Medical readers want a clear path from question to answer. A well-built narrative review does that job. It maps the current evidence, explains trends, and guides practice without the rigid machinery of a full systematic review. This guide shows the workflow that busy clinicians and early-career researchers can follow to produce a strong narrative literature review in medicine.
Doing A Narrative Literature Review In Medicine: Scope And Aim
Start with scope. Pick a question narrow enough to cover well, yet broad enough to be useful. State who will benefit from reading: bedside teams, policy staff, or a specialty audience. Spell out what the review will and will not cover. Name the time window and patient groups you care about. Add a short purpose line that readers can quote.
Set A Focused Question
Use a simple template, such as PICO or a variant that suits the topic. PICO keeps you honest about population, exposure or intervention, comparison, and outcomes. Write the question in plain language first, then translate it into search strings.
Define Boundaries Upfront
State language limits, study designs you value, and any setting limits. A narrative review allows flexibility, yet readers still expect a declared scope. Keep notes on each choice so you can show your method later.
Planning Checklist Before You Search
Lock the plan before the first database search. The table below works as a one-page starter.
| Step | What To Decide | Practical Tip |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Exact phrasing and intent | Write one sentence for clinicians and one for librarians |
| Audience | Primary readers | State the specialty and level of detail they expect |
| Scope | Inclusions and exclusions | List designs you will include and why |
| Time Window | Years covered | Tie to a clinical milestone or new drug era |
| Databases | Where you will search | Start with PubMed, add Embase or others as needed |
| Search Help | Who will shape strings | Invite a librarian for a quick tune-up |
| Screening | How you will triage results | Record title/abstract reasons in a sheet |
| Appraisal | How you will judge rigor | Pick fit-for-purpose tools for major designs |
| Synthesis | How you will organize themes | Sketch 4–6 headings before you read in depth |
| Quality Check | How you will self-audit | Use SANRA as a final gate |
Build A Transparent Search Strategy
List each database, the date searched, and the main strings used. Document both free text and controlled vocabulary. For PubMed, include MeSH terms and any filters. A short methods paragraph in the paper boosts trust and makes updates much easier later.
Pick Databases And Tools
At minimum, use PubMed for biomedicine. Add Embase for drug and European coverage, CINAHL for nursing topics, and PsycINFO for mental health. Keep Google Scholar for forward citation chasing. For a fast clinical angle in PubMed, the Clinical Queries filters can speed triage.
Craft Search Strings
Combine synonyms with Boolean logic. Pair text words with controlled terms. Use truncation with care. Pilot the strings and read the first few result pages to see if the hits fit your scope. Save all strings in a note so your process is repeatable.
Track Records Cleanly
Export results to a reference manager. Tag by database and date. Remove duplicates early to avoid confusion later. Create folders for “keep,” “maybe,” and “exclude.” Write one-line reasons during screening so you can report them if a reader asks.
Screen, Appraise, And Map The Evidence
Begin with titles and abstracts. Move to full text for promising items. A single reviewer can screen in a narrative review, yet a second set of eyes reduces blind spots. Keep a running list of themes while you read.
Quick Appraisal That Fits A Narrative Review
You do not need a formal risk of bias tool for each study, yet you still need judgment. Flag sample size, confounding, outcome measures, and any threats to validity. Write short margin notes: strong, mixed, or weak backing for the theme at hand.
Create A Visual Map
Make a concept map or timeline to spot clusters, gaps, and inflection points. Note landmark trials, consensus statements, and real-world data. A one-page figure helps readers and shortens the writing stage.
Write The Narrative With Clarity
Readers scan first and then settle in. Front-load the answer, then unpack the themes in a steady order. Use headings that promise value. Keep the tone even and fair to competing views. Short sentences, active verbs, and concrete claims work best.
Core Sections That Work
Title And Abstract
State the topic, setting, and outcome focus. Avoid puff words and clickbait. The abstract should state the question, the scope, the search sources, and the main take-home points.
Introduction
Set the stage in three moves: the clinical problem, what is known, and the gap this review fills. Add one line on why a narrative approach suits the topic.
Methods Snapshot
Give a compact account of databases, date range, and inclusion basics. If you used librarian input, say so. Link to search strings in a supplement if the journal allows.
Body With Themed Headings
Group the evidence into 4–6 themes. Within each theme, start with the take-home line, then show the data that backs it. Name high-quality studies and note limits when they matter to clinical use.
Practice Points
Close the body with bullet points that a busy reader can act on. Tie each point to the citations above.
Limitations
State what your search may have missed, any language or time limits, and where evidence is thin. Transparency builds trust.
Use SANRA To Self-Audit Quality
The SANRA checklist offers a crisp way to judge narrative reviews on six items: value of the topic, statement of aims, literature search, referencing, scientific reasoning, and presentation. Use it near the end as a pre-submission check. A brief line in the methods noting that you used SANRA shows care for quality. Read the original paper on PubMed (link) and an instructions sheet.
When To Cite Reporting Resources
Narrative reviews do not use PRISMA flow charts, yet readers still value clear reporting. Point readers to the resources you used. The EQUATOR Network indexes checklists and tips for health research writing. If you draw on meta-narrative ideas, mention RAMESES standards. Citations to these resources help editors and reviewers see your care for method.
How To Conduct A Narrative Medical Literature Review: Common Mistakes To Avoid
Editors see the same traps over and over. The table below lists frequent missteps and quick repairs.
| Pitfall | What It Looks Like | Repair Move |
|---|---|---|
| Vague question | Loose topic without a clear ask | Write a one-line PICO and test it with a peer |
| Shallow search | Single database and few terms | Add MeSH, synonyms, and at least one more database |
| Cherry picking | Only favorable studies appear | Include dissenting data and explain differences |
| Weak appraisal | No signal of study quality | Add brief notes on design limits and bias risks |
| Theme sprawl | Too many headings and tangents | Merge and prune to a tight set of themes |
| Poor linkage | Claims without citations | Place a citation near each concrete claim |
| Opaque methods | Reader cannot see how sources were found | Write a compact methods snapshot with strings on request |
| Overreach | Recommendations not tied to data | Match scope and strength of claims to the evidence |
Work With A Librarian And A Colleague
A one-hour session with a medical librarian can save days. Ask for help with MeSH terms, filters, and citation chasing. Then ask a colleague to read your one-page outline and sample paragraph. Fresh eyes will spot gaps and jargon.
Present Balanced Take-Home Points
End the body with 5–7 bullets that rest on the themes you have built. Keep each bullet tight, specific, and tied to citations. This section should read like advice you would give during rounds, grounded in the studies you just covered.
Reference Style And Data Management
Pick a reference manager early. Set journal style at the start to avoid late edits. Use tags for themes, study design, and setting. Keep PDFs in organized folders with names that include year, first author, and a short cue word. Backups save pain.
Who, How, And Why In Your Review
Tell readers who wrote the review and what qualifies you. State how the review was built: databases, strings, dates, and appraisal approach. Close the methods with the reason this review was written and who should use it.
Ethics, Conflicts, And Funding
Disclose ties to companies, advocacy groups, or trial teams. Note any funding and state its role in the work. Many journals ask for a formal disclosure form at submission; draft early and keep it handy.
When A Narrative Review Is The Right Fit
Pick a narrative approach when the field is broad, methods vary, or clinical questions cut across designs. A narrative format suits mechanisms, evolving therapies, and cross-discipline topics. If the question can be answered with a tight, reproducible search and meta-analysis, move to a systematic review plan instead.
Submission And Peer Response
Match your target journal before you write the first draft. Study recent reviews in that journal and mirror length, tone, and figure use. During peer review, reply with calm, point-by-point notes. Where you change text, quote the new line in your response letter.
Synthesis Moves That Read Well
Readers value flow. Bridge studies with short signal phrases and dates. Contrast methods when that helps readers judge strength. Use tables sparingly; in a narrative format, one clear table or two is plenty. Keep quotes rare and short; paraphrase instead and cite.
Template Outline You Can Reuse
Copy this skeleton into your document before you start drafting. Tweak the headings to fit your topic.
- Title: includes patient group, exposure, and outcome
- Abstract: question, scope, sources, main points
- Introduction: clinical problem, what is known, the gap
- Methods: databases, dates, strings, inclusion basics, librarian input
- Themes 1–4: each starts with the take-home line and the data behind it
- Practice points: bullets tied to the evidence
- Limitations: search limits and thin areas
- Closing paragraph: one short note on use in practice
Mini Style Guide For Medical Reviews
Use plain terms. Replace passive voice with active verbs where it helps clarity. Define abbreviations at first use and keep a short list near the start. Numbers: use absolute risks when possible. P values and confidence intervals belong with result claims. Avoid hedging adverbs; name the study design and sample instead. Use consistent tense within sections, favor present tense for claims about evidence. Avoid slang and idioms.
Keep Your Methods Reusable
Save a search log with databases, dates, and strings. Store your screening sheet, appraisal notes, and theme map. These files make updates fast and let you build related reviews with little extra lift.
Grey Sources And Preprints
Conference abstracts, theses, and preprints can round out areas where journals lag. Treat these with care. Check affiliations, sample size, and whether a preprint later became a paper. Say plainly when a claim rests on a preprint. Link non-journal sources in a note and date the access.
Lightweight Data Extraction That Still Helps
A small table or sheet that captures study identifiers, design, setting, sample, outcomes, and the main finding will save time during drafting. You do not need exhaustively coded fields for a narrative article. Aim for consistency: the same five to seven fields across all included studies. Add a short column titled “theme” so you can sort studies while structuring the body sections.
Final Pre-Submission Check
Scan for scope drift, uneven tone, and missing citations. Confirm that figures are cited and tables do not repeat prose. Match terms across title, abstract, and headings. Verify names, years, and journals in the references. Read the draft aloud once to catch rough lines.
Where To Learn More
Two short papers in Academic Medicine lay out smart habits for narrative reviews in health fields, including scope setting and writing moves. PubMed Help pages explain filters, MeSH, and search tags in clear terms. EQUATOR offers links to reporting guides across health research with short examples and screenshots inside.