literature review sample hku

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Class Group Name Ideas (for School Students)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Research Support@HKU Libraries

• Write Research Proposal
• Literature Review
• Organize References

Research Methods

• Research Data
• Ethical Considerations
• Research Assessment This link opens in a new window
• Research Visibility This link opens in a new window
• Research Funding This link opens in a new window
• HKU Scholarships This link opens in a new window
• Information for RPg Students
• Publishers' Training Courses

Researcher Connect

Researcher Connect is a blog designed for the HKU research community, bringing community members the latest news and trends in research support services. It keeps you well informed of the updated news in areas such as:

• Scholarly Publishing
• Open Access
• Research Data Management
• HKU Research
• Research Impact
• Bibliometrics
• Research Tools
• External Databases
• Seminars, Training Workshops, and Library Events, etc

Ask a Librarian

Quick Links

► HKU Scholars Hub

► Research Data Services

► RGC Publication Gateway

► Subject Guides

► Services for HKU Postgraduates

► Services for HKU Staff

Designing an appropriate research methodology to collect and analyze data is an important component of your research cycle.  Some HKUL resources include:

SAGE Research Methods is a tool created to help researchers, faculty, and students with their research projects. Users can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. Since SAGE Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, it can be used across the social sciences, health sciences, and other areas of research.

Cochrane Library consists of a regularly updated collection of evidence-based medicine databases. The databases are: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews (Methodology Reviews), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED).

Covidence is a web-based tool that helps streamline and speeds up the primary screening and data extraction processes when conducting systematic reviews.  It was selected by Cochrane to become the standard production platform for Cochrane Reviews.

Download the library course material of Covidence to explore how this online tool streamlines the production of systematic reviews.

Springer protocols is a database of reproducible laboratory protocols in the life and biomedical sciences offering researchers access to nearly thirty years worth of time-tested, easily reproducible, step-by-step protocols for immediate use in their lab. Includes protocols from the Humana Press series, Methods in molecular biology, Methods in molecular medicine, Methods in biotechnology, Methods in pharmacology and toxicology, and Neuromethods, as well as from a vast number of laboratory handbooks, such as the Biomethods handbook, the Proteomics handbook, and the Springer laboratory manuals.

Cold Spring Harbor Protocols is an interdisciplinary journal providing a definitive source of research methods in cell, developmental and molecular biology, genetics, bioinformatics, protein science, computational biology, immunology, neuroscience, and imaging.

6. Data analysis

To familiarize yourselves with the quantitative and qualitative analysis tools, please explore the book list available in HKUL.  SPSS and Nvivo are also installed on some PCs in the Main Library. Explore the libguide on NVivo to learn more.

• << Previous: Organize References
• Next: Research Data >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.hku.hk/researchsupport

What’s Included: Literature Review Template

This template is structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research projects such as dissertations and theses. The literature review template includes the following sections:

• Before you start – essential groundwork to ensure you’re ready
• The introduction section
• The core/body section
• The conclusion /summary
• Extra free resources

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover. We’ve also included practical examples and links to more free videos and guides to help you understand exactly what’s required in each section.

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

PS – if you’d like a high-level template for the entire thesis, you can we’ve got that too .

FAQs: Literature Review Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The literature review chapter template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of literature reviews can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard format for academic literature reviews, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of academic research projects (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the literature review chapter will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a literature review at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the literature review to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

Can I modify the template to suit my topic/area?

Absolutely. While the template provides a general structure, you should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review.

What structural style does this literature review template use?

The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological structure), as this is the most common approach. However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if you are adopting a different structure.

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

No, that is a separate template, which you can download for free here . This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter, whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase.

How long should the literature review chapter be?

This depends on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, literature reviews for Masters-level projects are usually 2,000 – 3,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects can reach multiples of this.

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

Yes, it’s important to acknowledge and discuss literature that presents different viewpoints or contradicts your hypothesis. So, don’t shy away from existing research that takes an opposing view to yours.

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

Always cite your sources correctly and paraphrase ideas in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your mind. 

Do you have an example of a populated template?

We provide a walkthrough of the template and review an example of a high-quality literature research chapter here .

Can I share this literature review template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other dissertation/thesis chapters?

Yes, we do. You can find our full collection of templates here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services , where we can help you work through the literature review chapter (and any other chapters).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 01 July 2024

Time of sample collection is critical for the replicability of microbiome analyses

• Celeste Allaband   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1832-4858 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Amulya Lingaraju 2 ,
• Stephany Flores Ramos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1918-9769 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Tanya Kumar 4 ,
• Haniyeh Javaheri 2 ,
• Maria D. Tiu 2 ,
• Ana Carolina Dantas Machado 2 ,
• R. Alexander Richter 2 ,
• Emmanuel Elijah 5 , 6 ,
• Gabriel G. Haddad 3 , 7 , 8 ,
• Vanessa A. Leone 9 ,
• Pieter C. Dorrestein   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-1030 3 , 5 , 6 , 10 ,
• Rob Knight   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0975-9019 3 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 &
• Amir Zarrinpar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6423-5982 2 , 6 , 13 , 14 , 15  

Nature Metabolism ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Animal disease models
• Circadian regulation
• Research management

As the microbiome field moves from descriptive and associative research to mechanistic and interventional studies, being able to account for all confounding variables in the experimental design, which includes the maternal effect 1 , cage effect 2 , facility differences 3 , as well as laboratory and sample handling protocols 4 , is critical for interpretability of results. Despite significant procedural and bioinformatic improvements, unexplained variability and lack of replicability still occur. One underexplored factor is that the microbiome is dynamic and exhibits diurnal oscillations that can change microbiome composition 5 , 6 , 7 . In this retrospective analysis of 16S amplicon sequencing studies in male mice, we show that sample collection time affects the conclusions drawn from microbiome studies and its effect size is larger than those of a daily experimental intervention or dietary changes. The timing of divergence of the microbiome composition between experimental and control groups is unique to each experiment. Sample collection times as short as only 4 hours apart can lead to vastly different conclusions. Lack of consistency in the time of sample collection may explain poor cross-study replicability in microbiome research. The impact of diurnal rhythms on the outcomes and study design of other fields is unknown but likely significant.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

Literature review data are at https://github.com/knightlab-analyses/dynamics/data/ . Figure 1 , mock data are at https://github.com/knightlab-analyses/dynamics/data/MockData . Figure 2 (Allaband/Zarrinpar 2021) data are under EBI accession ERP110592 . Figure 3 data (longitudinal IHC) are under EBI accession ERP110592 and (longitudinal circadian TRF) EBI accession ERP123226 . Figure 4 data (Zarrinpar/Panda 2014) are in the Supplementary Excel file attached to the source paper 13 ; (Leone/Chang 2015) figshare for the 16S amplicon sequence data are at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.882928 (ref. 63 ). Extended Data Fig. 2 data (Caporaso/Knight 2011) are at MG-RAST project mgp93 (IDs mgm4457768.3 and mgm4459735.3). Extended Data Fig. 3 data (Wu/Chen 2018) are under ENA accession PRJEB22049 . Extended Data Fig. 4 data (Tuganbaev/Elinav 2021) are under ENA accession PRJEB38869 .

Code availability

All relevant code notebooks are on GitHub at https://github.com/knightlab-analyses/dynamics/notebooks .

Schloss, P. D. Identifying and overcoming threats to reproducibility, replicability, robustness, and generalizability in microbiome research. mBio 9 , e00525–18 (2018).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gilbert, J. A. et al. Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nat. Med. 24 , 392–400 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Knight, R. et al. Best practices for analysing microbiomes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16 , 410–422 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ley, R. E. et al. Obesity alters gut microbial ecology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 11070–11075 (2005).

Deloris Alexander, A. et al. Quantitative PCR assays for mouse enteric flora reveal strain-dependent differences in composition that are influenced by the microenvironment. Mamm. Genome 17 , 1093–1104 (2006).

Friswell, M. K. et al. Site and strain-specific variation in gut microbiota profiles and metabolism in experimental mice. PLoS ONE 5 , e8584 (2010).

Sinha, R. et al. Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 35 , 1077–1086 (2017).

Alvarez, Y., Glotfelty, L. G., Blank, N., Dohnalová, L. & Thaiss, C. A. The microbiome as a circadian coordinator of metabolism. Endocrinology 161 , bqaa059 (2020).

Frazier, K. & Chang, E. B. Intersection of the gut microbiome and circadian rhythms in metabolism. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 31 , 25–36 (2020).

Heddes, M. et al. The intestinal clock drives the microbiome to maintain gastrointestinal homeostasis. Nat. Commun. 13 , 6068 (2022).

Leone, V. et al. Effects of diurnal variation of gut microbes and high-fat feeding on host circadian clock function and metabolism. Cell Host Microbe 17 , 681–689 (2015).

Thaiss, C. A. et al. Transkingdom control of microbiota diurnal oscillations promotes metabolic homeostasis. Cell 159 , 514–529 (2014).

Zarrinpar, A., Chaix, A., Yooseph, S. & Panda, S. Diet and feeding pattern affect the diurnal dynamics of the gut microbiome. Cell Metab. 20 , 1006–1017 (2014).

Liang, X., Bushman, F. D. & FitzGerald, G. A. Rhythmicity of the intestinal microbiota is regulated by gender and the host circadian clock. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 10479–10484 (2015).

Thaiss, C. A. et al. Microbiota diurnal rhythmicity programs host transcriptome oscillations. Cell 167 , 1495–1510 (2016).

Yu, F. et al. Deficiency of intestinal Bmal1 prevents obesity induced by high-fat feeding. Nat. Commun. 12 , 5323 (2021).

Leone, V. A. et al. Atypical behavioral and thermoregulatory circadian rhythms in mice lacking a microbiome. Sci. Rep. 12 , 14491 (2022).

Thaiss, C. A., Zeevi, D., Levy, M., Segal, E. & Elinav, E. A day in the life of the meta-organism: diurnal rhythms of the intestinal microbiome and its host. Gut Microbes 6 , 137–142 (2015).

Mukherji, A., Kobiita, A., Ye, T. & Chambon, P. Homeostasis in intestinal epithelium is orchestrated by the circadian clock and microbiota cues transduced by TLRs. Cell 153 , 812–827 (2013).

Weger, B. D. et al. The mouse microbiome is required for sex-specific diurnal rhythms of gene expression and metabolism. Cell Metab. 29 , 362–382 (2019).

Kaczmarek, J. L., Musaad, S. M. & Holscher, H. D. Time of day and eating behaviors are associated with the composition and function of the human gastrointestinal microbiota. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 106 , 1220–1231 (2017).

Skarke, C. et al. A pilot characterization of the human chronobiome. Sci. Rep. 7 , 17141 (2017).

Jones, J., Reinke, S. N., Ali, A., Palmer, D. J. & Christophersen, C. T. Fecal sample collection methods and time of day impact microbiome composition and short chain fatty acid concentrations. Sci. Rep. 11 , 13964 (2021).

Collado, M. C. et al. Timing of food intake impacts daily rhythms of human salivary microbiota: a randomized, crossover study. FASEB J. 32 , 2060–2072 (2018).

Kohn, J. N. et al. Differing salivary microbiome diversity, community and diurnal rhythmicity in association with affective state and peripheral inflammation in adults. Brain. Behav. Immun. 87 , 591–602 (2020).

Takayasu, L. et al. Circadian oscillations of microbial and functional composition in the human salivary microbiome. DNA Res. 24 , 261–270 (2017).

Reitmeier, S. et al. Arrhythmic gut microbiome signatures predict risk of type 2 diabetes. Cell Host Microbe 28 , 258–272 (2020).

Allaband, C. et al. Intermittent hypoxia and hypercapnia alter diurnal rhythms of luminal gut microbiome and metabolome. mSystems https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00116-21 (2021).

Tuganbaev, T. et al. Diet diurnally regulates small intestinal microbiome-epithelial-immune homeostasis and enteritis. Cell 182 , 1441–1459 (2020).

Wu, G. et al. Light exposure influences the diurnal oscillation of gut microbiota in mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 501 , 16–23 (2018).

Nelson, R. J. et al. Time of day as a critical variable in biology. BMC Biol. 20 , 142 (2022).

Dantas Machado, A. C. et al. Diet and feeding pattern modulate diurnal dynamics of the ileal microbiome and transcriptome. Cell Rep. 40 , 111008 (2022).

Morton, J. T. et al. Establishing microbial composition measurement standards with reference frames. Nat. Commun. 10 , 2719 (2019).

Caporaso, J. G. et al. Moving pictures of the human microbiome. Genome Biol. 12 , R50 (2011).

Bisanz, J. E., Upadhyay, V., Turnbaugh, J. A., Ly, K. & Turnbaugh, P. J. Meta-analysis reveals reproducible gut microbiome alterations in response to a high-fat diet. Cell Host Microbe 26 , 265–272.e4 (2019).

Kohsaka, A. et al. High-fat diet disrupts behavioral and molecular circadian rhythms in mice. Cell Metab. 6 , 414–421 (2007).

Hatori, M. et al. Time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevents metabolic diseases in mice fed a high-fat diet. Cell Metab. 15 , 848–860 (2012).

Baker, F. Normal rumen microflora and microfauna of cattle. Nature 149 , 220 (1942).

Article   Google Scholar  

Zhang, L., Wu, W., Lee, Y.-K., Xie, J. & Zhang, H. Spatial heterogeneity and co-occurrence of mucosal and luminal microbiome across swine intestinal tract. Front. Microbiol. 9 , 48 (2018).

Klymiuk, I. et al. Characterization of the luminal and mucosa-associated microbiome along the gastrointestinal tract: results from surgically treated preterm infants and a murine model. Nutrients 13 , 1030 (2021).

Kim, D. et al. Comparison of sampling methods in assessing the microbiome from patients with ulcerative colitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 21 , 396 (2021).

Tripathi, A. et al. Intermittent hypoxia and hypercapnia reproducibly change the gut microbiome and metabolome across rodent model systems. mSystems 4 , e00058–19 (2019).

Uhr, G. T., Dohnalová, L. & Thaiss, C. A. The Dimension of Time in Host-Microbiome Interactions. mSystems 4 , e00216–e00218 (2019).

Voigt, R. M. et al. Circadian disorganization alters intestinal microbiota. PLoS ONE 9 , e97500 (2014).

McDonald, D. et al. American gut: an open platform for citizen science microbiome research. mSystems 3 , e00031–18 (2018).

Borodulin, K. et al. Cohort profile: the National FINRISK Study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 47 , 696–696i (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ren, B. et al. Methionine restriction improves gut barrier function by reshaping diurnal rhythms of inflammation-related microbes in aged mice. Front. Nutr. 8 , 746592 (2021).

Beli, E., Prabakaran, S., Krishnan, P., Evans-Molina, C. & Grant, M. B. Loss of diurnal oscillatory rhythms in gut microbiota correlates with changes in circulating metabolites in type 2 diabetic db/db mice. Nutrients 11 , E2310 (2019).

Wang, L. et al. Methionine restriction regulates cognitive function in high-fat diet-fed mice: roles of diurnal rhythms of SCFAs producing- and inflammation-related microbes. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 64 , e2000190 (2020).

Guo, T. et al. Oolong tea polyphenols ameliorate circadian rhythm of intestinal microbiome and liver clock genes in mouse model. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67 , 11969–11976 (2019).

Mistry, P. et al. Circadian influence on the microbiome improves heart failure outcomes. J. Mol. Cell. Cardiol. 149 , 54–72 (2020).

Shao, Y. et al. Effects of sleeve gastrectomy on the composition and diurnal oscillation of gut microbiota related to the metabolic improvements. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 14 , 731–739 (2018).

Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37 , 852–857 (2019).

Amir, A. et al. Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. mSystems 2 , e00191–16 (2017).

Mirarab, S., Nguyen, N. & Warnow, T. in Biocomputing 2012 , 247–258 (World Scientific, 2011).

Lozupone, C., Lladser, M. E., Knights, D., Stombaugh, J. & Knight, R. UniFrac: an effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 5 , 169–172 (2011).

Lauber, C. L., Zhou, N., Gordon, J. I., Knight, R. & Fierer, N. Effect of storage conditions on the assessment of bacterial community structure in soil and human-associated samples: Influence of short-term storage conditions on microbiota. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 307 , 80–86 (2010).

Marotz, C. et al. Evaluation of the effect of storage methods on fecal, saliva, and skin microbiome composition. mSystems 6 , e01329–20 (2021).

Song, S. J. et al. Preservation methods differ in fecal microbiome stability, affecting suitability for field studies. mSystems 1 , e00021–16 (2016).

Wu, G. D. et al. Sampling and pyrosequencing methods for characterizing bacterial communities in the human gut using 16S sequence tags. BMC Microbiol. 10 , 206 (2010).

Piedrahita, J. A., Zhang, S. H., Hagaman, J. R., Oliver, P. M. & Maeda, N. Generation of mice carrying a mutant apolipoprotein E gene inactivated by gene targeting in embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89 , 4471–4475 (1992).

Chaix, A., Zarrinpar, A., Miu, P. & Panda, S. Time-restricted feeding is a preventative and therapeutic intervention against diverse nutritional challenges. Cell Metab. 20 , 991–1005 (2014).

Gibbons, S. Diel Mouse Gut Study (HF/LF diet) . figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.882928 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

C.A. was supported by NIH T32 OD017863. S.F.R. is supported by the Soros Foundation. A.L. is supported by the AHA Postdoctoral Fellowship grant. T.K. is supported by NIH T32 GM719876. A.C.D.M. is supported by R01 HL148801-02S1. G.G.H. and A.Z. are supported by NIH R01 HL157445. A.Z. is further supported by the VA Merit BLR&D Award I01 BX005707 and NIH grants R01 AI163483, R01 HL148801, R01 EB030134 and U01 CA265719. All authors receive institutional support from NIH P30 DK120515, P30 DK063491, P30 CA014195, P50 AA011999 and UL1 TR001442.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Biomedical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Celeste Allaband & Stephany Flores Ramos

Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Celeste Allaband, Amulya Lingaraju, Stephany Flores Ramos, Haniyeh Javaheri, Maria D. Tiu, Ana Carolina Dantas Machado, R. Alexander Richter & Amir Zarrinpar

Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Celeste Allaband, Stephany Flores Ramos, Gabriel G. Haddad, Pieter C. Dorrestein & Rob Knight

Medical Scientist Training Program, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Tanya Kumar

Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Emmanuel Elijah & Pieter C. Dorrestein

Center for Microbiome Innovation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Emmanuel Elijah, Pieter C. Dorrestein, Rob Knight & Amir Zarrinpar

Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Gabriel G. Haddad

Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, CA, USA

Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

Vanessa A. Leone

Center for Computational Mass Spectrometry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Pieter C. Dorrestein

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Shu Chien-Gene Lay Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Rob Knight & Amir Zarrinpar

Division of Gastroenterology, Jennifer Moreno Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, La Jolla, CA, USA

Amir Zarrinpar

Institute of Diabetes and Metabolic Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.A. and A.Z. conceptualized the work. C.A., E.E., P.C.D., R.K. and A.Z. determined the methodology. C.A., A.L., S.F.R., T.K., H.J., M.D.T., A.C.D.M. and R.A.R. were involved in data investigation. C.A., S.F.R., T.K., H.J., M.D.T., A.C.D.M. and R.A.R. created visualizations. A.Z. acquired funding and was the project administrator. R.K. and A.Z. supervised the work. G.G.H. and V.A.L. provided resources. C.A., A.L., S.F.R., T.K., H.J., M.D.T. and A.Z. wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Zarrinpar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

A.Z. is a co-founder and a chief medical officer, and holds equity in Endure Biotherapeutics. P.C.D. is an advisor to Cybele and co-founder and advisor to Ometa and Enveda with previous approval from the University of California, San Diego. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Metabolism thanks Robin Voigt-Zuwala, Jacqueline M. Kimmey, John R. Kirby and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Yanina-Yasmin Pesch, in collaboration with the Nature Metabolism team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 microbiome literature review..

A ) 2019 Literature Review Summary. Of the 586 articles containing microbiome (16 S or metagenomic) data, found as described in the methods section, the percentage of microbiome articles from each of the publication groups. B ) The percentage of microbiome articles belonging to each individual journal in 2019. Because the numerous individual journals from Science represented low percentages individually, they were grouped together. C ) The percentage articles where collection time was explicitly stated (yes: 8 AM, ZT4, etc.), implicitly stated (relative: ‘before surgery’, ‘in the morning’, etc.), or unstated (not provided: ‘daily’, ‘once a week’, etc.). D ) Meta-Analysis Inclusion Criteria Flow Chart. Literature review resulting in the five previously published datasets for meta-analysis 11 , 13 , 28 , 29 , 30 .

Extended Data Fig. 2 Single Time Point (Non-Circadian) Example.

A ) Weighted UniFrac PCoA Plot - modified example from Moving Pictures Qiime2 tutorial data [ https://docs.qiime2.org/2022.11/tutorials/moving-pictures/ ]. Each point is a sample. Points were coloured by body site of origin. There are 8 gut, 8 left palm, 9 right palm, and 9 tongue samples. B ) Within-Condition Distances (WCD) boxplot/stripplot for each body site (n = 8–9 mouse per group per time point). C ) Between Condition Distances (BCD) boxplot/stripplot for each unique body site comparison (n = 8–9 mouse per group per time point). D ) All pairwise grouping comparisons, both WCD and BCD, are shown in the boxplots/stripplots (n = 8–9 mouse per group per time point). Only WCD to BCD statistical differences are shown. Boxplot centre line indicates median, edges of boxes are quartiles, error bars are min and max values. Significance was determined using a paired Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test two-sided with Bonferroni correction. Notation: ns (not significant) = p > 0.05, * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.00001.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Additional Analysis of Apoe-/- Mice Exposed to IHC Conditions.

A ) Weighted UniFrac PCoA stacked view (same as Fig. 2b but different orientation). Good for assessing overall similarity not broken down by time point. Significance determined by PERMANOVA (p = 0.005). B ) Weighted UniFrac PCoA of only axis 1 over time. C ) Boxplot/scatterplot of within-group weighted UniFrac distance values for the control group (Air, n = 3–4 samples per time point). Unique non-zero values in the matrix were kept. Dotted line indicates the mean of all values presented. No significant differences (p > 0.05) found. D ) Boxplot/scatterplot of within-group weighted UniFrac distance values for the experimental group (IHC, n = 3–4 samples per time point)). Unique non-zero values in the matrix were kept. Dotted line indicates the mean of all values presented. No significant differences (p > 0.05) found. E ) Boxplot/scatterplot of within-group weighted UniFrac distance values for both control (Air) and experimental (IHC) groups [n = 3–4 samples per group per time point]. Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction used to determine significant differences between groups. Boxplot centre line indicates median, edges of boxes are quartiles, error bars are min and max values. Notation: ns = not significant, p > 0.05; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Irregular differences in diurnal rhythm patterns leads to generally minor shifts in BCD when comparing LD vs DD mice.

A ) Experimental design. Balb/c mice were fed NCD ad libitum under 0:24 L:D (24 hr darkness, DD) experimental conditions and compared to 12:12 L:D (LD) control conditions. After 2 weeks, mice from each group were euthanized every 4 hours for 24 hours (N = 4–5 mice/condition) and samples were collected from the proximal small intestine (‘jejunum’) and distal small intestine (‘ileum’) contents. B ) BCD for luminal contents of proximal small intestine samples comparing LD to DD mice (N = 4–5 mice/condition). Dotted line is the average of all shown weighted UniFrac distances. Significance was determined using a paired Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test two-sided with Bonferroni correction; notation: **** = p < 0.00001. C ) BCD for luminal contents of distal small intestine samples comparing LD to DD mice (N = 4–5 mice/condition). Dotted line is the average of all shown weighted UniFrac distances. Boxplot centre line indicates median, edges of boxes are quartiles, error bars are min and max values.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Localized changes in BCD between luminal and mucosal contents.

A ) Experimental design and sample collection for a local site study. Small intestinal samples were collected every 4 hours for 24 hours (N = 4–5 mice/condition, skipping ZT8). Mice were fed ad libitum on the same diet (NCD) for 4 weeks before samples were taken. B ) BCD for luminal vs mucosal conditions (N = 4–5 mice/condition). The dotted line is the average of all shown weighted UniFrac distances. Significance is determined using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test two-sided with Bonferroni correction. C ) Heatmap of mean BCD distances comparing luminal and mucosal by time point (N = 4–5 mice/condition). Highest value highlighted in navy, lowest value highlighted in gold. Boxplot centre line indicates median, edges of boxes are quartiles, error bars are min and max values. Significance was determined using a paired Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test two-sided with Bonferroni correction. Notation: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.00001. D ) Experimentally relevant log ratio, highlighting the changes seen at ZT20 (N = 4–5 mice/condition). Boxplot center line indicates median, edges of boxes are quartiles, error bars are min and max values. Significance was determined using a paired Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test two-sided with Bonferroni correction. Notation: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.00001.

Supplementary information

Reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Allaband, C., Lingaraju, A., Flores Ramos, S. et al. Time of sample collection is critical for the replicability of microbiome analyses. Nat Metab (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-024-01064-1

Download citation

Received : 27 October 2022

Accepted : 08 May 2024

Published : 01 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-024-01064-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.