A medical literature review works best with a clear aim, defined methods, transparent synthesis, and a tight finish that answers the guiding question.
Readers come to a review to make a decision. Give the map first, then walk them through it. The layout below fits most review types and helps editors see care and clarity. You’ll see where to place parts, what to show, and how to keep the line from question to answer clean.
| Section | Purpose | Proof To Show |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | Set scope and key finding | Clear question, design, main outcome |
| Introduction | Explain the gap and why the question matters | Short context, crisp aim |
| Question | Turn the topic into a testable prompt | PICO, PECO, or SPIDER form |
| Methods | Let another team repeat the work | Databases, dates, terms, criteria |
| Selection | Show how records became the final set | Flow figure, reasons for exclusion |
| Data Handling | Show how facts moved into tables | Extraction form, checks, tie-break plan |
| Quality/Risk Of Bias | Judge trust in each study | Tool used and ratings |
| Results | Present what the studies show | Study table, effect sizes, key patterns |
| Synthesis | Join results across studies | Meta-analysis or structured narrative |
| Limits | Admit blind spots | Methods limits, evidence gaps |
| Conclusions | Answer the question | Practical takeaway with strength of evidence |
How To Structure A Medical Literature Review Step By Step
Set The Purpose And Scope
State the one thing the reader can do after reading your review. Limit the scope by condition, population, setting, and outcome. Say what’s in and what’s out. If the topic is crowded, narrow by time window or study design so the message stays sharp.
Pose A Focused Question
Use a template that fits your field. PICO suits treatment and screening. PECO fits exposure and risk. SPIDER helps with qualitative work. Write the exact question near the start, then keep wording stable through the text and tables.
Plan Methods Upfront
Draft the search plan, record handling, and analysis path before you search. Pre-plan cuts bias and saves rework. Name databases and date ranges. List language limits if any. Note tools for screening, de-duplication, and data charting.
Search Strategy That Can Be Repeated
Build full search strings with Boolean logic and field tags. Share at least one full string in an appendix. Track dates and rerun the search near submission. Keep a log so another team could get the same set of records.
Many journals expect a flow figure and a checklist. The PRISMA 2020 statement lists items that help readers see what was done and why. Match your headings to those items where it fits your review type.
Select Studies With Clear Criteria
State inclusion and exclusion rules in plain terms that a peer could apply. Run dual screening for titles, abstracts, and full texts. Resolve ties with a third reviewer. Record each reason for exclusion at the full-text stage.
Extract Data With A Shared Form
Create a pilot-tested form before full extraction. Capture sample size, setting, design, outcomes, and effect metrics. Add fields for funding source and declared conflicts. Train the team so entries stay uniform. Log contact with authors when data are missing.
Judge Study Quality And Bias
Pick a tool that matches study design. Use RoB 2 for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized comparisons, and CASP-style checks for qualitative work. Explain how ratings fed into the synthesis, not just the table.
Synthesize The Evidence
If studies line up on PICO and outcomes, a meta-analysis may fit. State the effect model and the measure used. Handle heterogeneity with pre-planned subgroups and sensitivity runs. When pooling isn’t fit, keep the narrative tight: group by design, outcome, or setting so patterns are easy to scan.
Write The Story And Flow
Keep results and interpretation separate. Use the same order for tables, figures, and text so readers never hunt. Repeat the main question in the first line of the conclusion so the arc closes cleanly.
State Limits And Strengths
Tell the reader what might move the estimate or change the take. Common hits include small samples, sparse events, inconsistent outcome scales, and selective reporting. Point to gaps that future trials could fill, and say how your choices may push the result up or down.
Conclude With Clear Takeaways
Give the direct answer the title promises. Mark the strength of evidence and the likely direction of effect. Offer a short note on what should happen next in clinics, labs, or policy rooms, tied to the certainty grade.
Narrative, Systematic, And Scoping: Pick The Right Fit
Narrative reviews scan broad questions and map themes. They help set context and show where lines of inquiry rise or fade. Systematic reviews use preset rules to find, screen, and weigh studies against one plan. Scoping reviews map a field, chart concepts, and show where tests or measures cluster. Match the label to the aim so readers don’t misread the level of certainty.
Journals align with reporting guides by study type. The EQUATOR Network lists checklists for many designs, from trials and diagnostic accuracy to qualitative syntheses. Pick the guide that suits your review and mirror its item order where it helps the reader.
Methods Details That Editors Scan First
Eligibility Criteria
Define participants, interventions or exposures, comparators, outcomes, settings, and study designs. State time window and language. Give a short line on why each rule exists. If you lift a rule during screening, say so and say why.
Information Sources
Name each database and the platform used. Add gray sources like trial registers and preprints if your field needs them. Share contact with experts and hand-search plans for key journals. Report the last search date.
Search Strings
Show full strings with operators, truncation, and field tags. Keep a copy of each export. Mention de-duplication steps and any tool used to screen at scale.
Data Items And Outcomes
List primary and secondary outcomes. Define the unit of analysis. Say how you handled multiple reports from the same study. Mark any conversions, imputations, or standardizations.
Effect Measures And Models
State risk ratio, odds ratio, hazard ratio, mean difference, or standardized mean difference as fit. Name the model and the software. Lay out the rule for picking fixed or random effects. Explain how you handled zero cells and small-study effects.
Heterogeneity, Subgroups, And Sensitivity
Report measures like I2 and tau2. Pre-define subgroups that make sense for biology or care pathways. Run leave-one-out checks and trial-quality filters to test the spine of the result.
Manage Overlap And Updates
Track multiple reports from the same cohort so counts don’t double. Note shared datasets across papers and choose one report per time point or outcome. If you maintain a living review, stamp the version and date, and explain what changed since the last cut. Keep a changes log in a short appendix.
Certainty Of Evidence
Use a grading approach so readers can judge how much to trust the take. Many teams use GRADE to rate certainty across risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Tie the grade to the closing lines.
| Problem | What It Looks Like | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Vague question | Scope drifts mid-way | Lock PICO and keep wording stable |
| Weak search | Missed key terms or sources | Pilot strings and peer review them |
| Messy selection | Inconsistent include/exclude calls | Train screeners; use a tie-break rule |
| Thin data table | Readers can’t compare studies | Add core fields and footnotes |
| No bias rating | Trust is unclear | Pick a fit-for-design tool and apply it |
| Over-stated close | Strong claims from weak data | Match the tone to the grade |
Figures, Tables, And Flow That Aid Comprehension
Place the flow figure near the start of Results. Keep labels short and numbers exact. Use one master study table with design, population, dose or exposure, outcomes, and notes. Add a compact summary of findings table with effect estimates and certainty grades if you pooled.
Style, Voice, And Formatting For Medical Journals
Write with short sentences and concrete nouns. Use past tense for what you did and present tense for what the body of evidence shows now. Keep acronyms few and always define on first use. Follow house style for numbers, units, and drug names. Many outlets expect alignment with the ICMJE recommendations on reporting and transparency.
Ethics, Transparency, And Registration
Say who funded the work and any role in design, data access, or the write-up. Declare conflicts, even if none. If a protocol was registered, e.g., in a public register, give the ID in the Methods. Share forms, code, and data where allowed so peers can test your steps.
Checklist To Use Before You Submit
Clarity And Flow
- Title, abstract, and question tell the same story.
- Headings match the method trail.
- Each section opens with the point of the section.
Methods And Reproducibility
- Search strings and dates are complete.
- Selection steps and reasons are traceable.
- Data items, bias tools, and models are named.
Results And Synthesis
- Numbers in text, tables, and figures match.
- Heterogeneity is shown and handled.
- Effects and certainty grades align with the closing lines.
Transparency
- Funding and conflicts are stated.
- Data sharing and code links are present when allowed.
- Any protocol changes are explained.
Putting It All Together
Structure is a promise to the reader. Start with a tight question, show how you searched and chose, give clean tables and fair ratings, then join the findings with care. Keep claims in line with the certainty. When your review lands with this shape, peers can verify the steps, journals can appraise the methods fast, and the right takeaways move into care without noise.