review | Maps concepts, types of evidence, and gaps | Wide net across databases and reports |
| Rapid Review | Time-boxed evidence scan with streamlined steps | Targeted databases, limited screening |
| Umbrella Review | Synthesizes findings from multiple systematic reviews | Published reviews and meta-analyses |
Writing A Medical Literature Review — Step-By-Step
This section lays out a practical workflow from idea to submission. Adjust the depth to match your format and the journal scope you’re aiming for.
1) Pin Down A Focused Question
Start with a crisp clinical or methodological question. Many teams use PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for treatment topics, or a close cousin such as PECO (Exposure) or SPIDER (qualitative). A tight question helps define inclusion criteria, search terms, data items, and the narrative arc.
Tips That Save Time
- Scan recent reviews on the topic to avoid duplication and to spot gaps worth answering.
- Draft a one-sentence aim and a three-bullet scope — what’s in, what’s out, and why.
- List outcomes that matter to patients or decision-makers, not just surrogate markers.
2) Plan A Protocol
Even for a narrative piece, a brief protocol keeps the team aligned. For systematic work, a protocol is standard and boosts trust. It should set eligibility criteria, databases, search strings, screening steps, data items, outcomes, and synthesis plan. If the format allows, register it on an appropriate platform.
3) Build A Reproducible Search
Pick databases that fit the topic (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO). Combine controlled vocabulary with text words, include synonyms, and test the strategy against known sentinel studies. Add conference abstracts, trial registries, and citation chasing when the question warrants it. Record the full strategy and the date you ran it.
Smart Search Moves
- Start with one database and polish the string before porting it to others.
- Use date and language limits only when justified up front.
- Export results with full metadata to a citation manager for screening.
4) Screen In Two Stages
First, screen titles and abstracts; then, check full texts. Two reviewers working independently is the gold standard for systematic work. Record reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. A pilot round on 50–100 records helps align decisions and reduces back-and-forth later.
5) Extract Data Consistently
Prebuild a form with fields for study design, setting, participants, interventions or exposures, comparators, outcomes, time points, effect estimates, and study funding. Capture risk-of-bias items that match the design (e.g., randomization, blinding, missing data, selective reporting). Keep notes that explain tricky calls.
6) Appraise Bias And Certainty
Match the appraisal tool to the design. For randomized trials, use a domain-based tool that covers randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement, and selection of the reported result. For observational studies, use a tool that captures confounding and selection issues. When pooling, map certainty across outcomes with a transparent approach.
7) Synthesize The Evidence
Pick narrative, tabular, or quantitative synthesis to fit the data. When studies are similar in design and outcome measures, meta-analysis can give a clearer estimate and confidence bounds. When measures differ, a structured narrative or vote-counting based on direction may suit better. Describe heterogeneity, explore sources when feasible, and avoid overstating signals from small or biased sets.
8) Report With A Proven Checklist
Journals expect transparent reporting: search dates, full strategies, selection flow, study characteristics, risk-of-bias, and synthesis methods. The PRISMA 2020 statement details a 27-item list and templates for abstracts and flow diagrams, with a clear map of what to include in each section. Many editors and peer reviewers use it line by line, so aligning with it saves rounds of revision.
Shape A Clear, Reader-Friendly Manuscript
The structure below fits most medical journals. Adjust section names to match house style and the level of method detail required by your format.
Title And Abstract
Keep the title precise and searchable. In the abstract, state the question, data sources, eligibility criteria, outcomes, key results, and limits. If you used a reporting checklist, name it in the abstract so readers know what to expect inside.
Introduction
Set the clinical or policy context in a few paragraphs, point to gaps in existing syntheses, and state the aim in one clear sentence. Avoid a long historical tour; keep the reader close to the decision your article helps them make.
Methods
Lay out the protocol and deviations, databases and exact search strings, dates covered, screening approach, inclusion criteria, data items, risk-of-bias tools, and synthesis plan. Add software versions used for screening and analysis. If you registered a protocol, include the registry and identifier.
Results
Start with the selection flow: records identified, screened, excluded with reasons, and studies included. Then give study and participant characteristics, followed by risk-of-bias summaries. Present primary outcomes first. Use compact tables or figures for effect sizes and subgroup findings. Keep text tight and descriptive; save interpretation for the next section.
Discussion
Open with the main takeaway in one or two sentences. Then explain what the evidence means for care, policy, or research. Contrast with prior syntheses, note strengths and limits of the included studies and your process, and give a measured call for practice or research where the signal is weak or mixed.
Authorship, Conflicts, And Transparency
State author roles, funding, and conflicts plainly. For roles and credit, follow the ICMJE authorship criteria and use a contributor taxonomy if the journal requests one. List protocol access, code, and data locations when sharing is allowed.
Practical Style Choices That Editors Notice
Editors scan for clarity, brevity, and consistency. Small choices build trust: parallel headings, stable terms for exposures and outcomes, consistent units, and figure legends that stand on their own.
Tables, Figures, And Flow
- Use a study characteristics table with compact fields that match the inclusion criteria.
- Keep figure styles consistent: one font, one color scheme, and clear axis labels.
- Number tables and figures in the order they appear in the text.
Referencing And Data Citations
Stick to the journal’s reference style. Cite trials and datasets directly and avoid sources that lack peer review unless you clearly tag them as such. When you cite a preprint, label it as a preprint in the reference list, as advised by ICMJE guidance on manuscript preparation.
Workflow: From Idea To Submission
The list below turns the method into a practical schedule you can run with a small team. Tweak the durations to match your timeline and the size of the literature.
Team Roles
- Lead author: steers the question, protocol, and final text.
- Searcher: designs and runs the database strategies.
- Screeners (two): handle title/abstract and full-text screening.
- Data extractor: builds and tests the form; resolves odd cases.
- Statistician: plans and runs pooling when the data allow.
- Senior advisor: stress-tests claims and clinical relevance.
Section Plan And Target Word Count
| Section | Typical Length | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | 250–350 words | Question, data sources, core results, limits |
| Introduction | 400–600 words | Context, gap, single-sentence aim |
| Methods | 800–1,400 words | Eligibility, search, screening, bias, synthesis |
| Results | 800–1,400 words | Flow, characteristics, outcomes, figures/tables |
| Discussion | 700–1,000 words | Meaning, limits, fit with prior work, next steps |
| Declarations | Short | Funding, conflicts, data/code access |
Common Pitfalls And Easy Fixes
Scope Creep
Too many outcomes or subgroups break the schedule and muddy the message. Solve this up front by ranking outcomes and pruning anything that does not change a decision.
Vague Eligibility
Loose inclusion rules lead to messy screening and weak synthesis. Write one sentence that any reviewer could apply the same way and pilot it on a test batch.
Missing Search Details
Editors and readers expect full strategies, search dates, and the selection flow. Use a standard flow diagram and publish the complete search strings in an appendix or supplement. PRISMA resources make this straightforward with templates and checklists on the official site.
Inconsistent Effect Measures
Pool like with like. When studies report mixed measures, convert them to a common metric where valid, or split the analysis and explain why. Label every figure and table with the exact measure and model used.
Thin Risk-Of-Bias Reporting
One line that says “low risk” won’t cut it. Provide a brief rationale by domain and link it to sensitivity analyses or downgrading decisions in your certainty summary.
Ethics, Registration, And Data Sharing
Syntheses that use published data usually do not need ethics approval, but check local rules if patient-level data enter the picture. Protocol registration adds transparency and helps avoid duplication. When journal policy allows, share extraction forms, code, and aggregated data in a repository with a stable identifier and a short readme.
Submission Checklist You Can Reuse
- Title names the question and population.
- Abstract follows a structured outline that matches the main checklist you used.
- Methods include dates, full strategies, and software versions.
- Flow diagram matches counts in the text and tables.
- Figures have clear legends, units, and consistent styling.
- Conflict and funding statements are clear and complete.
- Supplement includes search strings, extraction form, and any extra analyses.
Where To Anchor Your Methods
Two sources shape expectations across most journals. The first is the PRISMA suite for transparent reporting; the PRISMA 2020 resources include the checklist, abstract template, and flow diagram. The second is the ICMJE guidance on roles, disclosures, and submission, starting with the manuscript preparation recommendations. Linking your process to these two touchstones keeps reviewers on your side.
A Clean Path From Draft To Decision
Pick the review type that fits your aim, lock a protocol, write down the search as you build it, screen in pairs, extract with a tested form, appraise bias with a tool that matches study design, and write to a checklist. Keep claims measured, figures readable, and data traceable. Do that, and your article reads smoothly for clinicians and editors alike.