A good literature review shows a reader what is already known about a health topic, how strong that knowledge is, and where the gap sits that your own question steps into. Here is a practical route from a blank search box to a finished, well-organised review.
Nursing programs use the same words for different tasks. A short narrative review inside an essay or proposal is not the same as a stand-alone review paper, and neither is the same as a systematic review with a registered protocol. Check whether you must describe your search, follow a reporting guideline, or simply show that you have read widely and critically. The scope decides everything that follows, so confirm it with your instructor early.
Write your question or topic in a sentence, then pull out the core concepts. For each, list synonyms and related phrases: a term that nurses use may differ from what physicians or patients use. In CINAHL you can use subject headings alongside keywords, and in PubMed you can use MeSH terms. Combine synonyms with OR, combine concepts with AND, and use truncation where the database allows it. The National Library of Medicine provides tutorials for PubMed and MeSH searching.
Keep a search log: database, date, exact string, filters and number of results. That log becomes your methods paragraph and proves that the review is not cherry-picked.
Decide in advance what gets in and what stays out. Typical criteria include publication window, language, peer-reviewed status, population, setting and study type. Apply them in two passes: screen titles and abstracts, then read the full text of what remains. Note the reasons for excluding full-text articles, since some programs want this shown in a flow diagram.
Read for purpose. Skim a paper's abstract, methods and limitations first. If the design cannot answer your question, move on without guilt.
A synthesis matrix is a table with one row per article and columns for the things you will compare. It helps you see patterns you would miss reading one paper at a time.
| Source | Design | Sample | Key finding | Limitation | Theme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, year | Cohort | Adults on a ward | One-line result | Single site | Staffing |
Fill in the Theme column last, once you have seen what recurs. Sort the matrix by theme and the outline of your review will be almost visible.
ProNursingWriters can help with search planning, matrix design, structure and edits to your draft.
The most common weakness in student reviews is a parade of summaries: one paragraph per study, each starting with an author's name. Reorganise around ideas. Each section should explore a theme or question, draw on several studies, and end with what the evidence collectively says. Within paragraphs, compare designs, contexts and results. Where studies disagree, offer possible reasons, such as different populations or measurement tools.
A useful paragraph pattern is: claim, evidence from two or three sources, comparison or contrast, evaluation, then a link forward. If your review will support a proposal, see the research proposal guide.
The final part of the review should point out what remains unanswered and use that to justify your aim or question. A gap is not just "few studies exist." It is a specific missing population, setting, outcome or method that matters. State it plainly, then write the aim so it obviously follows.
Fictional topic: how nurse-led telephone follow-up affects readmission among adults recovering from surgery.
| Weak | Strong |
|---|---|
| Many studies have looked at follow-up. Smith looked at phone calls, and Lee looked at visits. This review looks at follow-up. | Although most studies of post-discharge telephone follow-up report fewer readmissions within 30 days, nearly all were conducted in urban hospitals with adult surgical patients, leaving rural populations largely unexamined; this review therefore aims to synthesise evidence on nurse-led telephone follow-up and appraise its applicability to rural community settings. |
The strong version combines synthesis (what most studies report), gap (who is missing) and aim (what the review will do) in one connected statement. The findings are fictional and only demonstrate the wording.
To see how appraisal feeds a review, read our research critique guide, and for stand-alone sources try the annotated bibliography guide.
There is no universal number. Follow the brief, and prioritise relevance and quality.
Many programs ask for the last five to ten years, though classic or foundational work can be justified. Check your assignment.
Sometimes, such as guidelines or government reports, if your instructor permits and you appraise them carefully.
Read our literature review help page or send your draft through the order page.