In medical dissertations, the literature review is typically 15–30% of the thesis, or about 8,000–24,000 words depending on degree rules and scope.
What A Medical Literature Review Must Do
A medical literature review frames your study. It maps what is known, where the gaps sit, and how your question advances patient-care or biomedical insight. It should sift studies, compare methods, judge quality, and end with a tight case for your design. In a clinical field, the review also links evidence to practice, policy, and safety.
Think beyond a list of abstracts. Group the field by themes, methods, and populations. Contrast findings, explain disagreement, and flag sources of bias. End each subsection with a one-line takeaway that points toward your research aim. That level of curation takes space, which is why word budgets matter.
How Long Is A Literature Review For A Medical Dissertation: Practical Ranges
There is no single rule across universities, but medicine tends to land in a stable band. The table below shows working ranges you can adapt to your program. Check your handbook and adjust to fit local limits.
| Degree | Typical Thesis Limit | Review Words (15–30%) |
|---|---|---|
| MSc/MPH | 40,000–50,000 | 6,000–15,000 |
| MD/PhD | 80,000–100,000 | 12,000–30,000 |
| MD(Res)/MRes | 30,000–50,000 | 4,500–15,000 |
Convert Percentages To Pages And Tasks
Pick a midpoint, then plan. Many writers choose 20–25% as a start and refine during drafting. Work from words per page so you can map time and sources.
As a quick yardstick, 275–300 words fill a double-spaced page with 12-point font. A 12,000-word review in an 80,000-word thesis spans about 40–45 pages. That helps you budget by sections and set reading targets.
What Your University Allows
Limits vary. Some faculties set a clear cap for MD and PhD theses near 80,000 words, while others allow up to 100,000 for doctoral work and 50,000 for masters. See the University of Glasgow’s MD and PhD thesis word count and the University of Melbourne page on thesis word limits. Planning a share for the review helps you stay within the rules.
Worked Word-Budget Scenarios
Here are simple plans you can adapt:
When Your Cap Is 50,000 Words
At 20%, the review lands near 10,000 words. Split it into six blocks: scope and terms (800), burden and trends (1,200), mechanisms (1,500), diagnostics (1,500), therapies and outcomes (3,500), gaps and rationale (1,500). That split leaves cushion for headings and tables without crowding the rest of the thesis.
When Your Cap Is 80,000 Words
At 25%, the review lands near 20,000 words. Keep the same blocks but widen the trials section and the methods critique. Add sub-sections for subgroups, safety, and cost where they tie to your aims.
When Your Cap Is 100,000 Words
At 20–25%, the review sits near 20,000–25,000 words. Use the extra space for a stronger methods map and a brief note on measurement validity. Keep the flow tight so the review reads as one argument, not a compendium.
Medical Specialties And Expected Breadth
Internal Medicine
Expect high volume from RCTs and meta-analyses. Anchor your story on outcomes that match your endpoints. Fold study quality into the narrative instead of adding long sidebars.
Surgery
Trials may be fewer and sample sizes smaller. Pay extra attention to bias, learning curves, and outcome definitions. Registries and quality databases will matter more for context.
Public Health
Scope grows fast. Keep clear boundaries on populations, settings, and policy eras. Use figures or brief tables to corral long lists of programs or exposure types.
Source Mix That Fits Medical Questions
Aim for a mix that matches your design. Trials and meta-analyses lead a drug or device study. Cohorts and registries lead an outcomes study. Qualitative reports and clinical guidelines lead a care model or service study. Keep preprints in check unless the finding is central and replicated.
Screening And Synthesis Tactics
Start with keywords tied to your PICO or variant. Use tight inclusion rules so the review stays lean. Chart methods, samples, and endpoints in a sheet. Compare like with like before you weigh across designs. When results diverge, test reasons: dose, setting, case mix, or measurement.
Quality Appraisal And Reporting Norms
Plan space for appraisal. In a drug study, a short CONSORT-style read of trial design helps you judge bias. In an observational field, STROBE items guide what to report and what to look for. In a services project, PRISMA-style logic helps you show how the search found core papers even if you aren’t writing a formal systematic review. Keep checklists in an appendix and bring only the points that shape your aims into the chapter. That keeps the prose tight while showing method care.
Clinical topics also draw from guidance documents. Cite major guidelines to show how practice stands today, then explain how your question fits that map. If your review contests a recommendation, show why by lining up the trials by risk of bias, endpoint choice, and follow-up time. Small, direct comparisons save space and still make the case.
Writing Moves That Save Words
- Open subsections with one-line claims; back them with grouped citations.
- Use short topic sentences; avoid throat-clearing lines.
- Fold methods notes into theme paragraphs instead of standalone blocks.
- Prefer tables or figures for long lists of trials or devices.
- Cut duplicate history; keep only the thread that explains current practice.
Common Mistakes With Length
- Padding with textbook prose or basic anatomy.
- Running a study-by-study summary with no synthesis.
- Ignoring negative trials or safety flags that shape your aims.
- Letting debates sprawl without pinning the cause of disagreement.
- Over-citing the same point across many paragraphs.
Where The Review Sits In Different Thesis Formats
Medicine uses several structures. Pick the one your school endorses, then place the review accordingly.
| Thesis Format | Where The Review Sits | Share Of Words |
|---|---|---|
| Monograph | Standalone chapter near front | 15–30% |
| Publication-based | Short review up front; mini-reviews inside papers | 10–20% |
| Portfolio/Project | Integrated into intro + methods | 15–25% |
Citation Density And Style
Keep citations tight. Cite the best source for each claim, not every paper you read. Group multiple sources at the end of a sentence when they say the same thing. When two papers disagree, pair them and explain the cause of the split in one or two lines. Use a reference manager so styles and numbering stay clean as you edit.
Layout, Tables, And Figures
Long reviews read better with light scaffolding. Use clear H2 and H3 headings, short paragraphs, and lists only where they speed scanning. Convert long lists of trials into compact tables with columns for design, sample, and endpoint. Place any flow diagram, such as a search screen, near the start of the chapter so readers can see scope before they read results.
Plan Figures And Flow
Sketch the chapter on one page. List each subsection, its target words, and its main claim. Mark where a table or figure replaces a long list. That sketch cuts dead ends and keeps the narrative moving. Revisit after each draft. Adjust numbers. Regularly.
A Fast Estimation Workflow
1) Confirm your program’s cap and format. 2) Pick a starting share for the review. 3) Draft a sectional outline with target words. 4) Build a reading list that is two times larger than what you plan to cite. 5) Write in passes: map, compare, then refine. 6) Prune repetition. 7) Cross-check every subsection with your aims.
How To Justify Your Chosen Length
Open your chapter with a brief note on scope and selection. State your span of years, study designs, and any language or setting limits. If your field has live debates, explain why your selection helps resolve them. That short preface helps examiners see why your review length fits the task.
Proof That Your Length Works
As you near submission, crosswalk the review against your aims, methods, and outcomes. Each aim should trace to a block of the review. If a block does not feed an aim, shorten or move it to an appendix. If an aim lacks backing in the review, add the missing strands.
Timeline For Drafting And Revision
Week 1–2: map scope, search strings, and inclusion rules. Week 3–5: screen, chart methods, and cluster themes. Week 6–8: draft synthesis paragraphs and tables. Week 9: trim overlaps and tighten topic sentences. Week 10: polish transitions, captions, and summary lines. This ten-week frame fits a full-time push; part-time tracks can stretch the same steps.
When Word Count Is Tight
Push detail into tables, figures, or appendices where your rules allow. Merge thin sub-sections into a single theme so readers see the argument, not the scaffolding. Keep long block quotes out of the chapter; paraphrase and cite instead. If you need more space, shift historical notes to the supplement and keep the chapter centered on modern evidence that shapes your methods.
Main Takeaway
Plan your medical literature review as 15–30% of the thesis, then tune to fit your format, your school’s cap, and the depth the field demands. That range keeps the chapter lean, defensible, and aligned with examiners’ expectations cleanly.