Yes: set a tight question, define scope and criteria, then run a pilot PubMed search to map studies before drafting your plan.
What Counts As A Literature Review In Healthcare
A literature review in healthcare shows what research says about a clinical or public health topic, how strong that research is, and where gaps sit. It links high-quality studies to a clear question so readers can see patterns, agreements, and disagreements across the evidence base. It also explains search choices, screening rules, and reasons for keeping or dropping studies, so the trail is clear.
Starting A Literature Review In Healthcare: The Groundwork
Pick a focused aim and write it in one sentence. Name your audience and use cases: clinicians, students, hospital managers, or policy staff. State the decision your review should inform. Then write a scope note that lists population, setting, time window, outcomes of interest, and study types that fit your aim. Keep it short and concrete. If the aim changes after a pilot search, update the scope note before you go further.
Plan First, Then Search
| Planning Task | What To Do | Quick Checks |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Draft a PICO or a precise narrative prompt | One sentence fits on a slide |
| Scope | Define population, exposure or intervention, comparator, main outcomes, and settings | Each item is specific |
| Boundaries | Set date limits, languages, and study designs you will include | Choices match the aim |
| Ethics | Note any sensitive topics or harms in the sources | Plan how to handle them |
| Team | Assign roles for searching, screening, appraisal, and write-up | At least two people share screening |
| Record-keeping | Decide where to log decisions and versions | Single source of truth |
Set A Focused Clinical Question
Use PICO to sharpen intent: Patient or problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome. A short example: “In adults with asthma in primary care, do written action plans vs usual advice reduce emergency visits?” Many reviews don’t compare interventions. That’s fine. You can swap Intervention for Exposure, or drop Comparison. The goal is clarity that keeps your search and selection on track. If your topic is service delivery, you can adapt the frame to fit service models and workflow realities.
Build A Search That Finds The Right Evidence
List the databases that fit your topic. PubMed covers biomedicine; you can use the PubMed Advanced Search Builder to join fields and subject headings cleanly. Nursing work often needs CINAHL. Drug and device safety may need Embase. Health policy can draw on EconLit and gray sources. Pick at least one core database and one that adds a different slice of the field.
Write synonyms for each PICO element. Add controlled vocabulary where your database offers it, such as MeSH in PubMed. Mix free-text terms with subject headings so you catch new papers and indexed ones. Use AND to join concepts and OR to combine synonyms. Truncate carefully so you don’t drag in noise. Keep a living note that records each string, date, and tweak.
Craft Search Strings
Start with one concept, like the condition, and test a few synonyms. Add the second concept and test again. Check the first page of hits: do the top titles match your aim? Open three strong papers and scan their subject headings and author keywords. Borrow good terms with the same meaning. Save each version with a short label so you can roll back fast if the signal dips.
Pilot Search And Map The Field
Run a quick search and pull the first fifty abstracts. Skim for outcome wording, subgroups, and design types. Notice common exclusions: pediatric only, rare settings, or outcomes you don’t need. Update your scope note and strings so your net fits the aim. Build a simple map: main subtopics, influential authors, and existing reviews. If a strong, recent review answers your exact question, pivot by narrowing scope, targeting a new population, or updating the time window.
Beginning Your Healthcare Literature Review: Search And Screen
Set clear inclusion and exclusion rules that mirror your scope note. Write them as short bullets that two people can apply the same way. Plan a two-stage screen: titles and abstracts first, then full texts. Use a pilot round of twenty to align decisions. Record reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage with a short code, like wrong population or wrong outcome. When counts get high, add a simple flow diagram to track numbers at each stage. For step-by-step search and selection methods, the Cochrane Handbook chapter on searching and selecting studies lays out a clean path.
Create Clear Inclusion And Exclusion Rules
Inclusion rules might mention age range, care setting, exposure or intervention details, minimum follow-up time, and outcome definitions. Exclusions might list non-human studies, editorials, protocols, or small case series. Aim for rules that a third person could read and apply without extra guidance. Link every rule to your aim so each choice makes sense.
Screen Titles And Abstracts Fast
Sort by title clarity and likely fit. Mark obvious misses in one pass. For borderline items, read the abstract slowly and look for the PICO elements. If they’re missing, check the journal and year to judge relevance. Keep a log of common misfires so you can tune strings and filters. Set a daily cap to protect accuracy. Fatigue hurts precision.
Manage References Without Chaos
Pick a reference manager early. Tag records by stage: found, screened-in, screened-out, full-text, keep, drop. Use one shared library if you work as a pair. Backups save time and nerves, so turn on cloud sync. If your topic spans fields, add a folder for gray sources like guidelines, audits, or theses. File PDFs with a consistent name pattern, like first author, year, and short title. You’ll thank yourself when you draft.
Appraise The Evidence You Keep
Not every study carries the same weight. Randomized trials can test effects with strong controls. Cohort and case-control work is suited to risk and long-term outcomes. Qualitative studies can explain patient experiences or service barriers. Use simple, proven appraisal tools and apply them consistently. For trials, look at randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition, and selective reporting. For observational designs, check confounding, exposure and outcome measurement, and follow-up. Note study funding and conflicts when they relate to outcomes.
Match Evidence To Use
| Evidence Type | Best Use | What To Watch |
|---|---|---|
| Randomized trials | Testing effects of interventions | Randomization, blinding, attrition |
| Cohort and case-control | Risk, harms, and long-term outcomes | Confounding, measurement bias |
| Cross-sectional | Prevalence and snapshots in care | Sampling limits and temporality |
| Qualitative | Patient views and workflow insights | Sampling, reflexivity, saturation |
| Mixed methods | Linking numbers with narratives | Integration quality across strands |
| Guidelines and audits | Practice patterns and gaps | Method quality and date |
Draft With A Clear Structure
Set a layout that readers know and trust. Open with a short hook that states the purpose and why the topic matters in care. Share the PICO or prompt and the scope note. In methods, describe databases, dates, full search strings, screening rules, and appraisal tools. Add how many reviewers worked at each stage. In results, give counts by stage, reasons for exclusion, and a summary of included studies: designs, settings, and sample sizes. Then write the synthesis: patterns in outcomes, where findings align, where they split, and why that split makes sense.
Write A Synthesis That Reads Smoothly
Group studies by theme, design, or outcome. Lead each group with one crisp message. Support it with the studies that fit, naming sample sizes and the direction of effect when possible. Point out when designs or settings explain mixed results. Use short paragraphs and plain words. Charts can help: risk tables, outcome overviews, or timelines. Keep voice neutral and specific. Avoid hype and hedging. Readers trust clean claims backed by clear signals in the data.
Report With Standards Reviewers Expect
Use a checklist when you draft. For health reviews that pull from databases, a PRISMA flow and checklist help you show what you did and why each step made sense. You can grab the latest materials from the PRISMA 2020 site. Cite your exact strings and dates. Share how you handled duplicates, disagreements, and missing data. If you drew on qualitative studies, explain your approach to coding and theme development. If gray literature shaped the picture, tell readers where you looked and how you judged quality. A clean report saves peer review time and builds trust with readers.
Keep Bias Low At Every Step
Plan in pairs where you can. Independent screening and appraisal catch slips. Pre-specify outcomes and subgroups and stick with them unless the map of the field truly warrants a change. If you adjust mid-way, log what changed and why. Avoid outcome-based cherry picking. Balance direct quotes and numbers so one strong study doesn’t drown out the rest. If industry-funded trials are in the mix, flag that and weigh results with care. Transparency beats perfection in review work.
Write For Clinicians And Patients
Use clinical language that matches the setting. Define acronyms on first use. Translate statistics into plain speech when you can: absolute risk, numbers needed to treat, or typical ranges. When you describe harms, be concrete about size and timing. Link findings to real tasks: diagnosis, monitoring, counseling, or service design. Add a short “what this means for practice” box near the end so busy readers can act fast and still trace every claim back to a source.
Plan Updates And Reuse
Save your strings and logs so you can refresh the review later. Set a sensible update window based on how quickly the field moves. Tag studies by year so new searches slot in cleanly. If the review is for teaching, cut a classroom version with fewer methods and more tables and figures. If it feeds a service change, keep a living appendix online with new hits and quick notes, then schedule a full refresh when the stack of new studies gets tall.
A Quick Starter Template
1) One-sentence aim and scope note. 2) List of databases with a short why for each. 3) Draft strings with synonyms and subject headings. 4) Pilot search with a hit map. 5) Inclusion and exclusion bullets. 6) Two-stage screening plan with roles. 7) Appraisal tool list and a toy example. 8) Data charting fields. 9) Synthesis outline with headings. 10) Reporting checklist and flow figure plan. Put that on one page and keep it next to you as you work.
Common Pitfalls And Easy Fixes
String too narrow? Add synonyms and drop one limiter at a time. String too wide? Add a missing concept and tighten phrase marks. Losing time on PDFs? Fetch them in batches and name files on save. Scope creep? Re-read your aim and scope note before each session. Disagreements in screening? Do a short calibration round with clear reasons. Thin evidence? Say so plainly, show the gaps, and avoid stretching claims. A careful review that says “not enough yet” still helps decision makers.
Polish For Readers
Front-load the value. Put the plain-language one-liner near the top. Use headers that tell readers what they’ll get. Keep sentences short. Break large blocks with helpful subheads, bullets, and tables. Use consistent terms for the condition, interventions, and outcomes. Run a spell check with a medical dictionary turned on. Ask a colleague from another unit to read a late draft for clarity. Fresh eyes catch jargon and leaps of logic that you miss when you’re too close to the page.
Helpful resources used while crafting this guide: PubMed Advanced Search Builder, Cochrane Handbook: Searching And Selecting Studies, and the PRISMA 2020 statement.