Literature review structure:
Most literature reviews and articles follow a very similar pattern and it is one that you should be able to identify and use for your own literature review. Articles from Radiography, British Journal of Radiology AJR or European Radiology are particularly useful as a start but there will be many other sources, and most will have a roughly similar structure as in Figure 1. The tables here are a suggested structure that you may identify and want to use.
Introduction
The introduction is exactly what it says in the title – an introduction to the subject, which sets the scene.
It should detail the relevance of the study and give detail of processes concerned. For example – if an anatomical area is the main focus then descriptions of the processes involved that necessitates imaging/treatment……… or if a change of role, a brief history and rationale …………or if new protocols, what are they replacing and why are they important?
The point is to give context to your literature review so the reader is prepared and can see the relevance of what follows. You may need some historical references, older than 5 years, to show this.
This might be a good place to highlight the themes that will be discussed in the main body of your review.
Try and end this section with a statement why the literature review is necessary.
It is good practice to re-read and thoroughly edit this section at the time you have completed your final conclusions so that both ends of the work are ‘singing the same song’.
Also make sure your title matches these two sections.
Methodology
This is an essential but not necessarily large section. This part contains the processes that you have used to include and exclude material for the literature review. It needs to include your searching strategies. e.g. the terms/key words applied on whichever database(s), the year range, the language (only in English for instance) and other filtering data so that anyone else can complete the same search and get the same number of papers as you.
It is likely that you will go through several cycles of searching to focus and refine your search, so keep a record and explain what you have done. Do consider the PRISMA flow chart/decision table (see last page) this is a very useful supplement to your text and does not add many words.
Note: you are reviewing current literature that is PRIMARY RESEARCH. Therefore, if there is a recent literature or systematic review (ie 2019) that has already reviewed the current literature you are using, you should be looking for another subject! But please discuss this with your supervisor.
There may be other approaches you could take:
• If there are several systematic reviews, you could review all of the reviews (this is a major review and not recommended, it is very hard!)
• If the recent review does not discuss aspects of past primary research papers, you could review those aspects, make sure you explain why.
• If the recent review does not effectively discuss the past material you could utilise it but be very clear why it does not address the issue clearly.
• If there are more than 6 more recent quality papers, then review them on the basis of the changes or similarities of the last published literature/systematic review or meta-analysis
All the above are hard, we are making it easier for you, reviewing primary research is far easier.
I recommend that at the end of this section you should provide a table to identify the articles selected with any relevant material that would discriminate between them.
You will see these in some published literature reviews, and the table below is an example of how you might do this. Note that the words in the table are included in your word count (although not if it is in an appendix. IF this goes in the appendix it will not be marked so you will need an explanation of it in the methodology …. It is simpler to place it in the methodology!)
A table like this will help delineate the themes you use in the discussion section.
Discussion section
This is the main element of the literature review and would form the bulk of your word allocation. It will be composed of discussion point’s around the themes you have identified as running – or missing from – the papers you have under review.
When comparing literature, you will find some common themes if the subject matter / research is similar. Don’t ask us for what those themes can be, you will only find that yourself by reading several (not just one) papers and looking for commonalities and elements that answer what you are looking for. You will need a brief rationale for selecting these themes, this could accompany the table in the methodology or even be included in the introduction.
There is no set number of themes and some may have more importance (and size) than others. Having themes will help you structure your work. You can mention in your work any theme that might be missing from one or two papers that is common in the others.
One theme is too few and ten too many, we suggest between 4 and 8 but this is only a guide and not a rule. One theme may be only a few lines, others could be several paragraphs.
The themes can be standalone but each will need a discussion comparing what is and is not published. Headings highlighting each might help you construct the work.
DO remember the weighting for marks is far higher for analysis, synthesis and discussion than description, YOU need to make something of what all the papers are stating, so a discussion section whether attached to each theme or as a combination for all themes (your choice) is essential for the health of your marks! A paragraph describing something that is published does not gain as much as a similar sized paragraph that analyses, discusses and synthesises the same material in conjunction with other material…check out the marking grid)
It may be appropriate to evaluate the quality of the sources you use in relation to each theme. Somewhere an element of evaluation of each source needs to appear this could be included in any of the discussion sections about a theme (eg Bloggs’ 2015 paper only targeted 30 patients whereas Smith and Jones’ 2019 paper was far more robust with 300 patients)
A summary overview may be of value but if you are going to repeat yourself in the conclusion it may be unnecessary but sometimes a summary of a complex theme before you move to the next has value.
Conclusion:
Appendices if you use them, they are not marked, should not contain information that you feel the reader must read as this should be in the text of your work.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|