literature-review-planner

name	literature-review-planner
description	Structured literature review planning with systematic methodology, source evaluation, and synthesis frameworks. Use when planning academic literature reviews, research surveys, systematic reviews, or scoping reviews.

Literature Review Planner

Comprehensive frameworks for planning, conducting, and synthesizing literature reviews across academic and professional research contexts.

Review Types

Type	Purpose	Scope	Methodology Rigor	Best For
Narrative	Broad overview of a topic	Wide, flexible	Low-Medium	Background sections, introductions
Systematic	Answer a specific research question	Narrow, predefined	High	Evidence-based decisions, clinical practice
Scoping	Map available evidence on a topic	Wide, structured	Medium	Emerging fields, identifying gaps
Meta-Analysis	Quantitative synthesis of findings	Narrow, statistical	Highest	Combining effect sizes, treatment efficacy
Rapid	Timely evidence synthesis	Focused, abbreviated	Medium	Policy decisions, time-constrained contexts
Umbrella	Review of existing reviews	Reviews only	High	Overarching evidence synthesis
Integrative	Synthesize diverse methodologies	Wide, mixed methods	Medium	Combining qualitative and quantitative

Choosing the Right Review Type

Do you need to answer a specific, focused question?
  YES --> Is quantitative synthesis of effect sizes needed?
    YES --> Meta-Analysis
    NO  --> Systematic Review
  NO --> Do you need to map the breadth of evidence?
    YES --> Is the field well-established?
      YES --> Umbrella Review (review of reviews)
      NO  --> Scoping Review
    NO --> Do you need to combine qualitative and quantitative?
      YES --> Integrative Review
      NO --> Is time constrained (< 3 months)?
        YES --> Rapid Review
        NO  --> Narrative Review

Search Strategy Development

PICO/PEO Framework

Use structured frameworks to define your research question:

Framework	Element	Description	Example
PICO	Population	Who is being studied	Adults with Type 2 diabetes
	Intervention	What treatment/exposure	Telemedicine consultations
	Comparison	Alternative to intervention	In-person consultations
	Outcome	What is measured	HbA1c levels, patient satisfaction
PEO	Population	Who is being studied	Software engineering teams
	Exposure	Phenomenon of interest	Agile methodology adoption
	Outcome	What is measured	Productivity, code quality

Database Selection

Database	Coverage	Best For
PubMed/MEDLINE	Biomedical, life sciences	Clinical, medical, health research
Scopus	Multidisciplinary, broadest	Cross-disciplinary reviews
Web of Science	Multidisciplinary, citation data	Citation analysis, impact tracking
IEEE Xplore	Engineering, computer science	Technical and computing research
PsycINFO	Psychology, behavioral science	Mental health, cognition research
ERIC	Education	Teaching, learning, education policy
CINAHL	Nursing, allied health	Nursing and health professions
Cochrane Library	Systematic reviews, trials	Clinical intervention evidence
Google Scholar	Broad, grey literature	Supplementary searching, snowballing
Preprint servers	arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN	Cutting-edge, unpublished work

Keyword and Boolean Strategy

BUILDING A SEARCH STRING:

Step 1: Identify key concepts from PICO/PEO
  Concept 1: "telemedicine" OR "telehealth" OR "remote consultation" OR "virtual care"
  Concept 2: "diabetes" OR "type 2 diabetes" OR "T2DM" OR "diabetes mellitus"
  Concept 3: "glycemic control" OR "HbA1c" OR "blood glucose" OR "patient outcomes"

Step 2: Combine with Boolean operators
  (Concept 1) AND (Concept 2) AND (Concept 3)

Step 3: Apply filters
  - Date range: 2015-2025
  - Language: English
  - Study type: RCT, cohort, systematic review
  - Peer-reviewed only

ADVANCED OPERATORS:
  "exact phrase"      - Exact match
  *                   - Truncation (therap* = therapy, therapies, therapeutic)
  MeSH terms          - Controlled vocabulary (PubMed)
  NEAR/3              - Proximity (terms within 3 words)
  ti,ab               - Title and abstract search

Search Documentation Template

SEARCH LOG:

Database: [Name]
Date Searched: [Date]
Search String: [Full query]
Filters Applied: [Date, language, study type]
Results Retrieved: [Count]
Results After Deduplication: [Count]
Notes: [Any issues, modifications needed]

PRISMA Flow Diagram

IDENTIFICATION
  Records identified through database searching: n = ___
  Records identified through other sources: n = ___
  |
  v
  Records after duplicates removed: n = ___
  |
SCREENING
  v
  Records screened (title/abstract): n = ___
  Records excluded: n = ___
  |
  v
  Full-text articles assessed for eligibility: n = ___
  Full-text articles excluded (with reasons): n = ___
    - Reason 1: n = ___
    - Reason 2: n = ___
    - Reason 3: n = ___
  |
INCLUDED
  v
  Studies included in qualitative synthesis: n = ___
  Studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis): n = ___

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Criterion	Include	Exclude
Population	[Define target population]	[Define excluded populations]
Intervention/Exposure	[Define relevant interventions]	[Define excluded interventions]
Outcome	[Define relevant outcomes]	[Outcomes not of interest]
Study Design	[Accepted study types]	[Excluded study types]
Date Range	[Start year] to [End year]	Outside date range
Language	[Accepted languages]	Other languages
Publication Type	Peer-reviewed journals	Editorials, letters, conference abstracts

Source Evaluation

Critical Appraisal Tools by Study Design

Study Design	Appraisal Tool	Key Domains
RCTs	Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2)	Randomization, blinding, attrition, reporting
Cohort Studies	Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)	Selection, comparability, outcome assessment
Case-Control	Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)	Selection, comparability, exposure assessment
Qualitative	CASP Qualitative Checklist	Aims, methodology, recruitment, data, analysis, ethics
Cross-Sectional	JBI Critical Appraisal	Inclusion, measurement, confounders, analysis
Diagnostic	QUADAS-2	Patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow
Mixed Methods	MMAT	Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods criteria

Source Quality Assessment Framework

QUALITY SCORING (rate each 1-5):

RELEVANCE:
  - Directly addresses research question? ___
  - Population matches target? ___
  - Outcomes align with review objectives? ___

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR:
  - Study design appropriate? ___
  - Sample size adequate? ___
  - Bias minimized? ___
  - Statistical analysis appropriate? ___

CREDIBILITY:
  - Published in peer-reviewed journal? ___
  - Authors have relevant expertise? ___
  - Funding sources declared? ___
  - Conflicts of interest addressed? ___

RECENCY:
  - Published within target date range? ___
  - Findings still applicable? ___
  - Not superseded by newer evidence? ___

TOTAL SCORE: ___ / 60
  High quality: 48-60
  Medium quality: 36-47
  Low quality: < 36

Hierarchy of Evidence

EVIDENCE PYRAMID (highest to lowest):

Level 1: Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
Level 2: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Level 3: Cohort Studies (prospective)
Level 4: Case-Control Studies
Level 5: Cross-Sectional Studies / Case Series
Level 6: Expert Opinion / Editorials
Level 7: Anecdotal / Narrative Reports

Citation Management

Workflow

CITATION MANAGEMENT PROCESS:

1. COLLECT
   - Export references from databases (RIS, BibTeX, EndNote XML)
   - Import into reference manager (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote)
   - Attach PDFs where available

2. ORGANIZE
   - Create folder structure mirroring review themes
   - Tag with inclusion/exclusion status
   - Tag with quality rating
   - Add notes and annotations

3. DEDUPLICATE
   - Run automatic deduplication
   - Manual review of near-duplicates
   - Document count removed

4. SCREEN
   - Title/abstract screening (tag: include/exclude/maybe)
   - Full-text screening (tag: include/exclude with reason)
   - Track screening decisions

5. EXTRACT
   - Populate data extraction form
   - Link to source reference
   - Note discrepancies

Data Extraction Template

EXTRACTION FORM:

Study ID: ___
Authors: ___
Year: ___
Title: ___
Journal: ___
Study Design: ___
Country/Setting: ___

Population:
  - Sample size: ___
  - Demographics: ___
  - Inclusion criteria: ___

Intervention/Exposure: ___
Comparison/Control: ___

Outcomes:
  - Primary: ___
  - Secondary: ___
  - Measurement tools: ___

Key Findings: ___
Effect Size (if applicable): ___
Confidence Interval: ___
Quality Rating: ___
Reviewer Notes: ___

Synthesis Frameworks

Thematic Synthesis

THEMATIC SYNTHESIS STEPS:

1. CODE: Read included studies and assign descriptive codes
2. ORGANIZE: Group related codes into descriptive themes
3. DEVELOP: Generate analytical themes that go beyond the primary studies
4. MAP: Create a thematic map showing relationships between themes
5. WRITE: Narrate findings organized by analytical themes

THEMATIC MAP STRUCTURE:
  Overarching Theme
  |-- Sub-theme 1
  |   |-- Code A (Studies 1, 3, 7)
  |   |-- Code B (Studies 2, 5)
  |-- Sub-theme 2
  |   |-- Code C (Studies 1, 4, 6)
  |   |-- Code D (Studies 3, 8)

Chronological Synthesis

Best for showing how understanding of a topic has evolved over time.

CHRONOLOGICAL STRUCTURE:

Era 1 (e.g., 2000-2010): Foundational Work
  - Key studies and their contributions
  - Prevailing theories and methods

Era 2 (e.g., 2010-2018): Methodological Advances
  - New approaches introduced
  - Challenges to earlier findings

Era 3 (e.g., 2018-Present): Current State
  - Latest findings and debates
  - Emerging directions

Methodological Synthesis

Group studies by methodology to compare how different approaches yield different insights.

Methodology	Studies	Key Findings	Strengths	Limitations
RCTs	[list]	[summary]	Causal inference	Generalizability
Qualitative	[list]	[summary]	Rich context	Subjectivity
Mixed Methods	[list]	[summary]	Comprehensive	Complexity
Observational	[list]	[summary]	Real-world validity	Confounding

Gap Identification

Gap Analysis Framework

GAP CATEGORIES:

KNOWLEDGE GAPS:
  - What questions remain unanswered?
  - Where do findings conflict?
  - What populations are understudied?

METHODOLOGICAL GAPS:
  - What study designs are missing?
  - Are sample sizes consistently too small?
  - Are measurement tools validated?

CONTEXTUAL GAPS:
  - What geographic regions are underrepresented?
  - What settings haven't been studied?
  - Are there temporal gaps in the literature?

PRACTICAL GAPS:
  - What interventions haven't been tested?
  - Where does evidence fail to translate to practice?
  - What implementation barriers are unaddressed?

Gap Documentation Template

GAP: [Brief description]
EVIDENCE: [What the current literature shows / doesn't show]
SIGNIFICANCE: [Why this gap matters]
SUGGESTED RESEARCH: [What future studies could address this]
PRIORITY: [High / Medium / Low]

Writing Structure

Literature Review Sections

STRUCTURE:

1. INTRODUCTION (10-15% of word count)
   - Context and importance of the topic
   - Scope and objectives of the review
   - Research question(s)
   - Brief overview of structure

2. METHODOLOGY (15-20% for systematic; shorter for narrative)
   - Search strategy and databases
   - Inclusion/exclusion criteria
   - Screening process (PRISMA for systematic)
   - Quality assessment approach
   - Data extraction method
   - Synthesis approach

3. FINDINGS / RESULTS (40-50%)
   - Organized by themes, chronology, or methodology
   - Summary tables of included studies
   - Critical analysis (not just description)
   - Comparison and contrast across studies
   - Quality assessment results

4. DISCUSSION (15-20%)
   - Synthesis of key findings
   - Comparison with existing reviews
   - Implications for theory and practice
   - Strengths and limitations of the review

5. GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS (5-10%)
   - Identified gaps in knowledge
   - Recommended research priorities
   - Methodological recommendations

6. CONCLUSION (5%)
   - Summary of main findings
   - Answer to research question
   - Key implications

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Description	Prevention
Cherry-picking	Selecting only studies that support a hypothesis	Pre-register protocol, follow PRISMA
Narrative bias	Describing studies without critical analysis	Use appraisal tools, compare across studies
Scope creep	Expanding focus beyond original question	Stick to predefined inclusion criteria
Recency bias	Over-weighting recent studies	Include full date range, weight by quality
Publication bias	Missing grey literature and null results	Search preprints, dissertations, trial registries
Inadequate search	Too few databases or narrow search terms	Minimum 3 databases, iterative search refinement
Poor synthesis	Listing studies instead of integrating findings	Use synthesis frameworks, identify patterns
Missing protocol	No pre-registered review protocol	Register on PROSPERO or OSF before starting

Review Protocol Template

PROTOCOL:

Title: [Review title]
Registration: [PROSPERO/OSF ID]
Authors: [Names and roles]
Date: [Protocol date]

Background: [Why this review is needed]
Objectives: [What the review aims to achieve]
Research Question: [PICO/PEO formatted question]

Eligibility Criteria:
  Inclusion: [List]
  Exclusion: [List]

Information Sources: [Databases and other sources]
Search Strategy: [Full search string per database]

Study Selection:
  - Stage 1: Title/abstract screening (2 independent reviewers)
  - Stage 2: Full-text screening (2 independent reviewers)
  - Disagreement resolution: [Process]

Data Extraction: [What data will be extracted]
Quality Assessment: [Which tool(s) will be used]
Synthesis Method: [Narrative, thematic, meta-analysis]
Timeline: [Planned completion date]

See Also

• Data Science
• Grant Proposal Builder