Why This Task Matters
A medical literature review pulls together what’s known, what’s weak, and where the next study should go. Done well, it saves readers time, trims wasted trials, and guides care.
What You’ll Deliver
You’ll present a tight answer to a defined question, show how you found and picked studies, rate their quality, and explain what the body of evidence means for practice or policy.
Where This Fits In
Reviews sit on a spectrum. Some tell the story of a field. Others follow strict methods and can support meta-analysis. Pick the format that matches your goal, timeline, and team.
Review Types At A Glance
Choose the format before you search. The table below helps you match scope to method and workload.
| Review Type | Primary Goal | Best Use Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Explain themes and context across varied evidence | Mixed designs, new fields, method or mechanism overviews |
| Scoping | Map the breadth of a topic and gaps | Broad questions, emerging areas, planning for later systematic work |
| Systematic | Answer a focused question with a prespecified protocol | Clearly framed PICO/PECO questions, policy or guideline input |
| Rapid | Deliver a time-bound summary with streamlined steps | Service decisions, urgent coverage or safety questions |
| Umbrella (Overview) | Summarize multiple reviews on a topic | Fields with several overlapping systematic reviews |
Drafting A Medical Literature Review: Core Steps
Set A Clear Question
Pin down the aim first. Name the population, the exposure or intervention, the comparator, and the outcomes. PICO and its variants (PECO, SPIDER) keep scope tight and make your search plan easier to build.
Pick A Review Type
Choose between narrative, scoping, systematic, rapid, or umbrella. Narrative works when methods vary and you need context. Scoping maps a broad topic and gaps. Systematic follows a protocol and answers a focused question. Rapid trims steps for time-sensitive needs. Umbrella summarizes multiple reviews.
Build A Protocol
Write the plan before you touch a database. Define the question, eligibility rules, sources, search strings, screening plan, data fields, outcomes, and synthesis method. Register the protocol in the PROSPERO registry if it’s systematic, both to avoid duplicate work and to timestamp your intent.
Design The Search
List databases and other sources up front. PubMed/MEDLINE is a staple. Add Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL where relevant. Search trial registries and theses when the topic is new or prone to publication bias. Combine keywords with controlled vocabulary terms, and pilot your strings with a few known studies.
Databases And Sources
Pair each database with its strength. MEDLINE covers biomedicine. Embase adds drug and device depth. CENTRAL helps find trials. CINAHL spans nursing and allied health. Web of Science and Scopus help trace citations. Grey sources catch reports and dissertations. Write down platforms, dates, and limits so others can rerun your work.
Keywords, Subject Headings, And Filters
Start with seed papers and pull their indexing terms. Mix free-text, MeSH, and Emtree. Include synonyms, spelling variants, and acronyms. Avoid narrow filters unless needed. Test recall with a small set of known eligible studies. Save full strategies for every source.
Screen And Select Studies
Screen titles and abstracts in duplicate with a pilot round to align decisions. Move to full texts with the same two-reviewer approach. Break ties with a third person. Track counts at each step so you can build a transparent flow diagram and explain common reasons for exclusion.
Inclusion And Exclusion Rules
State study designs, years, languages, settings, and outcomes that qualify. Predefine primary and secondary outcomes. Keep rules simple and consistent. When in doubt, meet as a team and document the call.
PRISMA Flow
Record how many records you found, how many you de-duplicated, how many you screened, how many you read in full, how many you excluded, and why. Keep notes on special cases, such as overlapping populations or companion papers.
Extract Data Consistently
Build a coded form for study identifiers, design, setting, sample, exposures or interventions, comparators, outcomes, follow-up, and effect estimates. Pilot on a few papers, refine, then extract in duplicate. Capture funding sources and author conflicts if reported.
Risk Of Bias And Study Quality
Match the tool to the design. Use RoB 2 for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy, and tools such as Newcastle-Ottawa for cohorts and case-control designs. Calibrate with examples so judgments stay consistent across reviewers.
Plan The Synthesis
Decide early if a meta-analysis suits the data. If measures and settings align, pool effects with fixed or random models and show heterogeneity with I² and tau². If the literature is diverse, structure a narrative synthesis by themes, outcomes, and study quality. Either way, link claims to data tables and forest plots.
How To Write A Medical Literature Review For Journals
Structure Your Manuscript
Write in an order that helps you think: methods first, then results, then the story in the introduction and discussion. Use short paragraphs and direct topic sentences. Keep tables close to the claims they support.
Title And Abstract
Your title should state the focus and the design. The abstract should cover background, objective, data sources, eligibility, participants, appraisal method, synthesis approach, main results, and a single line that states the answer.
Introduction Section
Set the scene with the clinical need, the known gaps, and the clear objective. Cite high-value sources and avoid long tours of the field. Promise only what you can deliver with your methods.
Methods Section
Report the protocol or registration, databases, platforms, date ranges, search strategies, limits, and how you handled grey literature. Explain screening, extraction, tools for bias assessment, and any plan for subgroup or sensitivity checks. State how you handled missing data and non-English texts.
Results Section
Present the flow diagram, a summary of included studies, key characteristics, risk of bias judgments, and the main findings. Use consistent effect measures and keep scale units clear. If you pooled results, present forest plots and report heterogeneity. If pooling was not possible, organize the story by outcome or theme and keep the logic easy to follow.
Discussion Section
Open with the headline answer to the question. Compare your findings with prior reviews and major trials. Explain limits in the evidence base and in your methods. Offer cautious, actionable takeaways for practice, policy, or research.
Figures, Tables, And Flow Diagram
Most readers scan visuals first. Build tables that carry key points: study characteristics, effect sizes, and bias summaries. Use a standard flow diagram so counts match what you reported in text and the supplement.
Language, Tone, And Transparency
Write in plain words. Avoid hype. Disclose funding, roles, and conflicts. State deviations from the protocol and why they happened. Share search strategies and data extraction forms in a supplement when the journal allows.
Synthesis Choices That Fit Your Data
When To Meta-Analyze
Pool only when studies ask the same question, use compatible measures, and share enough context. Convert effect sizes where needed and report model choices. Run sensitivity checks that drop high-risk studies or outliers. Check small-study effects with funnel plots when the set is big enough.
When To Narrate
When designs vary widely or measures clash, a clean structured narrative beats a forced model. Group by outcome, population, or exposure. Weave in study quality, direction of effect, and precision. Show where findings align and where they do not.
Manage Heterogeneity
State what differs across studies and why it matters. Run subgroup checks only if they were part of the plan or if clinical logic is strong. Avoid fishing. If you find pattern shifts, report them with caution and note the limits of power.
Grade The Certainty
Summarize how much trust a reader can place in each outcome. Weigh risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and reporting bias. Explain downgrades or upgrades in a short rationale so a reader can check your calls.
Data Management And References
Reference Managers
Pick one tool and stick with it. EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley all export to common styles. Use a shared library for team work and set up group tags for eligibility status.
Keep The Record Clean
Name files with study identifiers and dates. Store PDFs, forms, and plots in a tidy structure. Back up to a secure shared drive. Version your data extraction sheet so every change leaves a trail.
Reporting Checklists And Standards
Use the PRISMA 2020 checklist to steer reporting for systematic reviews. The Cochrane Handbook gives tested methods for searching, bias assessment, and synthesis choices. Journal editors also look for alignment with common ethics and authorship norms; keep those sections clear and complete.
Tables That Carry Your Point
Use compact tables to show decisions, not just data dumps. The grid below helps you pressure-test your draft before submission.
| Manuscript Section | What To Include | Common Mistakes |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | Clear design, question, data sources, eligibility, main result | Vague aim, missing limits, no effect size or direction |
| Methods | Protocol note or registration, full search, screening plan, tools | Partial strategies, unclear eligibility, no bias tool fit |
| Results | Flow diagram, characteristics, bias summary, effect estimates | Inconsistent counts, mixed scales, no link from claims to tables |
| Discussion | Plain answer, context to prior work, limits, next steps | Overreach, new outcomes, weak link to the stated question |
| Back Matter | Conflicts, funding, roles, data and code sharing notes | Missing disclosures, broken links, style mismatches |
Common Pitfalls And Quick Fixes
Scope creep: lock the question and eligibility rules before searching. Vague methods: write the protocol first. Missing studies: add grey sources and citation chasing. Inconsistent calls: calibrate with a pilot round. Overstated claims: tie each claim to data in a table or figure.
Style Tips That Hold A Reader
Lead with the key point in each paragraph. Use active voice. Prefer short words over jargon. Keep acronyms few. Break complex ideas into lists or small tables. Read the piece aloud to catch tangled lines.
How To Write A Medical Literature Review For Publication
Match your draft to the target journal early. Check word limits, figure caps, and data-sharing rules. If the outlet uses checklists, upload them with care. Where allowed, include the full search strategy and blank extraction form in the supplement for clarity.
Final Checks Before You Hit Submit
Confirm that the title, abstract, and body tell the same story. Check that every figure, table, and supplement is cited in order. Run a final screen for duplicate data across companion papers. Verify that conflicts, funding, and data-sharing notes are present and clear. Match reference styles to the journal and test links.