Most medical reviews run 2,000–6,000 words, but each journal sets its own limits—check author guidelines for the exact cap and what counts.
Editors don’t use a single rule for review length. Word caps vary by journal, by review type, and by what the outlet counts toward that cap. This guide gives you practical ranges, live examples from major outlets, and a simple way to size your draft before you submit.
Recommended Length For Medical Journal Review Articles
Across general-medicine outlets, a common range for narrative and systematic overviews lands between 2,000 and 6,000 words. Specialty titles and evidence syntheses can stretch higher. The table below shows real caps and ranges from well-known venues so you can benchmark your target.
| Journal | Review Type | Word Limit / Range |
|---|---|---|
| JAMA | Systematic Review (no meta-analysis) | ~3,000 words; ≤5 tables/figures; 50–75 refs |
| JAMA | Narrative Review | ~2,000–3,500 words; ≤5 tables/figures; 50–75 refs |
| BMJ Open Quality | Quality improvement review | ~3,000–4,000 words |
| BMJ Public Health | Review | Up to ~5,000 words |
| The Lancet Oncology | Review | ~3,000–5,000 words; ~50 refs |
| Cochrane | Systematic Review | Main text ~10,000 words max (typical) |
What Editors Usually Count (And What They Don’t)
Most outlets ask authors to report the main-text count and a separate abstract count. Many don’t tally tables, figure legends, and references into the main cap, but policies vary. A safe workflow is to track two numbers in your draft file: body text only, and total including everything. That way, you can trim the right sections without reshaping data displays.
Pick The Right Target For Your Review Type
Narrative Overviews For Clinicians
Narrative updates synthesize current knowledge and practice points with selective evidence. General-medicine outlets often set a compact cap. JAMA, for instance, uses a ~2,000–3,500-word window and limits visuals to keep the read tight. That range fits a brisk abstract, a lean methods note (if used), and a focused body with a few subsections.
Systematic Reviews Without Meta-Analysis
These pieces summarize a structured search and map key findings without pooling effect sizes. Many journals keep the text near ~3,000 words and push flow charts, search strings, and full evidence tables to supplements. You’ll still need room for the question, scope, study table(s), and a clear take-home section.
Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analysis
Once you add statistical synthesis, space needs grow. The narrative can stay tight, but you’ll carry model choices, heterogeneity notes, and sensitivity checks. In some outlets, these articles appear under research types with their own word caps; others allow longer reviews when the dataset is broad.
Field-Specific Or Methods-Heavy Reviews
Oncology, public health, imaging, and implementation science reviews often need extra room for pathways, classifications, or program models. Some titles publish 4,000–5,000-word reviews as standard, and evidence programs like Cochrane often run near a 10k ceiling for the main text, with detailed appendices.
How To Size Your Manuscript Before Submission
Start With The Outlet’s Page
Don’t guess. Visit the instructions page for your target journal and note three items: word cap, what counts toward it, and limits on figures/tables and references. Two quick anchor pages many authors use are the broad ICMJE recommendations and the specific limits listed in the JAMA instructions. Both pages spell out length rules and what editors expect in the file set.
Draft To A Tighter Internal Target
Aim 5–10% under the cap on your first full pass. That cushion absorbs late clarifications, added citations, or a short paragraph that helps a reader follow the thread. It also lowers the odds of last-minute line edits that can break reference numbering or table numbering.
Budget Words By Section
Use a simple split to keep the read balanced. Here’s a working plan for common review formats with a ~3,000-word cap:
- Abstract: ~250–300 words
- Introduction: ~150–250 words
- Methods / Search Summary: ~150–250 words
- Findings / Thematic Sections: ~1,600–1,900 words
- Practice Implications: ~250–400 words
- Limitations & Gaps: ~150–200 words
- Closing Paragraph: ~80–120 words
For a methods-heavy review, shift ~200–300 words from the “Findings” bucket into “Methods,” and move detail into tables or supplements as the outlet allows.
Offload Detail Into Tables And Figures
Editors like compact prose paired with clear visuals. Move long lists of interventions, inclusion rules, search strings, and subgroup estimates into tables or online supplements. Many outlets cap the number of in-text tables/figures (often 4–5), which nudges authors to keep only the most useful displays in the main file.
Track What Counts Toward The Cap
Most journals ask for a body-text count excluding abstract, acknowledgments, tables, figures, and references. A second count for the abstract is standard. Some titles also cap the number of references or visuals. The grid below shows common patterns editors use.
| Section | Usually Counts Toward Cap? | Notes You’ll See In Policies |
|---|---|---|
| Main text (intro, methods, results, discussion) | Yes | Editors ask for a separate body-text count in the cover file. |
| Abstract | No (often separate) | Abstract has its own limit; structured format common. |
| Tables & figures | No (usually) | Often limited in number; large tables may shift to supplement. |
| Figure legends | No (usually) | Legends don’t count, but journals may cap length per legend. |
| References | No | Some outlets set a max, e.g., 50–75 for clinical overviews. |
| Acknowledgments | No | Disclosures and funding notes sit outside the word cap. |
| Supplementary material | No | Search strings, extra data, and PRISMA flow often live here. |
Examples Of Word Caps Across Outlets
Here are plain-English summaries pulled from current pages so you can see the spread:
- JAMA: Systematic reviews without meta-analysis at ~3,000 words; narrative overviews at ~2,000–3,500 words; limits on visuals and references apply.
- BMJ Open Quality: Reviews land near ~3,000–4,000 words.
- BMJ Public Health: Up to ~5,000 words for reviews, with caps on visuals and references.
- The Lancet Oncology: Reviews near ~3,000–5,000 words and about 50 references.
- Cochrane: Main text near a ~10,000-word ceiling, with heavy detail in appendices.
These numbers show why you shouldn’t copy a single “rule.” The right target depends on where you plan to submit, the type of review, and how much data you need to present in text versus tables or supplements.
How To Trim Without Losing Clarity
Cut Repetition And Merge Like Points
Scan each subsection for duplicate claims. Keep the strongest version and drop the rest. Where two paragraphs make the same point with similar citations, merge them and keep the best citation set.
Move Lists Into A Table
Long medication lists, outcome definitions, or subgroup criteria read better in a table. A compact table saves ~150–300 words while boosting scan-readability. Keep the table to two or three columns so it fits on mobile and avoids sideways scrolling.
Write Tighter Sentences
Favor short verbs. Use one idea per sentence. Drop filler phrases and throat-clearing openers. Replace vague adjectives with a data point or a citation.
Use Supplements For Technical Detail
Many outlets invite appendices for search strategies, risk-of-bias tools, and model code. Moving these blocks out of the main text keeps you under the cap while preserving transparency.
Reference Count, Visual Limits, And Abstract Length
Word caps aren’t the only constraint. Journals often cap references (~50–75 for clinical overviews), set a max for tables/figures (often 4–5), and limit abstracts to ~250–300 words. Plan your structure with these numbers in view so you don’t have to reshuffle late in the process.
A Quick Plan For First-Time Authors
- Pick target journals early. Save the author pages and note caps for text, abstract, visuals, and references.
- Draft to 90–95% of the cap. Keep a running body-text tally and a separate abstract tally.
- Build two tables. One for study characteristics, one for outcomes or practice points. Push raw lists to supplements.
- Keep your figures lean. Aim for 3–5 visuals unless the outlet allows more.
- Proof the counts. Before submission, run a fresh count with headings included and excluded so you match the journal’s method.
When Longer Text Is Justified
Some topics demand extra words: broad disease areas, multi-condition interventions, or complex methods. In these cases, look for journals that allow extended reviews or provide a clear path to place detail in supplements. Evidence programs that specialize in syntheses often grant the widest room for main text plus appendices.
Bottom Line On Length
There isn’t a universal cap for medical reviews. Most general-medicine outlets land near 2,000–6,000 words for narrative and non-pooled summaries, with specialty venues and evidence programs allowing more. Start with the target journal’s rules, draft a little short, and move heavy detail into tables or supplements. That approach keeps the read smooth, matches house limits, and raises the odds of a swift path through editorial checks.