literature review for lab report

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing the Experimental Report: Overview, Introductions, and Literature Reviews

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Experimental reports (also known as "lab reports") are reports of empirical research conducted by their authors. You should think of an experimental report as a "story" of your research in which you lead your readers through your experiment. As you are telling this story, you are crafting an argument about both the validity and reliability of your research, what your results mean, and how they fit into other previous work.

These next two sections provide an overview of the experimental report in APA format. Always check with your instructor, advisor, or journal editor for specific formatting guidelines.

General-specific-general format

Experimental reports follow a general to specific to general pattern. Your report will start off broadly in your introduction and discussion of the literature; the report narrows as it leads up to your specific hypotheses, methods, and results. Your discussion transitions from talking about your specific results to more general ramifications, future work, and trends relating to your research.

Experimental reports in APA format have a title page. Title page formatting is as follows:

• A running head and page number in the upper right corner (right aligned)
• A definition of running head in IN ALL CAPS below the running head (left aligned)
• Vertically and horizontally centered paper title, followed by author and affiliation

Please see our sample APA title page .

Crafting your story

Before you begin to write, carefully consider your purpose in writing: what is it that you discovered, would like to share, or would like to argue? You can see report writing as crafting a story about your research and your findings. Consider the following.

• What is the story you would like to tell?
• What literature best speaks to that story?
• How do your results tell the story?
• How can you discuss the story in broad terms?

During each section of your paper, you should be focusing on your story. Consider how each sentence, each paragraph, and each section contributes to your overall purpose in writing. Here is a description of one student's process.

Briel is writing an experimental report on her results from her experimental psychology lab class. She was interested in looking at the role gender plays in persuading individuals to take financial risks. After her data analysis, she finds that men are more easily persuaded by women to take financial risks and that men are generally willing to take more financial risks.

When Briel begins to write, she focuses her introduction on financial risk taking and gender, focusing on male behaviors. She then presents relevant literature on financial risk taking and gender that help illuminate her own study, but also help demonstrate the need for her own work. Her introduction ends with a study overview that directly leads from the literature review. Because she has already broadly introduced her study through her introduction and literature review, her readers can anticipate where she is going when she gets to her study overview. Her methods and results continue that story. Finally, her discussion concludes that story, discussing her findings, implications of her work, and the need for more research in the area of gender and financial risk taking.

The abstract gives a concise summary of the contents of the report.

• Abstracts should be brief (about 100 words)
• Abstracts should be self-contained and provide a complete picture of what the study is about
• Abstracts should be organized just like your experimental report—introduction, literature review, methods, results and discussion
• Abstracts should be written last during your drafting stage

Introduction

The introduction in an experimental article should follow a general to specific pattern, where you first introduce the problem generally and then provide a short overview of your own study. The introduction includes three parts: opening statements, literature review, and study overview.

Opening statements: Define the problem broadly in plain English and then lead into the literature review (this is the "general" part of the introduction). Your opening statements should already be setting the stage for the story you are going to tell.

Literature review: Discusses literature (previous studies) relevant to your current study in a concise manner. Keep your story in mind as you organize your lit review and as you choose what literature to include. The following are tips when writing your literature review.

• You should discuss studies that are directly related to your problem at hand and that logically lead to your own hypotheses.
• You do not need to provide a complete historical overview nor provide literature that is peripheral to your own study.
• Studies should be presented based on themes or concepts relevant to your research, not in a chronological format.
• You should also consider what gap in the literature your own research fills. What hasn't been examined? What does your work do that others have not?

Study overview: The literature review should lead directly into the last section of the introduction—your study overview. Your short overview should provide your hypotheses and briefly describe your method. The study overview functions as a transition to your methods section.

You should always give good, descriptive names to your hypotheses that you use consistently throughout your study. When you number hypotheses, readers must go back to your introduction to find them, which makes your piece more difficult to read. Using descriptive names reminds readers what your hypotheses were and allows for better overall flow.

In our example above, Briel had three different hypotheses based on previous literature. Her first hypothesis, the "masculine risk-taking hypothesis" was that men would be more willing to take financial risks overall. She clearly named her hypothesis in the study overview, and then referred back to it in her results and discussion sections.

Thais and Sanford (2000) recommend the following organization for introductions.

• Provide an introduction to your topic
• Provide a very concise overview of the literature
• State your hypotheses and how they connect to the literature
• Provide an overview of the methods for investigation used in your research

Bem (2006) provides the following rules of thumb for writing introductions.

• Write in plain English
• Take the time and space to introduce readers to your problem step-by-step; do not plunge them into the middle of the problem without an introduction
• Use examples to illustrate difficult or unfamiliar theories or concepts. The more complicated the concept or theory, the more important it is to have clear examples
• Open with a discussion about people and their behavior, not about psychologists and their research

Are you seeking one-on-one college counseling and/or essay support? Limited spots are now available. Click here to learn more.

How to Write a Lab Report – with Example/Template

April 11, 2024

Perhaps you’re in the midst of your challenging AP chemistry class in high school, or perhaps college you’re enrolled in biology , chemistry , or physics at university. At some point, you will likely be asked to write a lab report. Sometimes, your teacher or professor will give you specific instructions for how to format and write your lab report, and if so, use that. In case you’re left to your own devices, here are some guidelines you might find useful. Continue reading for the main elements of a lab report, followed by a detailed description of the more writing-heavy parts (with a lab report example/lab report template). Lastly, we’ve included an outline that can help get you started.

What is a lab report?

A lab report is an overview of your experiment. Essentially, it explains what you did in the experiment and how it went. Most lab reports end up being 5-10 pages long (graphs or other images included), though the length depends on the experiment. Here are some brief explanations of the essential parts of a lab report:

Title : The title says, in the most straightforward way possible, what you did in the experiment. Often, the title looks something like, “Effects of ____ on _____.” Sometimes, a lab report also requires a title page, which includes your name (and the names of any lab partners), your instructor’s name, and the date of the experiment.

Abstract : This is a short description of key findings of the experiment so that a potential reader could get an idea of the experiment before even beginning.

Introduction : This is comprised of one or several paragraphs summarizing the purpose of the lab. The introduction usually includes the hypothesis, as well as some background information.

Lab Report Example (Continued)

Materials : Perhaps the simplest part of your lab report, this is where you list everything needed for the completion of your experiment.

Methods : This is where you describe your experimental procedure. The section provides necessary information for someone who would want to replicate your study. In paragraph form, write out your methods in chronological order, though avoid excessive detail.

Data : Here, you should document what happened in the experiment, step-by-step. This section often includes graphs and tables with data, as well as descriptions of patterns and trends. You do not need to interpret all of the data in this section, but you can describe trends or patterns, and state which findings are interesting and/or significant.

Discussion of results : This is the overview of your findings from the experiment, with an explanation of how they pertain to your hypothesis, as well as any anomalies or errors.

Conclusion : Your conclusion will sum up the results of your experiment, as well as their significance. Sometimes, conclusions also suggest future studies.

Sources : Often in APA style , you should list all texts that helped you with your experiment. Make sure to include course readings, outside sources, and other experiments that you may have used to design your own.

How to write the abstract

The abstract is the experiment stated “in a nutshell”: the procedure, results, and a few key words. The purpose of the academic abstract is to help a potential reader get an idea of the experiment so they can decide whether to read the full paper. So, make sure your abstract is as clear and direct as possible, and under 200 words (though word count varies).

When writing an abstract for a scientific lab report, we recommend covering the following points:

• Background : Why was this experiment conducted?
• Objectives : What problem is being addressed by this experiment?
• Methods : How was the study designed and conducted?
• Results : What results were found and what do they mean?
• Conclusion : Were the results expected? Is this problem better understood now than before? If so, how?

How to write the introduction

The introduction is another summary, of sorts, so it could be easy to confuse the introduction with the abstract. While the abstract tends to be around 200 words summarizing the entire study, the introduction can be longer if necessary, covering background information on the study, what you aim to accomplish, and your hypothesis. Unlike the abstract (or the conclusion), the introduction does not need to state the results of the experiment.

Here is a possible order with which you can organize your lab report introduction:

• Intro of the intro : Plainly state what your study is doing.
• Background : Provide a brief overview of the topic being studied. This could include key terms and definitions. This should not be an extensive literature review, but rather, a window into the most relevant topics a reader would need to understand in order to understand your research.
• Importance : Now, what are the gaps in existing research? Given the background you just provided, what questions do you still have that led you to conduct this experiment? Are you clarifying conflicting results? Are you undertaking a new area of research altogether?
• Prediction: The plants placed by the window will grow faster than plants placed in the dark corner.
• Hypothesis: Basil plants placed in direct sunlight for 2 hours per day grow at a higher rate than basil plants placed in direct sunlight for 30 minutes per day.
• How you test your hypothesis : This is an opportunity to briefly state how you go about your experiment, but this is not the time to get into specific details about your methods (save this for your results section). Keep this part down to one sentence, and voila! You have your introduction.

How to write a discussion section

Here, we’re skipping ahead to the next writing-heavy section, which will directly follow the numeric data of your experiment. The discussion includes any calculations and interpretations based on this data. In other words, it says, “Now that we have the data, why should we care?”  This section asks, how does this data sit in relation to the hypothesis? Does it prove your hypothesis or disprove it? The discussion is also a good place to mention any mistakes that were made during the experiment, and ways you would improve the experiment if you were to repeat it. Like the other written sections, it should be as concise as possible.

Here is a list of points to cover in your lab report discussion:

• Weaker statement: These findings prove that basil plants grow more quickly in the sunlight.
• Stronger statement: These findings support the hypothesis that basil plants placed in direct sunlight grow at a higher rate than basil plants given less direct sunlight.
• Factors influencing results : This is also an opportunity to mention any anomalies, errors, or inconsistencies in your data. Perhaps when you tested the first round of basil plants, the days were sunnier than the others. Perhaps one of the basil pots broke mid-experiment so it needed to be replanted, which affected your results. If you were to repeat the study, how would you change it so that the results were more consistent?
• Implications : How do your results contribute to existing research? Here, refer back to the gaps in research that you mentioned in your introduction. Do these results fill these gaps as you hoped?
• Questions for future research : Based on this, how might your results contribute to future research? What are the next steps, or the next experiments on this topic? Make sure this does not become too broad—keep it to the scope of this project.

How to write a lab report conclusion

This is your opportunity to briefly remind the reader of your findings and finish strong. Your conclusion should be especially concise (avoid going into detail on findings or introducing new information).

Here are elements to include as you write your conclusion, in about 1-2 sentences each:

• Restate your goals : What was the main question of your experiment? Refer back to your introduction—similar language is okay.
• Restate your methods : In a sentence or so, how did you go about your experiment?
• Key findings : Briefly summarize your main results, but avoid going into detail.
• Limitations : What about your experiment was less-than-ideal, and how could you improve upon the experiment in future studies?
• Significance and future research : Why is your research important? What are the logical next-steps for studying this topic?

Template for beginning your lab report

Here is a compiled outline from the bullet points in these sections above, with some examples based on the (overly-simplistic) basil growth experiment. Hopefully this will be useful as you begin your lab report.

1) Title (ex: Effects of Sunlight on Basil Plant Growth )

2) Abstract (approx. 200 words)

• Background ( This experiment looks at… )
• Objectives ( It aims to contribute to research on…)
• Methods ( It does so through a process of…. )
• Results (Findings supported the hypothesis that… )
• Conclusion (These results contribute to a wider understanding about…)

3) Introduction (approx. 1-2 paragraphs)

• Intro ( This experiment looks at… )
• Background ( Past studies on basil plant growth and sunlight have found…)
• Importance ( This experiment will contribute to these past studies by…)
• Hypothesis ( Basil plants placed in direct sunlight for 2 hours per day grow at a higher rate than basil plants placed in direct sunlight for 30 minutes per day.)
• How you will test your hypothesis ( This hypothesis will be tested by a process of…)

4) Materials (list form) (ex: pots, soil, seeds, tables/stands, water, light source )

5) Methods (approx. 1-2 paragraphs) (ex: 10 basil plants were measured throughout a span of…)

6) Data (brief description and figures) (ex: These charts demonstrate a pattern that the basil plants placed in direct sunlight…)

7) Discussion (approx. 2-3 paragraphs)

• Support or reject hypothesis ( These findings support the hypothesis that basil plants placed in direct sunlight grow at a higher rate than basil plants given less direct sunlight.)
• Factors that influenced your results ( Outside factors that could have altered the results include…)
• Implications ( These results contribute to current research on basil plant growth and sunlight because…)
• Questions for further research ( Next steps for this research could include…)
• Restate your goals ( In summary, the goal of this experiment was to measure…)
• Restate your methods ( This hypothesis was tested by…)
• Key findings ( The findings supported the hypothesis because…)
• Limitations ( Although, certain elements were overlooked, including…)
• Significance and future research ( This experiment presents possibilities of future research contributions, such as…)
• Sources (approx. 1 page, usually in APA style)

Final thoughts – Lab Report Example

Hopefully, these descriptions have helped as you write your next lab report. Remember that different instructors may have different preferences for structure and format, so make sure to double-check when you receive your assignment. All in all, make sure to keep your scientific lab report concise, focused, honest, and organized. Good luck!

For more reading on coursework success, check out the following articles:

• How to Write the AP Lang Argument Essay (With Example)
• How to Write the AP Lang Rhetorical Analysis Essay (With Example)
• 49 Most Interesting Biology Research Topics
• 50 Best Environmental Science Research Topics
• High School Success

Sarah Mininsohn

With a BA from Wesleyan University and an MFA from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Sarah is a writer, educator, and artist. She served as a graduate instructor at the University of Illinois, a tutor at St Peter’s School in Philadelphia, and an academic writing tutor and thesis mentor at Wesleyan’s Writing Workshop.

• 2-Year Colleges
• ADHD/LD/Autism/Executive Functioning
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• College Success
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Data Visualizations
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High Schools
• Homeschool Resources
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Outdoor Adventure
• Private High School Spotlight
• Research Programs
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Teacher Tools
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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.

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

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 September 3, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• How to Write a Lab Report: Tips from Academic Researchers

Lab reports bridge the gap between classroom theory and laboratory practice. Writing a solid lab report demonstrates your understanding of the course material to your professor and shows your ability to apply these concepts in a practical setting. Let’s talk about how to write a lab report efficiently!

What is a Lab Report?

A lab report is a detailed playbook that guides you through your experiments in the lab. You don’t just do experiments: you write them up so that readers can see and understand how and why you did it and the results and implications of experimenting. The fundamental goal of lab report writing is to show that you can think critically, apply theories in practice, and effectively communicate your results. Lab reports are essential in Chemistry and Biology and are also required in fields like Sociology, Engineering, Nursing, and Forensic Studies. For example:

• Sociology researchers explore behavioural experiments or surveys
• Engineering students could be testing materials or new designs
• Nursing scholars often delve into clinical studies or simulations
• Forensic Studies are about crime scene investigations and analysis

Each field uses the lab report to force students to apply theory to practice, develop skills outside the lab, and engage in learning and professional growth. The UK writing service is a reliable solution if you have any challenges writing a lab report. It provides expert assistance to guide you through writing complexities, ensuring your reports comply with academic standards.

How Long Should a Lab Report Be?

The length of the report on lab work depends on the complexity of the experiment and the course requirements. However, most lab reports, including figures and graphs, are usually 2 to 10 pages long. The required report length is usually specified in the assignment, as there are no strict limits for this type of work.

What are the Rules For Writing a Lab Report?

A lab report must be clear and concise, written logically, using the past tense and third person, and include all the data and findings. A professional lab report writer can help you enhance the quality of your report by providing a lab report template, making it easier for you to communicate your research effectively and meet academic standards.

What is the Writing Style of a Lab Report?

A lab report should be written formally and objectively, avoiding personal pronouns and always aiming to communicate clearly and precisely. For this type of scientific work, it is better to use passive voice to shift the focus from the researcher to the action or the research subject. For example, " The solution was heated " rather than " We heated the solution. "

What Should Not Be Included In a Lab Report?

Do not add irrelevant details, personal opinions, or speculative statements to a lab report. Ensure the report discusses only factual and supported observations and stays focused on the experiment and its results.

How to Write a Lab Report: Structure with Examples

A proper lab report structure is essential to format it neatly and ensure every part communicates a specific aspect of your experiment. A well-organised lab report can enhance the reception of your scientific investigation by clearly presenting your methods and demonstrating rigorous methodology. Let’s look at each lab report section in detail to understand its purpose and importance.

1. Title Page: Your lab report cover page, front, or title page must present the first impression. The lab report title page has the leading information: you should describe the experimental topic accurately and concisely. This page will have all the contributors to the report (e.g., group members and instructors) and the date when the experiment took place.

2. Abstract: A lab report abstract summarises the whole report in an independent synopsis around 150-200 words. It briefly touches on what the experiment aimed to test, the methodology, the most significant findings, and the main conclusion. Abstracts are helpful because other researchers and students can quickly understand the work’s relevant context, determining whether or not the full report requires a thorough reading. Example:

This experiment investigated the effect of sunlight exposure on the growth of basil plants. It measured the changes in the height and number of leaves per basil plant grown under four different lighting conditions for 14 days. The results suggested that plants exposed to sunlight for at least six hours a day had grown 50 per cent larger than those exposed to less light.

3. Introduction: A lab report introduction explains the background information and sets up the experiment. It describes the scientific theory or principle being tested, lists the specific goals or hypotheses to be confirmed, and defines the experiment’s importance and relevance to the field. With professional report writing help , you can learn how to write lab report introductions that effectively communicate the necessary context. Expert guidance enables you to structure your thoughts coherently, refining your scientific narrative and enhancing the overall quality of your lab report.

4. Methods and Materials (Equipment): This section describes all the materials, tools, and procedures used in the experiment. It should include the precise chemical concentrations, brand models of the instruments, and a detailed description of the set-up that should allow the experiment to be done exactly as before by others. It is another pillar of the scientific method. Transparency is essential for the research process. It serves as a control for checks and validation by the broader scientific community so that results can be trusted and used as a basis for future research. Here’s a lab report example of the Methods and Materials section. For example:

We had four basil plants, a ruler, a light meter, and four environments: full sun, partial shade, indoors with artificial light, and complete darkness, in which we measured how each plant grew every two days.

5. Experimental Procedure: Next to it, in the Experimental Procedure section, comes a day-by-day account of what was done, a chronological record of every action and condition that occurred, from the initial measurement to the final result, all in language that is as detailed as possible. This way, if another researcher wants to repeat the experiment, they can do so under identical conditions. The section of a laboratory experiment report is crucial for verifying scientific findings, troubleshooting issues, and refining experiments through peer review.

6. Results: The Results section of a lab report is carefully structured and presented objectively, using the data collected during the experiment. The lab report format of this section usually includes tables, charts, or graphs to visually condense information. It is a crucial element, as everything that follows is an analysis, discussion, and conclusion based on the empirical findings of this section, which substantiates the report and identifies the work as scientific.

7. Discussion: The Discussion section analyses how the results relate to the original hypothesis and the broader field of research. Here, you interpret the data, assessing how the findings align with or challenge existing knowledge. This section should address any unexpected results, their potential implications, and possible reasons for their occurrence. The lab report discussion extends the impact of the findings, considering their practical or theoretical significance, connecting them to broader scientific concepts, and suggesting areas for further research.

8. Conclusion: The lab report conclusion states the experiment's results, repeating how they work with the hypothesis and discussing general implications. It should summarise the research's accomplishments, critical successes, and limitations shortly. It also generally includes discussing what could be studied next and mentioning how future research could build on the present experiment. This part of the report brings a sense of closure to the study, leaving the reader with a clear understanding of what was done and why this matters to the field. Look at the example:

The experiment results show that the hypothesis that plants exposed to more sunlight will grow more than others is supported. The basil plants exposed to full sunlight grew more than those in the other conditions. More research can be done to find out how different light spectrums may affect plant growth.

9. References: The References section is a crucial element of the report, as it lists all sources the experiment was based on and which informed the report's writing. By accurately citing their sources, readers can follow the origin of ideas or findings introduced in the report, assess the basis and limits of the reporting, and access the sources for further study. The appendix lab report section should be placed after the References section and include supplementary material that isn’t essential to the main text of the report.

In Conclusion

Learning how to write a lab report isn’t just an integral part of your studies – it has a lasting impact on how your scientific investigation is received. If you learn how to write a university lab report, you’ll demonstrate that you grasp the rules of scientific research. It also showcases a valuable skill: your ability to communicate effectively. Getting this skill right can impact your grades and future academic and workplace career prospects.

The more you enhance your ability to write concise, clear, and well-organised lab reports, the better you'll be for success in any job, whether in research, industry, or any field requiring precise and clear communication.

• How to End a Personal Statement With Impact
• 6 Tips For Finding The Best Essay Topics
• Presentation Ideas for Students: Easy and Unique Topics
• Business Research Topics: Selected by Experts

Writers are verified and tested to comply with quality standards.

Work is completed in time and delivered before deadline.

Wide range of subjects and topics of any difficulty covered.

Read testimonials to learn why customers trust us.

See how it works from order placement to delivery.

Client id #: 000359

THANKS! The writer was polite and responded to messages quickly. I'm very grateful for your help!

Client id #: 000349

You are the best writers I’ve ever worked with 💗 How you did my thesis is amazing. The work met the standards and my instructions, for which I thank you!!!!)

Client id #: 000356

Thanks to this service, I forgot how writing an essay on my own feels. I’ve ordered essays from them 8 times, and they have never let me down. The more I order, the bigger the discount - I like that.

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.

Writing Studio

Writing a lab report: introduction and discussion section guide.

In an effort to make our handouts more accessible, we have begun converting our PDF handouts to web pages. Download this page as a PDF:   Writing a Lab Report Return to Writing Studio Handouts

Part 1 (of 2): Introducing a Lab Report

The introduction of a lab report states the objective of the experiment and provides the reader with background information. State the topic of your report clearly and concisely (in one or two sentences). Provide background theory, previous research, or formulas the reader should know. Usually, an instructor does not want you to repeat whatever the lab manual says, but to show your understanding of the problem.

Questions an Effective Lab Report Introduction Should Answer

What is the problem.

Describe the problem investigated. Summarize relevant research to provide context, key terms, and concepts so that your reader can understand the experiment.

Why is it important?

Review relevant research to provide a rationale for the investigation. What conflict, unanswered question, untested population, or untried method in existing research does your experiment address? How will you challenge or extend the findings of other researchers?

What solution (or step toward a solution) do you propose?

Briefly describe your experiment : hypothesis , research question , general experimental design or method , and a justification of your method (if alternatives exist).

Tips on Composing Your Lab Report’s Introduction

• Move from the general to the specific – from a problem in research literature to the specifics of your experiment.
• Engage your reader – answer the questions: “What did I do?” “Why should my reader care?”
• Clarify the links between problem and solution, between question asked and research design, and between prior research and the specifics of your experiment.
• Be selective, not exhaustive, in choosing studies to cite and the amount of detail to include. In general, the more relevant an article is to your study, the more space it deserves and the later in the introduction it appears.
• Ask your instructor whether or not you should summarize results and/or conclusions in the Introduction.
• “The objective of the experiment was …”
• “The purpose of this report is …”
• “Bragg’s Law for diffraction is …”
• “The scanning electron microscope produces micrographs …”

Part 2 (of 2): Writing the “Discussion” Section of a Lab Report

The discussion is the most important part of your lab report, because here you show that you have not merely completed the experiment, but that you also understand its wider implications. The discussion section is reserved for putting experimental results in the context of the larger theory. Ask yourself: “What is the significance or meaning of the results?”

Elements of an Effective Discussion Section

What do the results indicate clearly? Based on your results, explain what you know with certainty and draw conclusions.

Interpretation

What is the significance of your results? What ambiguities exist? What are logical explanations for problems in the data? What questions might you raise about the methods used or the validity of the experiment? What can be logically deduced from your analysis?

Tips on the Discussion Section

1. explain your results in terms of theoretical issues..

How well has the theory been illustrated? What are the theoretical implications and practical applications of your results?

For each major result:

• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships that your results show.
• Explain how your results relate to expectations and to literature cited in your Introduction. Explain any agreements, contradictions, or exceptions.
• Describe what additional research might resolve contradictions or explain exceptions.

2. Relate results to your experimental objective(s).

If you set out to identify an unknown metal by finding its lattice parameter and its atomic structure, be sure that you have identified the metal and its attributes.

3. Compare expected results with those obtained.

If there were differences, how can you account for them? Were the instruments able to measure precisely? Was the sample contaminated? Did calculated values take account of friction?

4. Analyze experimental error along with the strengths and limitations of the experiment’s design.

Were any errors avoidable? Were they the result of equipment?  If the flaws resulted from the experiment design, explain how the design might be improved. Consider, as well, the precision of the instruments that were used.

5. Compare your results to similar investigations.

In some cases, it is legitimate to compare outcomes with classmates, not in order to change your answer, but in order to look for and to account for or analyze any anomalies between the groups. Also, consider comparing your results to published scientific literature on the topic.

The “Introducing a Lab Report” guide was adapted from the University of Toronto Engineering Communications Centre and University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.

The “Writing the Discussion Section of a Lab Report” resource was adapted from the University of Toronto Engineering Communications Centre and University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.

Last revised: 07/2008 | Adapted for web delivery: 02/2021

In order to access certain content on this page, you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer software.

Types of Technical Documents

Lab reports/primary research reports.

Lab reports present primary research, no matter whether the data were gathered in a physical lab or in the field. A lab report is the opposite of a secondary research report, such as a technical background report, in which you present information gathered from other sources that offer their own interpretations of someone’s data.

Lab reports present your data and conclusions, and also discuss how you went about the experiment, survey, interview, or observation. In other words, you enable your reader to replicate your experiment, or at least visualize quite specifically how you went about it.

Preparing for an Experiment and Resultant Lab Report

To prepare for a lab experiment and the resultant report, consider the following questions:

• Why is this research important? How does it solve a problem or contribute in some way to expanding human knowledge?
• What have other researchers already discovered about this? How are you contributing to this conversation?
• What gaps are there in our knowledge about this topic?
• Why have you chosen this methodology to test your hypothesis? What limitations might it have?
• How and why do you derive these inferences from the data you have collected?
• What further research should be done? Why?

Also remember that lab reports are based on the work you have done in the lab or original work you have done in the field. Therefore, you must have a plan for keeping careful notes on what you have done, how you have done it, and what you observed. You may want to maintain a notebook, digital document, or personal blog.  You may want to pre-design tables or charts to record the data you know you will be observing—your own lab manual to use while completing a particular experiment to record your observations and data in a pre-organized format. Try to plan ahead so that you can capture as much information as possible during your research; don’t rely only on memory to record important procedures, results, observations, and conclusions.

Writing a Lab Report

The content and format for a lab report depends on your audience and purpose. How you write the results of a scientific experiment will generally follow a standard pattern, but may vary depending on audience and purpose. Remember that science writing generally focuses on observable results, so the results and discussion are usually the most developed parts of a lab report. Lab reports typically contain the following elements:

Create a descriptive and informative title that helps readers understand at a glance the type of research and information in the report. A title also needs key words for indexing .

An abstract summarizes your information and mirrors your report structure (Hypothesis, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) in condensed form—roughly one sentence or so per section.

Introduction/Hypothesis

Explain the context and significance of your work, its relevance in the field, and the hypothesis or question your study addresses. Give a brief overview of your methodology for testing your hypothesis and why it is appropriate. If necessary for your readers, provide a specialized theoretical framework, background or technical knowledge to help them understand your focus and how it contributes to the field.

Materials and Methods

This section has two key purposes. First, it must allow any reader to perfectly replicate your methodology; therefore, you must thoroughly describe what you used and how you conducted your experiment. Second, you must persuade your reader that your chosen methodology and the materials are appropriate and valid for testing your hypothesis, and will lead to credible and valid results. This section generally includes 1) a list of all materials you used, which may include sub-lists, diagrams, and other graphic; and 2) a detailed description of your procedure, presented chronologically.

The results section presents the raw data that you generated in your experiment, and provides the evidence you need to form conclusions about your hypothesis. Present only the data that are relevant to your results. If you omit data, you may have to explain why they are not relevant.

Organize this section either chronologically, following your methodology, or from most to least important, based on the importance of data in proving (or negating) the hypothesis. Present data visually whenever possible, using tables, graphs, flowcharts, or any type of appropriate visual to help readers understand your data. Make sure you present the data honestly and ethically; do not distort or obscure data to make it better fit your hypothesis. If data are inconclusive or contradictory, be honest about that. Avoid interpreting or explaining your data in the Results section, as interpretation belongs in the Discussion.

The discussion section includes your analysis and interpretation of the data you presented in the Results section in terms of how well it supports your original hypothesis. Start with the most important findings. It is perfectly fine to acknowledge that the data you have generated is problematic or fails to support the hypothesis. If your findings are inconsistent, try to suggest possible reasons for this. You can also make recommendations in the discussion section, as well as discuss the need for further research.

In a few short paragraphs, review the overall purpose of your study and the hypothesis you tested, then summarize your key findings and the important implications. This is your opportunity to persuade the audience of the significance of your work.

List all references you have cited in your report (e.g., those you may have included to provide a theoretical framework, or sources that help justify your methodology).

Optional Sections

There are a few sections that you may want to include in lab reports, depending on your purpose, audience, and context.

Include in an appendix any information that does not fit within the body of the report, but still adds valuable information to your report. While you may have summarized data in the results section of the report, you may want to include full data tables in an appendix. You may also include logs, calculations, or notes on analytical methods. Be sure to refer to your appendices in the body of your report to let readers know there is additional information.

Literature Review

If it makes sense within the context of your lab report, given your purpose and audience, you may want to summarize the literature related to your project—relevant books, journal articles, websites. For example, if you’re doing a study of speech recognition software, what articles have already been written on that subject? What do they have to say about the merits of certain software? As much as possible, use research that has undergone peer review, a process during which a group of acknowledged professionals in the field review the validity of article content. A literature review summarizes key research that has been published about a specific topic, to show current thinking in the field as well as gaps in knowledge or contradictory results.

Acknowledgements

As appropriate, formally express appreciation for any assistance you have received while preparing the report (e.g., financial/funding support, help from colleagues or your institution).

Writing Style

For scientists and engineers to make valuable contributions to the sum of human knowledge, they must be able to convince readers that their findings are valid, replicable, and valuable. The way that you write a lab report impacts the credibility and authority of your work; people will judge your work partly on how you present it. Even lab reports have a persuasive edge and must make careful use of rhetorical strategies. Careless writing, poor organization, ineffective document design, and lack of attention to convention may cast doubt on your authority and expertise, and thus on the value of your work.

Also note that traditionally, writers in the sciences have used passive voice to de-emphasize their role in the process and emphasize the materials and actions they used. However, this convention is changing; active voice is clearer and more concise. If you’re writing for publication in a specific venue, or to report your work to a particular organization, check out style conventions that other writers are applying.

Sample Lab Reports

• Sample Report on Ontogenetic Color Change and Mating Cues – good sample from Reed College/Doyle Online Writing Lab
• Sample Report – bad sample from Reed College/Doyle Online Writing Lab
• Sample Lab Report on The Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies
• Sample Lab Reports – 3 samples from LabWrite Resources, North Carolina State University
• Lab Report/Primary Research Report, adapted from Open Technical Communication and Technical Writing Essentials; attributions below. Authored by : Susan Oaks. Provided by : Empire State College, SUNY. Project : Technical Writing. License : CC BY-NC: Attribution-NonCommercial
• Types of Technical Documents (pages 4 & 6 of 7). Authored by : David McMurrey. Provided by : Kennesaw State University. Located at : https://softchalkcloud.com/lesson/serve/j4VzcrK3wJ6nBh/html . Project : Open Technical Communication. License : CC BY: Attribution
• 7.6 Lab Reports. Authored by : Suzan Last. Provided by : University of Victoria. Located at : https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/chapter/labreports/ . Project : Technical Writing Essentials. License : CC BY: Attribution
• image of researchers in lab. Authored by : RAEng_Publications. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/engineer-engineering-biomedical-4915460/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved
• image of engineer writing with laptop and notebook. Authored by : RAEng_Publications. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/engineer-engineering-4941331/ . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved

Privacy Policy

How to Write a Literature Review

• What Is a Literature Review

What Is the Literature

• Writing the Review

The "literature" that is reviewed is the collection of publications (academic journal articles, books, conference proceedings, association papers, dissertations, etc) written by scholars and researchers for scholars and researchers. The professional literature is one (very significant) source of information for researchers, typically referred to as the secondary literature, or secondary sources. To use it, it is useful to know how it is created and how to access it.

The "Information Cycle"

The diagram below is a brief general picture of how scholarly literature is produced and used. Research does not have a beginning or an end; researchers build on work that has already been done in order to add to it, thus providing more resources for other researchers to build on. They read the professional literature of their field to see what issues, questions, and problems are current, then formulate a plan to address one or a few of those issues. Then they make a more focused review of the literature, which they use to refine their research plan. After carrying out the research, they present their results (presentations at conferences, published articles, etc) to other scholars in the field, i.e. they add to the general subject reading ("the literature").

  Research may not have a beginning or an end, but researchers have to begin somewhere. As noted above, the professional literature is typically referred to as secondary sources. Primary and tertiary sources also play important roles in research. Note, though, that these labels are not rigid distinctions; the same resource can overlap categories.

• Lab reports (yours or someone else's) - Records of the results of experiments.
• Field notes, measurements, etc (yours or someone else's) - Records of observations of the natural world (electrons, elephants, earthquakes, etc).
• Journal articles, conference proceedings , and similar publications reporting results of original research.
• Historical documents - Official papers, maps, treaties, etc.
• Government publications - Census statistics, economic data, court reports, etc.
• Statistical data - Measurements (counts, surveys, etc.) compiled by researchers.
• First-person accounts - Diaries, memoirs, letters, interviews, speeches
• Newspapers - Some types of articles, e.g. stories on a breaking issue, or journalists reporting the results of their investigations.
• Published writings - Novels, stories, poems, essays, philosophical treatises, etc
• Works of art - Paintings, sculptures, etc.
• Recordings - audio, video, photographic
• Conference proceedings - Scholars and researchers getting together and presenting their latest ideas and findings
• Internet - Web sites that publish the author's findings or research; e.g. your professor's home page listing research results. Note: use extreme caution when using the Internet as a primary source … remember, anyone with internet access can post whatever they want.
• Archives - Records (minutes of meetings, purchase invoices, financial statements, etc.) of an organization (e.g. The Nature Conservancy), institution (e.g. Wesleyan University), business, or other group entity (even the Grateful Dead has an archivist on staff).
• Artifacts - manufactured items such as clothing, furniture, tools, buildings
• Manuscript collections - Collected writings, notes, letters, diaries, and other unpublished works.
• Books or articles - Depending on the purpose and perspective of your project, works intended as secondary sources -- analyzing or critiquing primary sources -- can serve as primary sources for your research.
• Secondary - Books, articles, and other writings by scholars and researchers reporting their analysis of their primary sources to others. They may be reporting the results of their own primary research or critiquing the work of others. As such, these sources are usually a major focus of a literature review: this is where you go to find out in detail what has been and is being done in a field, and thus to see how your work can contribute to the field.   
• Summaries / Introductions - Encyclopedias, dictionaries, textbooks, yearbooks, and other sources which provide an introductory or summary state of the art of the research in the subject areas covered. They are an efficient means to quickly build a general framework for understanding a field.
• Indexes to publications - Provide lists of primary and secondary sources of more extensive information. They are an efficient means of finding books, articles, conference proceedings, and other publications in which scholars report the results of their research.

Work backwards . Usually, your research should begin with tertiary sources:

• Tertiary - Start by finding background information on your topic by consulting reference sources for introductions and summaries, and to find bibliographies or citations of secondary and primary sources.
• Secondary - Find books, articles, and other sources providing more extensive and thorough analyses of a topic. Check to see what other scholars have to say about your topic, find out what has been done and where there is a need for further research, and discover appropriate methodologies for carrying out that research. 
• Primary - Now that you have a solid background knowledge of your topic and a plan for your own research, you are better able to understand, interpret, and analyze the primary source information. See if you can find primary source evidence to support or refute what other scholars have said about your topic, or posit an interpretation of your own and look for more primary sources or create more original data to confirm or refute your thesis. When you present your conclusions, you will have produced another secondary source to aid others in their research.

Publishing the Literature

There are a variety of avenues for scholars to report the results of their research, and each has a role to play in scholarly communication. Not all of these avenues result in official or easily findable publications, or even any publication at all. The categories of scholarly communication listed here are a general outline; keep in mind that they can vary in type and importance between disciplines.

Peer Review - An important part of academic publishing is the peer review, or refereeing,  process. When a scholar submits an article to an academic journal or a book manuscript to a university publisher, the editors or publishers will send copies to other scholars and experts in that field who will review it. The reviewers will check to make sure the author has used methodologies appropriate to the topic, used those methodologies properly, taken other relevant work into account, and adequately supported the conclusions, as well as consider the relevance and importance to the field. A submission may be rejected, or sent back for revisions before being accepted for publication.

Peer review does not guarantee that an article or book is 100% correct. Rather, it provides a "stamp of approval" saying that experts in the field have judged this to be a worthy contribution to the professional discussion of an academic field.

Peer reviewed journals typically note that they are peer reviewed, usually somewhere in the first few pages of each issue. Books published by university presses typically go through a similar review process. Other book publishers may also have a peer review process. But the quality of the reviewing can vary among different book or journal publishers. Use academic book reviews or check how often and in what sources articles in a journal are cited, or ask a professor or two in the field, to get an idea of the reliability and importance of different authors, journals, and publishers.

Informal Sharing - In person or online, researchers discuss their ongoing projects to let others know what they are up to or to give or receive assistance in their work. Conferences, listservs, and online discussion boards are common avenues for these discussions. Increasingly, scholars are using personal web sites to present their work.

Conference Presentations - Many academic organizations sponsor conferences at which scholars read papers, display at poster sessions, or otherwise present the results of their work. To give a presentation, scholars must submit a proposal which is reviewed by those sponsoring the conference. Unless a presentation is published in another venue, it will likely be difficult to find a copy, or even to know what was presented. Some subject specific indexes and other sources list conference proceedings along with the author and contact information.

Conference Papers / Association Papers / Working Papers - Papers presented at a conference, submitted but not yet accepted for publication, works in progress, or not otherwise published are sometimes made available by academic associations. These are often not easy to find, but many are indexed in subject specific indexes or available in subject databases. Sometimes a collection of papers presented at a conference will be published in a book.

Journals - Articles in journals contain specific analyses of particular aspects of a topic. Journal articles can be written and published more quickly than books, academic libraries subscribe to many journals, and the contents of these journals are indexed in a variety of sources so others can easily find them. So, researchers commonly use articles to report their findings to a wide audience, and journals are a good readily available source for anyone researching current information on a topic.

• Research journals - Articles reporting in detail the results of research.
• Review journals - Articles reviewing the literature and work done on particular topics.
• News/Letters journals - News reports, brief research reports, short discussions of current issues.
• Proceedings/Transactions journals - A common venue for publishing conference papers or other proceedings of academic conferences.
• General interest magazines - News and other magazines that report scholarly findings for a general, nonacademic audience. These are usually written by journalists (who are usually not academically trained in the field), but sometimes are written by researchers (or at least by journalists with training in the field). Magazines are not peer reviewed, and are usually not academically useful sources of information for research purposes, but they can alert you to work being done in your field and give you a quick summary.
• Trade journals and magazines - These are written for people working in a particular industry or profession, such as advertising, banking, construction, dentistry, education. Articles are generally written by and for people working in that trade, and focus on current topics and developments in the trade. They do not present academic analyses of their topics, but they can provide useful background or context for academic work if the articles are relevant to your research.

Books - Books take a longer time than articles or conference presentations to get from research to publication, but they can cover a broader range of topics, or cover a topic much more thoroughly. University press books typically go through some sort of a peer review process. There is a wide range of review processes (from rigorous to none at all) among other book publishers.

Dissertations/Theses - Graduate students working on advanced degrees typically must perform a substantial piece of original work, and then present the results in the form of a thesis or dissertation. A master's thesis is typically somewhere between an article and a book in length, and a doctoral dissertation is typically about the length of a book. Both should include extensive bibliographies of their topics. 

Web sites - In addition to researchers informally presenting and discussing their work on personal web pages, there are an increasing number of peer reviewed web sites publishing academic work. The rigor, and even existence, of peer reviewing can vary widely on the web, and it can be difficult to determine the reliability of information presented on the web, so always be careful in relying on a web-based information source. Do your own checking and reviewing to make sure the web site and the information it presents are reliable.

Reference Sources - Subject encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other reference sources present brief introductions to or summaries of the current work in a field or on a topic. These are typically produced by a scholar and/or publisher serving as an editor who invites submissions for articles from experts on the topics covered.

How to Find the Literature

Just as there are many avenues for the literature to be published and disseminated, there are many avenues for searching for and finding the literature. There are, for example, a variety of general and subject specific indexes which list citations to publications (books, articles, conference proceedings, dissertations, etc). The Wesleyan Library web site has links to the library catalog and many indexes and databases in which to search for resources, along with subject guides to list resources appropriate for specific academic disciplines. When you find some appropriate books, articles, etc, look in their bibliographies for other publications and also for other authors writing about the same topics. For research assistance tailored to your topic, you can sign up for a Personal Research Session with a librarian.

• << Previous: What Is a Literature Review
• Next: Writing the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

Ask a Librarian

• Clarify Your Topic
• Research Your Topic
• Write Your Review
• Citing Your Sources
• Other Guides and Resources
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• Literature Reviews

Literature Reviews: Write Your Review

Critical analysis.

A critical analysis of your sources is key to creating a quality literature review, and keeping your research question in mind as you read the literature will ensure that you are on track.

• As you read, ask yourself "Why is my topic important?" You must evaluate and interpret the information to discover your own point of view.

Reading and Evaluating Scholarly Literature (Oregon State University)

Evaluating Resources (University of Southern California)

Critically Analyzing Information Sources (Cornell University Library)

Literature Review Model

• What Constitutes a Good Literature Review and Why Does its Quality Matter? A discussion of the state of literature reviews found in scholarly journals. The author discusses the need for clear identification of the "problem domain" or scope of a topic, and the critical need for "identifying and articulating knowledge gaps" in literature reviews. more... less... Maier, H. R. (May 01, 2013). What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter?. Environmental Modelling & Software, 43, 3-4.

Once you identify your topic, check for existing literature reviews in your area of interest that can be used as models.

• Search UW Libraries Catalog using your search terms in conjunction with "literature review" or "methods" or "research" or "bibliography".

What Does a Literature Review Look Like?

This sample literature review from the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL), provides an example in the field of psychology.

Structure of a Literature Review

A literature review has a format similar to other scholarly papers. It contains an introduction, body and conclusion, but is focused exclusively on the research of others.

The Basics of a Literature Review. (2014). Teaching and Learning Center University of Washington Tacoma. Retrieved from  https://www.tacoma.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2021-05/basics-of-lit-review1.pdf 

Guidelines for Writing Your Literature Review

The creation of a literature review involves reading articles , processing the information from the articles, and integrating that information in the larger context of the review

The Basics of a Literature Review. (2014). Teaching and Learning Center University of Washington Tacoma. Retrieved from  https://www.tacoma.uw.edu/sites/default/files/2021-05/basics-of-lit-review1.pdf

Types of Source Materials

Primary Resources - These resources are the basic building blocks for the other types of resources. They include empirical research , firsthand accounts of events and other original materials .

Secondary Resources - These are resources that analyze or interpret primary and other secondary resources .

Tertiary Resources - These include encyclopedias, textbooks, dictionaries, handbooks, and indexes. They provide a summary and definitions of topics and are an effective and efficient way to begin to build your project.

• << Previous: Research Your Topic
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 2, 2023 3:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/tacoma/literaturereview

• Phoenix College

Lab Report Writing

• Introduction
• Lab Report Style
• Lab Report Format

Introduction of Your Lab Report

Test yourself (introduction).

• Materials and Methods
• Discussion/Conclusion

The introduction of your lab report is a chance for you to "hook" the reader and preview the important details you'll be talking about in the later sections of the paper. It's kind of like the first paragraph in a short story or the first act of a play. While the abstract was a very short summary of the entire paper, the introduction will be a longer section with more detail. It could be anywhere from three or four paragraphs to a couple pages long, depending on the complexity of the topic and, of course, the requirements of your instructor. Here are some tips for organizing your introduction :

• Start off with a very broad introduction to the topic. For instance, let's say you are writing a lab report about an experiment where you tested the effect of temperature on the enzyme catalase. You should start the introduction by talking about what enzymes are and how they work.
• Next, narrow down the introduction to talk more specifically about the topic you are investigating, and why the study you did was so important. In the catalase example, you should now talk specifically about what the catalase enzyme does, where it is found, how it works, and why it is important enzyme to study how temperature affects this enzyme.
• The introduction should also include a literature review t hat discusses what is already known about the topic. This where you will summarize the research you have done about your topic. Make sure you properly cite all of the sources you used in your research.
• Finally, state the purpose of the study, the hypothesis you tested in your study, and/or the question(s) you were trying to answer.

The introduction should not include details about the procedures you used in your study. Save these for the Materials and Methods section. You should also leave out the results, which will go in the Results section.

Introduction Osteoporotic fractures , particularly hip fractures, constitute a large and growing problem worldwide, in both women and men, with a profound impact on quality of life [1] and mortality [2]. The fracture risk is influenced both by the genetic constitution and by environmental factors, with lifestyle becoming more important with increasing age [3]. Physical activity, one conceivable and modifiable risk factor, can prevent fractures by improving muscle mass and balance, and by increasing skeletal strength, and thus reducing the risk of injurious falls [4,5]. However, the clinical relevance regarding exercise for maintaining or improving bone mineral density in adult men cannot be determined from existing studies [6,7]. The investigation of the effects of physical activity on the most important outcome—fracture risk—should ideally be evaluated in a randomized study , but this design is unlikely to ever be well performed owing to methodological issues, e.g., study size, compliance, drop-outs, blinding and long-term follow-up. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are no randomized trials in this area. Although moderate levels of leisure physical activity, such as walking, are associated with a substantially lower risk of hip fracture in postmenopausa l women [8], data from prospective observational fracture studies in men are inconsistent. Whereas some studies in men report significant reductions in risk with a high physical activity [9–12], others do not [13–17]. Lack of validation and the absence of regular assessment of physical activity during follow-up may be factors that explain these contradictory results. The analyses in the positive reports have involved few osteoporotic fractures, and no consistent dose-response pattern has been detected. In addition, only a few studies have taken possible confounding by poor health into account, and in none of the studies has it been considered that changes in physical activity and other lifestyle habits might have occurred during follow-up. Thus, it is uncertain whether, to what extent, and at what level physical activity influences the risk of osteoporotic fractures in men. This study therefore investigated the impact of physical activity on the risk of fracture in a population-based cohort of men followed over a 35-y period. EXPLANATION OF EXAMPLE In the first paragraph of this introduction we learned some general information about bone fractures. The second paragraph narrowed the discussion down to talk specifically about how exercise is related to bone fractures. The third paragraph tells us why the current study is so important. The final paragraph starts off with a literature review telling us what sorts of previous studies have been performed on this topic. The last sentence then gives us the purpose of the current study.  The numbers in brackets are citations for papers that would be listed at the end of the paper, in the References or Works Cited section. Hover your cursor over highlighted terms for the definition.

What information should be included in the Introduction of a lab report?  Which of these answers are correct?

a. The purpose of the study b. General information about the topic being investigated c. Specific details about how the study was done d. The conclusions you have made based on the results of your study e. A literature review that summarizes what is already known about the topic.

A, B, E The introduction should not include details about procedures, results, or conclusions. These will be included in later sections of the paper

Click on the question, to see the answer.

• << Previous: Lab Report Format
• Next: Materials and Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jan 13, 2022 10:50 AM
• URL: https://phoenixcollege.libguides.com/LabReportWriting

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: .

• 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.

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: 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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!

How to write a good literature review 

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 yo u 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 | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and 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 | Cite” 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 in 10,000+ styles 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.  

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 a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

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, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

• RMIT Australia
• RMIT Europe
• RMIT Vietnam
• RMIT Global
• RMIT Online
• Alumni & Giving

• What will I do?
• What will I need?
• Who will help me?
• About the institution
• New to university?
• Studying efficiently
• Time management
• Mind mapping
• Note-taking
• Reading skills
• Argument analysis
• Preparing for assessment
• Critical thinking and argument analysis
• Online learning skills
• Starting my first assignment
• Researching your assignment
• What is referencing?
• Understanding citations
• When referencing isn't needed
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Synthesising
• Integrating ideas with reporting words
• Referencing with Easy Cite
• Getting help with referencing
• Acting with academic integrity
• Artificial intelligence tools
• Understanding your audience
• Writing for coursework
• Literature review
• Academic style
• Writing for the workplace
• Spelling tips
• Writing paragraphs
• Writing sentences
• Academic word lists
• Annotated bibliographies
• Artist statement
• Case studies
• Creating effective poster presentations
• Essays, Reports, Reflective Writing
• Law assessments
• Oral presentations
• Reflective writing
• Art and design
• Critical thinking
• Maths and statistics
• Sustainability
• Educators' guide
• Learning Lab content in context
• Latest updates
• Students Alumni & Giving Staff Library

Learning Lab

Getting started at uni, study skills, referencing.

• When referencing isn't needed
• Integrating ideas

Writing and assessments

• Critical reading
• Poster presentations
• Postgraduate report writing

Subject areas

For educators.

• Educators' guide

Writing a literature review

This resource provides you with tips and guidelines for researching and writing a literature review.

What is a literature review?

In many university courses, students need to write literature reviews as part of their studies.

A literature review is:

• a review of writings, or literature, on a particular subject/topic
• a review of the most relevant, recent and scholarly work in the subject/topic area
• a piece of writing that supports, evaluates and critiques your research topic.

A literature review is not:

• a summary of articles, texts or journals; or
• an analytical, opinionative or argumentative essay.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• establish a theoretical framework for your topic/subject area
• define key terms, definitions and terminology
• identify studies, models, case studies, etc., supporting your topic
• define/establish your area of study, i.e. your research topic.

The three key points of a literature review are:

• what the research says (theory)
• how the research was carried out (methodology)
• what is missing, i.e. the gap that your research intends to fill.

The next step in planning your literature review is to read and research .

In this tutorial

• Read and research
• Common errors

Still can't find what you need?

The RMIT University Library provides study support , one-on-one consultations and peer mentoring to RMIT students.

• Facebook (opens in a new window)
• Twitter (opens in a new window)
• Instagram (opens in a new window)
• Linkedin (opens in a new window)
• YouTube (opens in a new window)
• Weibo (opens in a new window)
• Copyright © 2024 RMIT University |
• Accessibility |
• Learning Lab feedback |
• Complaints |
• ABN 49 781 030 034 |
• CRICOS provider number: 00122A |
• RTO Code: 3046 |
• Open Universities Australia

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• TemplateLab

Literature Review Templates

50 smart literature review templates (apa).

A literary review template is a type of written work that discusses published information about a specific subject matter. The length of the review doesn’t matter. It can be as simple as a summary of sources or can be as long as several pages. An outline for literature review can also evaluate these sources and advise to the readers regarding what’s relevant depending on certain conditions.

Table of Contents

• 1 Literature Review Templates
• 2 Why do you need a literature review template?
• 3 Literature Review Formats
• 4 Tips for creating a literature review template
• 5 Outlines For Literature Review
• 6 Compose the literature review
• 7 Strategies for composing your literature review template

Why do you need a literature review template?

A literary review template can serve as a guide about a specific topic. If you’re under time constraints to conduct more research, a literature review outline example can do you good as it provides you with an overview of what you intend to research on.

Even professionals of various fields rely on literary reviews to keep them updated in terms of what’s current in their fields. As for scholars, they can detect a writer’s credibility in a certain field by reading their literature review format. You can also use these works as a foundation for the investigation of a research paper.

Literature Review Formats

Tips for creating a literature review template

Literary review templates are surveys of scholarly sources on a specific subject matter. It gives a general summary of information relevant to a certain research problem or question. Here are the steps to follow when creating a literary review.

• Gather, assess, and choose the appropriate literature Before researching for literature for a review, you must have a topic that’s narrowly-defined. If you were to write a review for some research work or dissertation, you have to gather information related to the research problem or question. Having to understand the state of knowledge of your subject is the first step in creating your outline for literature review. Composing a literature review outline example for stand-alone research shouldn’t be that difficult. You only have to a good focus, then come up with a question that directs your search. This should be an answerable question without the need to generate or collect new data. Start the process by making a list of relevant keywords for the research topic in question. Based on the list, whenever you discover useful articles, check your list of references to find other relevant articles. During this process, you can identify any significant publications which didn’t show up when you performed a keyword search through recurring citations. It’s impossible for you to read all the available sources about a single topic. The best thing to do first is to read the abstract and determine if the articles are of any use. You have to do some evaluations on which of the sources are of value and relevant to the question. Also, make sure to only choose credible sources. Make it a point to read major theories and landmark studies in the field of your research. Logically, your scope of work depends upon the discipline and topic you have chosen. Make it a habit of writing down notes while you’re reading. Later on, you can incorporate these notes in your literature review format. Also, consider keeping track of the sources you have cited to avoid any consequential plagiarism cases. Making an annotated bibliography is a good suggestion. Include here a written paragraph for the summary and the analysis for each cited source. This can also be very helpful in reminding you about what you have read.
• Look for themes and connections When you start organizing a literature review format, you should identify the relationships between all of the sources that you have read. Based on what you have read and the notes you have taken, look for: Patterns and trends: Are there approaches which become less or more popular as time goes by? Themes: Identifying concepts or questions that repeat constantly across the different literature. Conflicts, contradictions, and debates: At what points do the sources disagree or agree? Pivotal publications: Identify any influential studies or theories which affected the direction of the field. Gaps: Try looking for answers for the following questions – What’s missing from the literature? Did you find any weaknesses that you need to address? The answers to these questions can help organize the structure of the literary review. If applicable, you can include how your research contributes to the existing knowledge.
• Plan the structure of your literature review template You can organize the whole body of your literary review through various approaches but at this point, you should already have an idea of the strategy you want to use even before writing your review. Depending on how long your review will be, you can use the following strategies: Chronological This is the simplest strategy where you map out the development of your topic over a period of time. If you use this approach, you should avoid merely listing or summarizing your sources chronologically. Make it a point to analyze the patterns, key events, and turning points that have influenced the direction of the field. If possible, give your own ideas about why and how certain developments came to happen. Thematic If you’ve discovered, in the course of your research, some recurring themes, you may organize your literary review into subsections which address the different parts of your topic. Methodology When you’re drawing your sources from various fields or disciplines which use different methods for research, you may end up with different conclusions and results. Perform analysis and try to compare these results that emerged from the different approaches. Theoretical In many cases, a literary review becomes the basis for theoretical frameworks. You may use this to talk about various definitions, theories, and models of important concepts. You may even argue about the significance of a theoretical approach or you can combine different theoretical ideas to come up with your own framework for research.

Outlines For Literature Review

Compose the literature review

The literary review isn’t any different in form from any other kind of academic texts as it also has the basic parts. What you included in each would depend upon your objective for writing the literature review:

• Introduction This part should clearly define the purpose and focus of the review. Dissertation: If you wrote the review as a part of a thesis or dissertation, you must reiterate the research question or central problem. Provide a short summary of the context as well. Stand-Alone: When writing this type of review, provide a short background regarding the topic along with its significance. Talk about the scope you plan to review along with your objective.
• Body If you have a lengthy review, it’s best to divide this part into sub-sections then come up with a subheading for each of them.
• Conclusion State in the conclusion, a summary of the key findings you have derived from the literature and emphasize their significance. Dissertation: Demonstrate how your research can address gaps and how it can contribute to gaining new knowledge. You can also discuss how you have used existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. Stand-Alone: Discuss the overall effects of the literature or make suggestions for future research based on those gaps you have identified in your review.

Strategies for composing your literature review template

Most people write literature review templates in the sciences although occasionally, some are in the Humanities. In many experiments and laboratory reports, literature reviews constitute a section of the document. At times, some people write the review as the paper itself. Here are some strategies that may prove helpful when tasked to write a literature review:

• Find your focus Although they can differ, a literary review is like a term paper as you would organize both around ideas, not the sources themselves. This means that writing a review is not merely about listing your sources and going into their details one at a time. You also have to consider the themes and issues that connect your sources together.
• Convey your message Literary reviews may not have the usual thesis statement but you still need to inform your readers what to expect. Writing a simple statement is enough to let your readers know what your main organizing principle is.
• Organize the information There are instances when you may need additional sections in your review which are necessary for the study but don’t fit into the body’s organizational strategy. This depends on which sections you want to include. Only put in those that are necessary. To help you out, here are some sections that you may want to include in your review: Current Situation: This refers to the information that’s necessary to easily understand the focus or topic of the review. History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that’s necessary to understand the literature review. Include this only if the body isn’t already arranged chronologically. Methods or Standards: What criteria did you use to choose the sources in your review or the manner in which you want to present the information. Questions for Further Research: Are there questions about your field of research the review had sparked? Based on the review, what steps can you take to advance your research?

More Templates

Binder Cover Templates

Graph Paper Templates

Cover Page Templates

All About Me Templates

Essay Outline Templates

Table of Contents Templates

• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2024

Palatal groove associated with periodontal lesions: a systematic review illustrated by a decisional tree for management

• Yvan Gaudex 1 , 2 ,
• Vianney Gandillot 1 , 2 , 7 ,
• Isabelle Fontanille 3 ,
• Philippe Bouchard 1 , 2 ,
• Stephane Kerner 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 &
• Maria Clotilde Carra 1 , 2 , 6  

BMC Oral Health volume  24 , Article number:  1037 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Palatal groove represents a relatively uncommon developmental root anomaly, usually found on the palatal aspect of maxillary incisors. While its origin is controversial, its presence predisposes to severe periodontal defects.

This study aimed to provide a systematic review of the literature focusing on the varied diagnostic techniques and treatment modalities for periodontal lesions arising from the presence of palatal groove. Based on the existing evidence and knowledge, the study also provides a comprehensive decisional tree, guiding clinicians in the challenging decision-making process face to a palatal groove.

The literature search was conducted on Medline and Cochrane databases by two independent reviewers, who also performed the screening and selection process, looking for English written articles reporting on diagnosis and management (all treatment approaches) of periodontal lesion(s) associated with a palatal groove. Based on this literature, a comprehensive decisional tree, including a standardized palatal groove evaluation and tailored treatment approaches, is proposed. Moreover, a clinical case is described to demonstrate the practical application of the developed decisional tree.

Over a total of 451 articles initially identified, 34 were selected, describing 40 patients with 40 periodontal lesions associated with palatal grooves. The case report illustrates a deep, large, circumferential intra-bony defect on the palatal side of the tooth #22 associated with a shallow, moderately long palatal groove in an 18-year-old male patient. Following reevaluation, a single flap surgery was deemed necessary, combined with a regenerative procedure. At 2 years post-treatment, the tooth #22 is healthy, in a functional and esthetic position. The decision-making process, based on local and systemic patient’s conditions, should allow an early and precise diagnosis to prevent further complications and undertake an adequate treatment.

Palatal grooves are relatively rare; however, they are frequently associated with severe periodontal defects. The identification, diagnosis, prompt, and tailored management of the associated lesion is essential to mitigate potential periodontal and endodontic complications related to the presence of palatal groove.

Systematic Review Registration

[ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ], identifier [C CRD42022363194].

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Palatal groove (PG) is defined as an anatomic anomaly characterized by the presence of a developmental groove on a dental root that, when present, is usually found on the palatal aspect of maxillary incisors [ 1 ]. Over the years, several terms have been used to describe this anomaly, including palatal or palate-gingival groove [ 2 , 3 ], developmental radicular anomaly [ 4 ], distolingual groove [ 5 ], radicular lingual groove [ 6 , 7 ], palatoradicular groove [ 8 , 9 ], radicular groove [ 10 ], and cinguloradicular groove [ 11 ].

The origin of the PG is controversial, but it is assumed to be related to the infolding of the enamel organ or Hertwig epithelial root sheath during the tooth development [ 12 ]. Additional hypogenetic root formation [ 13 , 14 ] as well as an altered genetic mechanism [ 15 ] have also been suggested.

PG is relatively rare. Everett et al. [ 5 ] reported a prevalence of PG on 2.8% of lateral incisors whereas Withers et al. [ 16 ] observed a PG on 2.3% of maxillary incisors (4.4% of maxillary laterals and 0.28% of maxillary centrals). Kogon et al. [ 8 ] examined 3168 extracted maxillary central and lateral incisors and found PG on 4.6% of them (3.4% of maxillary centrals and 5.6% of maxillary lateral incisors), with over half of the PG extending more than 5 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction leading to a localized periodontal lesion. The most recent study by Mazzi-Chevez et al. [ 17 ] observed 150 maxillary central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines with a micro-CT and found that PG affected 2% of central incisors and 4% of lateral incisors. In 100% of cases, the PG originated in the enamel.

As the term implies, PG is formed around the cingulum of the tooth and continues apically down from the cementoenamel junction, terminating at various depths and length along the root [ 18 ]. In contrast to maxillary bicuspids, incisors generally display a U-shaped groove.

This anatomic anomaly is frequently associated with a breakdown of the periodontal attachment involving the groove; a self-sustaining localized periodontal pocket can develop [ 4 ], where the PG itself provides a site for bacterial accumulation. The subsequent progressive inflammation along the PG and its apical portion may lead to periodontal and endodontic pathologic conditions [ 19 ]. Furthermore, there may be communication between the pulp canal system and the periodontium through the pulp cavity and/or accessory canals, which may also lead to combined endodontic-periodontal lesions [ 20 ]. According to the 2017 classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions [ 21 ], PG can be classified as a localized tooth-related factor that modifies or predisposes to plaque-induced gingival diseases/periodontitis [ 22 ], and can be associated with periodontal abscess in non-periodontitis patients.

The prognosis for teeth with PG extending apically is often poor [ 12 ], highlighting the critical need for prompt and accurate diagnosis to avert further periodontal and endodontic complications, ultimately preventing tooth extraction. This study is fundamentally motivated by the scarcity of consolidated guidelines for managing such complex dental conditions. Hence, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature, focusing on the diagnosis and management of periodontal lesions linked to PG. Based on this review, the goal was to develop a comprehensive decisional tree, thereby proposing a standardized treatment protocol to aid in the clinical decision-making. This study also includes a clinical case report to demonstrate the practical application of the developed decisional tree, reinforcing its clinical relevance and utility.

Material and methods

Development of the systematic review protocol.

A protocol covering all aspects of the systematic review methodology was developed before starting the review. The protocol included the definition of: a focused question; the literature search strategy; the study selection criteria; the outcome measures; the screening methods; the data extraction; and the data synthesis. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022363194).

Defining the focused question

The research question was formulated according to the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study) strategy, which identify the search and selection criteria as follows:

P: Patients with periodontal lesion(s) associated with a PG

I: PG identification (diagnosis) and management. All treatment approaches (non-surgical, surgical, with or without the adjunctive use of potentially regenerative materials, i.e. barrier membranes, grafting materials, growth factors/proteins and combinations thereof) were considered.

C: alternative treatment approach or no comparison.

O: periodontal parameters, including clinical attachment level (CAL, measure in mm), probing pocket depth (PPD, measured in mm), recession (REC, measured in mm), plaque index (PI, any validated clinical score), bleeding on probing (BOP) or other inflammatory indexes, radiographic bone loss.

S: Any type of human studies including case reports, with a minimum of 6 weeks follow-up after treatment. Only studies published in English were considered. Studies written in languages other than English, review articles, cell and/or animal studies, letters, editorials, conference summaries, commentaries, and studies considering PG with only an endodontic involvement or that used self-report assessment of treatment outcomes were not considered.

So, the focused question was formulated as follows: what is the efficacy of treatments for periodontal lesions associated with PG?

Search strategy

The literature was searched for articles published up to June 2022 on MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Multiple combinations of pertinent search terms were employed (Supplemental Table 1). The reference lists of the included studies were also evaluated in order to identify additional articles. To ensure its reproducibility, the PRISMA guidelines were followed [ 23 ], and the PRISMA flowchart was filled [ 24 ] (Fig.  1 ).

PRISMA flow diagram on the selection process of the studies included in the systematic review

Literature screening and data extraction

The titles and abstracts of the initially identified studies were screened by two independent reviewers (Y.G. and V.G.). Then, the pre-selected studies underwent a full text evaluation to assess the final inclusion or not. All records for which inclusion was obtained “uncertain” for on reviewer, disagreement was solved by discussion between authors. Whenever needed, the authors of the selected studies were contacted to provide missing data.

Study screening and selection was carried out by using the Rayyan online software [ 25 ], which assisted the reviewers in the different step of the literature review process. Duplicate references were removed automatically using Mendeley software. Data extraction was carried out on a dedicated excel spreadsheet. The risk of bias assessment was carried out by using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale [ 26 , 27 ].

The literature search resulted in 451 potentially relevant publications (Fig.  1 ). After the first selection step, based upon the title and abstract, 88 articles were pre-selected. After full-text evaluation, 34 articles were included and analyzed. All of them were case series and case reports. A total of 40 patients were described, of which 23 women (57.5%). The characteristics of the selected studies are presented in Table  1 . Their quality assessment is reported in Table  2 .

Qualitative synthesis of the literature

Among those 40 clinical cases, 12 cases report failed to provide a clinical description of the PG. Four studies described the PG depth alone, 17 studies described the PG length alone, and 7 studies provided a combined description of depth and length of the PG. From a periodontal point of view, the periodontal lesion morphology was correctly described (depth and width) in only 4 cases, 2 of which also reported the number of bony walls. Among the 22 cases reporting a diagnosis, 17 (77.3%) described combined endo-periodontal lesions, whereas 5 were purely periodontal lesions.

Endodontic involvement was present in 29 cases: 22 cases presented with a pulp necrosis, and 7 cases with an endodontic treatment. Pulp vitality was present in 10 cases and 1 case failed to report the endodontic status.

The endodontic treatment consisted in either a temporary filling (calcium hydroxide) later replaced by a definitive filling (gutta percha), or directly with a definitive filling (gutta percha) when indicated. Among those 29 endodontically treated teeth, 9 underwent an apicoectomy (using mineral trioxyde aggregate) at the surgical phase.

PG sealing was performed in 16 cases using mainly glass-ionomer cement but also mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), tricalcium silicate cement, composite flow and amalgam. In 5 cases, an extra-oral filling of the groove was performed before the tooth reimplantation. In all cases, radiculoplasty was performed either for groove removal when it was shallow or by saucerization to allow a proper filling when grooves were deep.

To treat the PG associated periodontal defect, several different intervention types were described, using: allogenic bone, xenogeneic bone, alloplastic materials, barriers, growth factors and biological factors (and combinations thereof). These surgical regenerative procedures were reported in 25 cases. Only 2 cases [ 3 , 40 ], justified the use of biomaterials and flap designs in relation to the analysis of the associated periodontal lesion after PG management.

All cases reported clinical healing except for 2 cases of failures following tooth reimplantation due to external root resorption leading to tooth removal after 36 months [ 33 ] and 2 failures after 6 months following a surgery without regeneration or root filling [ 29 ]. The case with the longest follow-up (324 months) indicated that following an endodontic treatment with a periodontal regeneration and an orthodontic treatment, a recurrent periodontal breakdown occurred 11 years, leading to tooth extraction and implant placement [ 35 ].

Case-report

We describe the case of an 18-year-old male patient referred to the periodontics department of the Rothschild Hospital (AP-HP) in Paris. Written informed consent was obtained for the publication of clinical data and images included in this article. The patient was experiencing pain due to the inflammation on the palatal side of tooth #22 with intermittent suppuration. The clinical examination revealed a central, shallow, and of moderate length (up to 70% of the root length) PG on the tooth #22, with a probing pocket depth of 12 mm on the palatal side associated with a tooth mobility 3 (Mühlemann 1951). The tooth responded positively to electrical test. At the radiographic evaluation, bone loss could be noted mesially and distally of #22 (Fig.  2 ).

Case report. Clinical and radiographical initial situation of the tooth #22 presenting with a palatal groove. The periodontal charting showed deep periodontal pockets on the palatal probing sites associated with bleeding and plaque accumulation

A slight bony bridge could be distinguished between #21 and #22 in the coronal portion. Thus, a localized periodontal defect due to the presence of subgingival PG was diagnosed.

The periodontal treatment first consisted in a non-surgical debridement performed in one session. Tooth splinting was performed from #21 to #23 to minimize mobility (Fig.  3 ).

Root planning and flattening of PG on tooth #22: initial occlusal view of #22 ( a ); Manual scaling 22 ( b ); flattening of PG 22 in the coronal part ( c )

At the re-evaluation 8 weeks later, the tooth presented no superficial inflammation, but a persistent periodontal pocket of 12 mm deep on the palatal side. Surgery was indicated due to the presence of a large, deep, 3-wall intra-bony defect around tooth #22 (Fig.  4 ).

Regenerative therapy: view at the periodontal re-evaluation, 2-months after the initial treatment ( a ); large and deep 3-walls intra-bony defect ( b ); application of EMD ( c ); application of DBBM (soft tissue support, osteoconductive) ( d ); sutures ( e ); radiographic image at the 2-month follow-up ( f )

A SFA (Single Flap Approach) was designed with a surgical access limited on the palatal side for esthetic reason and optimal visualization. A full periosteal flap was raised, and the granulation tissue was removed. The aberrant local anatomy was corrected up to the most apical part and a regenerative procedure combining enamel matrix derivates with a bone substitute was applied to avoid soft tissue shrinkage and collapse. Sutures with a non-resorbable monofilament 6/0 were made using U-crossed and single points. A postoperative radiograph was taken (Fig.  4 f). An antibiotic therapy with amoxicillin (1 g twice a day for 7 days) was administered. Paracetamol was prescribed as a painkiller and a mouthwash containing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate were prescribed for 2 weeks postoperatively. Healing was uneventful and sutures were removed 10 days postoperatively.

At the 6 months reevaluation, the periodontal pocket was no deeper than 4 mm on the palatal side with no bleeding on probing. A recession of 1 mm was observed. Radiographically, a mineralized tissue could be observed up to both bony peaks mesially and distally to #22 (Fig.  5 ).

Re-evaluation at 6 months ( a ); 18 months ( b ) and 30 months ( c )

At the 1-year follow-up, periodontal health was maintained and an orthodontic treatment was undertaken. After 2 years of treatment, tooth #22 is still healthy with a CAL gain of 7 mm, a functional and esthetic position resulting in the patient’s satisfaction. These results support that periodontal regeneration can be effectively carried out also for deep intra-bony defect associated with PG, once the local risk factor has been adequately managed.

The results of the present systematic review indicate that PG are relatively uncommon root anomaly, but they are frequently associated with periodontal lesion that require treatment. The selected studies showed that PG can be managed concomitantly with periodontal regeneration, with or without associated endodontic treatment. It must be noted that the presence of a PG may play a significant role in exacerbating periodontal lesions. This could be explained, at least partly, by the mediation role of inflammatory factors like the TGF-B1, which is involved in the regulation of the inflammatory response and in the remodeling of periodontal tissues, as highlighted by recent studies [ 58 , 59 ]. These findings necessitate a nuanced and well-defined diagnostic and therapeutic approach, which should consider not only on the anatomical challenges linked to the presence of a PG but also on the underlying inflammatory mechanisms, in order to ensure an effective treatment and prevent potential endodontic complications.

A variety of treatments approaches has been described in case reports and case series and summarized in the present review. The appreciation of the morphology and origin of PG on maxillary incisors may be challenging and thus delay the diagnosis and treatment planning. Therefore, developing a standardized approach based on the available literature is advisable.

A PG can be classified according to its location, length along the root, and depth of the groove towards the pulp cavity [ 60 ]. The analysis of the associated periodontal lesion is also a key parameter to consider. Based on the work of Kim et al. [ 60 ], a simplified version including the groove description and the periodontal parameters has been suggested. Such a classification (Table  3 ) would provide the clinician with precise criteria to justify the therapeutic approach.

Groove location was disregarded in most cases, only one case [ 40 ] reported a distal location of the PG. It can be explained by the fact that this parameter will not affect the prognosis or the treatment sequence. In the latest study done on extracted teeth, PG appeared to originate in the distal area of the cingulum margin in most cases (65%), followed by the central fossa (25%), and the mesial area of the cingulum margin (10%) [ 61 ].

In terms of depth, only 7 cases reported a shallow PG (50%) and 7 cases reported a deep PG (50%) and no closed tube has been described. This finding is in accordance with Kogon’s study [ 8 ] where 44% percent of the PG were described as shallow depressions, 42% as deep depressions, and 4% as closed tubes.

Considering the groove length, 4 cases reported an extension in the cervical third of the groove (17%), 6 in the middle third (25%) and 14 cases in the apical third (58%). According to Pinheiro’s study [ 61 ], those grooves extended rarely only to the cervical third (5%), followed by the middle thirds (45%) and the apical thirds of the root in most cases (50%). It is of paramount importance for clinicians to understand the combination of both variations of groove depth along with their length to adapt an adequate treatment considering the fact that PG with deeper grooves and greater degree of extension are the determinants and predictors of poor prognosis periodontally and endodontically wise [ 5 , 31 , 42 ].

Considering the groove description in the selected studies, most of them failed to adequately report it. Only 7 of the 40 cases described the depth and length of the PG. This lack of analysis might result in an inadequate treatment highlighting the need for a classification.

Considering the periodontal approach of the associated intra-bony defect, the selection of the regenerative biologic principle (or material) to use with the soft tissue surgical approach dependeds on the morphology of the intra- bony defect (width, depth, and number of residual bony walls) and on the amount (and quality) of the soft tissues available to cover it [ 62 ]. As a general rule, deep and wide defects with only one residual bony wall require a mechanical stabilizer of the blood coagulum (membrane and/or bone filler), whereas in defects with lower defect angles and a greater number of bony walls, biologic mediators of the healing process (e.g. enamel matrix derivates) are indicated [ 62 ]. In the present study, only 2 cases [ 3 , 40 ] succeeded in justifying the use of their regenerative procedure based on the description and analysis of the associated intra-bony lesion. As for PG anatomy, this lack of description of the associated periodontal lesion morphology could mislead the diagnosis and result in a non-optimal treatment. The PG issue had mostly been a concern for endodontist based on those case reports coming from endodontic journals, which might explain the few periodontal parameters reported and the lack of a clear description of the intra-bony defect associated to justify the different management of the periodontal defect. Moreover, the selected case reports do not cover all potentially applicable regenerative techniques, which continue to evolve [ 63 , 64 , 65 ] and should be further investigated in the particular context, from the microbiological and inflammatory perspectives, of PG-associate lesions.

Based on the presented literature review and in order to guide clinicians towards a comprehensive and complete evaluation of PG associated lesion, we suggested a decisional tree (Fig.  6 ) that introduces the periodontal parameter in the PG assessment, after evaluating the endodontic status. Indeed, the successful management of a tooth with a PG is firstly dependent on endodontic status, which should be systematically assessed. In cases of negative pulp response and periapical lesions, an endodontic treatment has to be undertaken in the first place [ 66 ]. But, the periodontal evaluation is also cardinal to obtain a successful and long-lasting management of PG.

Decisional tree. This graph proposes a decision-making process for the management of PG-associated lesions that takes into account the endodontic status, the characteristics of the palatal groove, and the presence of intra-bony defect

The recognition and management of PG for tooth survival has been reported in details in a study done by Kim et al. [ 60 ] in 2017. In the rest of the considered literature, half of the treatments described were made without a clear initial diagnosis or proper description of the associated lesions to justify the type of regenerative strategy and flap design approached. Another interesting observation made in this review is that in the case of intentional replantation, among the 5 reported cases, 2 resulted in a failure necessitating the tooth removal [ 33 ]. This suggests that replantation strategy should be used as a the latest resort for complex cases involving a PG to the apex with a deep groove.

It must be acknowledged that the available literature and thus the present systematic review present several limitations. Firstly, as mentioned above, there is a lack of standardization in the diagnostic and treatment processes, with a high heterogeneity among the selected articles, most of the times case reports or case series. Secondly, the follow-up time was mostly set between 6 and 24 months, which may be too short to assess treatment outcomes or observed complications and relapse. Indeed, after a 36 months follow-up, failures have been reported [ 33 ] and after 10 years, a periodontal breakdown occurred on a treated tooth [ 35 ] and both resulted in the tooth removal. No re-entry surgery and/or histologic evaluations were described and no prospective longitudinal studies evaluating the stability of the clinical and radiographic parameters and the absence of the recurrence of disease were found. Thus, any conclusion about the success achieved with the treatments described in the present review should be drawn with caution as the long-term prognosis of the treatment of PG-associated lesions of teeth remains to be determined. Updates of case series and case reports that could describe results after 5, 10 and 15 years from the initial PG diagnosis are advocated. Finally, the level of the body of evidence on PG is considered as low. Although the nature of PG as rare condition may explain why mainly case reports or case series are published, future clinical and comparative studies should be designed to investigate PG management and treatment success at long term. Nonetheless, based on the currently available literature, a decisional tree (Fig.  6 ) has been proposed to guide clinicians and create a reference for PG management to respond to a patient’s health condition. This should be periodontally updated as new evidence emerges but in the meantime, it can be useful to provide a clinical guidance as well as a model for the standardization of the diagnostic and treatment processes in clinical cases dealing with PG management.

Teeth with PG represent a challenge for clinicians. Despite their rarity (2% of maxillary lateral incisors), the complexities associated with PG, such as diverse anatomical features and clinical scenarios, underscore the necessity for accurate diagnosis and tailored treatment approaches. This study provides a systematic review of pertinent literature, consisting mainly in case reports, and culminates in the proposal of a decision tree, which aims to assist clinicians in the decision-making process through a structured evaluation of the PG characteristics guiding the treatment approach. The ultimate goal is to mitigate potential periodontal and endodontic complications of PG while providing a successful management. In parallel, the present study highlights the need of future research on this topic, particularly with clinical studies with a sufficiently long follow-up to monitor the treatment outcomes and their stability over time. Indeed, further evidence is needed to develop standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols for PG.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Glossary of Endodontic Terms. American Association of Endodontics. 10th ed. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Bacic M, Karakas Z, Kaiét Z, Sutalot J. The association between palatal grooves in upper incisors and periodontal complications. J Periodontol. 1990;2:197–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Schwartz SA, Koch MA, Deas DE, Powell CA. Combined endodontic-periodontic treatment of a palatal Groove : a case report. J Endod. 2006;32(6):573–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Simon J. Predictable endodontic and periodontic failures as a result of radicular anomalies. J Oral Maxillofac Surger Oral Surg. 1971;42:823–6.

Everett FG. The Disto-lingual Groove in the Maxillary Lateral Incisor; a periodontal hazard. A Periodontal Hazard J Periodontol. 1972;43(6):352–61.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

August D. The radicular lingual groove: an overlooked differential diagnosis. J Am Dent Assoc. 1978;96:1037–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Meister F. Successful treatment of a radicular lingual groove: case report. J Endod. 1983;9:561–4.

Kogon S. The prevalence, location and conformation of palato- radicular Grooves in Maxillary Incisors*. J Periodontol. 1985;57:231–4.

Hou GL. Relationship between palato-radicular grooves and localized periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1993;20:678–82.

Pécora J. Study of the incidence of radicular grooves in maxillary incisors. Braz Dent J. 1992;3:11–6.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Assaf M. The cingulo-radicular groove: its significance and management: two case reports. Compendium. 1992;13:94–8.

Gound TG MGI. Treatment options for the radicular lingual groove: a review and discussion. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1998;10:369–75.

Ennes JP, Lara VS. Comparative morphological analysis of the root developmental groove with the palato-gingival groove. Oral Dis. 2004;10:378–82.

Goon WWY, Carpenter WM, Brace NM, Ahlfeld RJ. Complex facial radicular Groove in a maxillary lateral incisor. J Endod. 1991;17(5):244–8.

Mittal M, Vashisth P, Arora R, Dwivedi S. Combined endodontic therapy and periapical surgery with MTA and bone graft in treating palatogingival groove. BMJ Case Rep. 2013:1–4.

Withers JA, Brunsvold MA, William J, Rahe AJ. The relationship of palato-gingival grooves localized periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 1981;52(1):41–4.

Mazzi-chaves JF. Influence of anatomical features in the endodontic treatment planning of maxillary anterior teeth. Braz Dent J. 2022;36:1–15.

Lee KW. Palato-gingival grooves in maxillary incisors. A possible predisposing factor to localised periodontal disease. Br Dent J. 1968;124:14–8.

Sharma S. Palatogingival groove : recognizing and managing the hidden tract in a maxillary incisor : A case report. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(6):110–4.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gao Z, Shi J, Wang Y, Gu F. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of maxillary lateral incisors with a radicular lingual groove. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1989;68:462–6.

Herrera D, Alonso B, Feres M. Acute periodontal lesions ( periodontal abscesses and necrotizing periodontal diseases ) and endo-periodontal lesions. J Periodontol. 2017;89(1):85–102.

Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM, Bissada NF, Bouchard P, Cortellini P, et al. Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(1):S237–48.

Page MJ, Mckenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann C, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ. 2021;372(71):1–9.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. 2015. p. 1–9.

Ouzzani M. Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2017;5:1–10.

Munn A, et al. introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2127–33.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021;19:3–10.

Hungund S, Kumar M. Palato-radicular groove and localized periodontitis : a series of case reports. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2010;11(5):1–8.

Mayne JR, Martini IG. The palatal radicular groove. Two case reports. Aust Dent J. 1990;35(3):277–81.

Corbella S, Alberti A, Zotti B, Francetti L. Case report periodontal regenerative treatment of intrabony defects associated with palatal grooves : a report of two cases. Case Rep Dent. 2019;2019:1–7.

Cho YD, Lee JE, Chung Y, Lee WC, Seol YJ, Lee YM. Collaborative management of combined periodontal-endodontic lesions with a palatogingival groove: a case series. J Endod. 2017;43(2):332–7.

Karunakaran JV, Fenn SM, Jayaprakash N, Ragavendran N. Successful surgical management of palatogingival groove using platelet-rich fibrin and guided tissue regeneration: a novel approach. J Pharm Bioall Sci. 2017;9:268–73.

Han B, Liu YY, Liu KN, Gao M, Wang ZH, Wang XY. Is intentional replantation appropriate for treatment of extensive endodontic-periodontal lesions related to palatogingival groove? Chin J Dent Res. 2020;23(3):205–14.

Hans M. Management of lateral incisor with palatal radicular groove. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21(2):306–8.

Mathews D. Interdisciplinary management of a maxillary central incisor with a palato-radicular groove: a case report with 27 years follow-up. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33:1077–83.

Kishan KV. Management of palato radicular groove in a. J Nat Sci. 2014;5(1):178–81.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Friedman S. The radicular palatal groove - a therapeutic modality. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1988;4:282–6.

Sooratgar A, Tabrizizade M, Nourelahi M, Asadi Y, Sooratgar H. Management of an endodontic-periodontal lesion in a maxillary lateral incisor with palatal radicular groove: a case report. Iran Endod J. 2016;11(2):142–5.

Schäfer E. Malformations in maxillary incisors : case report of radicular palatal groove. Endod Dent Traumatol. 2000;16:132–7.

Zucchelli G, Mele M, Checchi L. The Papilla Amplification Flap for the treatment of a localized periodontal defect associated with a palatal groove. J Periodontol. 2006;77(10):1788–96.

Rankow HJ, Krasner PR. Endodontic applications of guided tissue regeneration in endodontic surgery. J Endod. 1996;22(1):34–43.

Castelo-Baz P, Ramos-Barbosa I, Bel A. Combined endodontic-periodontal treatment of a palatogingival groove. J Endod. 2015;41(11):1918–22.

Hasan A, Ali J. Combined endodontic and surgical management of twin rooted maxillary lateral incisor with a palatogingival groove. Iran Endod J. 2018;13(3):413–9.

Garrido I. Combined endodontic therapy and intentional replantation for the treatment of palatogingival groove. J Endod. 2016;42(2):324–8.

Sucheta A. Treatment of an intrabony osseous lesion associated with a palatoradicular groove. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3:260–3.

Ferreira ZA, Pilatti ML. Treatment of a palatal groove-related periodontal bone defect. Quintessence Int. 2000;31(5):342–5.

Andreana S. A combined approach for treatment of developmental groove associated periodontal defect. A Case Report*. J Periodontol. 1998;69:601–7.

Al-hezaimi K, Frcd C, Naghshbandi J. Successful treatment of a radicular groove by intentional replantation and Emdogain therapy : four years follow-up. YMOE. 2009;107(3):e82–5.

Forero-López J, Gamboa-Martínez L, Pico-Porras L, Niño-Barrera JL. Surgical management with intentional replantation on a tooth with palato-radicular groove. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;7658:166–71.

Guruprasad CN, Pradeep AR, Agarwal E. Use of platelet-rich plasma combined with hydroxyapatite in the management of a periodontal endosseous defect associated with a palato-radicular groove : a case report. Clin Adv Periodontics. 2012;2(1):28–33.

Jeng JH, Lu HKJ. Treatment of an osseous lesion associated with a severe palato- radicular groove : a case report. J Periodontol. 1992;63:708–12.

Kerezoudis NP, Siskos GJ, Tsatsas V. Bilateral buccal radicular groove in maxillary incisors: case report. Int Endod J. 2003;36:898–906.

Kozlovsky A. Facial radicular groove in maxillary central incisor: a case report. J Periodontol. 1988;46:615–22.

Ling DH, Shi WP, Wang YH, Lai DP, Zhang YZ. Management of the palato-radicular groove with a periodontal regenerative procedure and prosthodontic treatment: a case report. World J Clin Cases. 2022;10(17):5732–41.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Narmatha V. The complex radicular groove: interdisciplinary management with mineral trioxide aggregate and bone substitute. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014;15(6):792–6.

Wei PC, Geivelis M, Chan CP, Ju YR. Successful treatment of pulpal-periodontal combined lesion in a birooted maxillary lateral incisor with concomitant palato-radicular groove. J Periodontol. 1999;70(12):1540–6.

Gandhi A. Endodontic-periodontal management of a maxillary lateral incisor with an associated radicular lingual groove and severe periapical osseous destruction - a case report. J Ir Dent Assoc. 2012;58(2):95–100.

Ramadan DE, Hariyani N, Indrawati R, Ridwan RD, Diyatri I. Cytokines and chemokines in periodontitis. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(3):483–95.

Xu Y, Qiu J, Sun Q, Yan S, Wang W, Yang P, et al. One-year results evaluating the effects of concentrated growth factors on the healing of intrabony defects treated with or without bone substitute in chronic periodontitis. Med Sci Monit. 2019;12(25):4384–9.

Kim HJ, Choi Y, Yu K, Lee W, Min KS. Recognition and management of palatogingival groove for tooth survival: a literature review. Restor Dent Endod. 2017;42(2):77–86.

Pinheiro TN, Consolaro A, Cintra LTA, Azuma MM, Benetti F, Silva CC. Palatogingival groove and root canal instrumentation. Int Endod J. 2020;53:660–70.

Cortellini P. Clinical concepts for regenerative therapy in intrabony defects. Periodontol. 2000;2015(68):282–307.

Bhati A, Fageeh H, Ibraheem W, Fageeh H, Chopra H, Panda S. Role of hyaluronic acid in periodontal therapy (Review). Biomed Rep. 2022;17(5):91.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wulandari P, Amalia M, Budi, Simanjuntak R, Satria D. Hyaluronic acid and its role in periodontal healing: Asam Hialuronat dan Peranannya Dalam Penyembuhan Periodontal. Dentika Dental J. 2022;25(1):22–7.

El-Bana AM, El-Shinnawi UM, Attia IM. The effect of hyaluronic acid in combination With β- tri-calcium phosphate in regeneration of periodontal vertical bone defect in periodontitis patients. Mansoura J Dent. 2020;7(27):80–7.

Attam K, Tiwary R, Talwar S, Lamba AK. Palatogingival groove : endodontic-periodontal. J Endod. 2010;36(10):1717–20.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Service of Odontology, Rothschild Hospital (AP-HP), 5 Rue Santerre, Paris, 75012, France

Yvan Gaudex, Vianney Gandillot, Philippe Bouchard, Stephane Kerner & Maria Clotilde Carra

Department of Periodontology, UFR of Odontology, Université Paris Cité, 5 Rue Garanciere, Paris, 75006, France

Service of Odontology, CH Eure Seine Hospital, Evreux, France

Isabelle Fontanille

Cordeliers Research Centre, Laboratory of Molecular Oral Physiopathology, Paris, France

Stephane Kerner

Department of Periodontology, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA, USA

INSERM- Sorbonne Paris Cité Epidemiology and Statistics Research Centre, Paris, France

Maria Clotilde Carra

Institution Nationale Des Invalides, Paris, France

Vianney Gandillot

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.G. and V.G. drafted the manuscript text, and were involved in the literature review, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation. Y.G. and V.G. prepared Tables 1 and 2 . Y.G., P.B. and I.F. Contributed the case report and Figs.  2 , 3 , 4 and 5 M.C.C and S.K. prepared Table  3 and Fig.  6 . M.C.C., P.B. and S.K revised the draft of the manuscript and contributed to the general criticism. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Maria Clotilde Carra .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gaudex, Y., Gandillot, V., Fontanille, I. et al. Palatal groove associated with periodontal lesions: a systematic review illustrated by a decisional tree for management. BMC Oral Health 24 , 1037 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04771-z

Download citation

Received : 20 August 2023

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04771-z

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

• Palatal groove
• Palatal radicular groove
• Tooth developmental anomaly
• Periodontal lesion
• Decisional tree

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Advertisement

Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax during chemotherapy with bevacizumab for cervical cancer: a case report and literature review

• Case Report - Complication
• Published: 05 September 2024

Cite this article

• Shogo Nishino   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9493-7176 1 ,
• Mayu Yunokawa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-6977 1 , 2 ,
• Yosuke Matsuura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3054-6760 3 ,
• Atsushi Fusegi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6044-2781 1 ,
• Satoki Misaka   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-1149-9204 1 ,
• Yoichi Aoki   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0481-9892 1 ,
• Akiko Abe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0241-1319 1 ,
• Makiko Omi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1894-1864 1 &
• Hiroyuki Kanao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1372-6145 1  

Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) due to bevacizumab has been reported in other malignancies but not in cervical cancer. We present the case of a 57-year-old woman with stage IIIB cervical cancer who developed SSP during bevacizumab chemotherapy. Despite complete remission with cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy, she experienced a recurrence 9 months later. A thoracoscopic surgery was performed to remove a lung nodule and bulla. Subsequently, local cervical lesion recurrence and lung metastases were noted, and paclitaxel and carboplatin combined with bevacizumab were administered. After two cycles, a grade-1 left pneumothorax occurred, attributed to bevacizumab-induced tissue fragility. The patient improved within 7 days with conservative management. Bevacizumab was discontinued, and pneumothorax did not recur. This case highlights the rare occurrence of SSP in patients with cervical cancer treated with bevacizumab and underscores the importance of appropriate management of such patients, especially those who have undergone early thoracic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Spontaneous pneumothorax associated with cavitating pulmonary metastasis from breast cancer: a case report and literature review

Spontaneous pneumothorax in metastatic osteosarcoma: a case series

Small cell lung carcinoma presenting initially with recurrent pneumothoraces: a case report

Data availability.

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Shibuya M (2011) Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR) signaling in angiogenesis: a crucial target for anti- and pro-angiogenic therapies. Genes Cancer 2:1097–1105

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yang SH, Lin JK, Chen WS et al (2011) Pneumothorax after bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy: a case report. Jpn J Clin Oncol 41:269–271

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Makino T, Kudo S, Ogata T (2014) Pneumothorax after treatment with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy for breast cancer—a case report. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 41:233–235

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Koh H, Kamiishi N, Kimura Y, et al (2013) A rare case of persistent pneumothorax in non-small cell lung cancer on bevacizumab therapy. J Pulm Respir Med 26

Iida T, Yabana T, Nakagaki S et al (2016) A rupture of a lung metastatic lesion of colon cancer, leading to pneumothorax caused by bevacizumab. Intern Med 55:3125–3129

Ozaki Y, Yoshimura A, Sawaki M et al (2020) Mechanisms and anatomical risk factors of pneumothorax after bevacizumab use: a case report. World J Clin Oncol 11:504–509

Alrifai T, Saba R, Rifai D et al (2019) Pneumothorax following combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab: a case report and review of the literature. Mol Clin Oncol 11:173–176

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhang Y, Yang H, Zhao M et al (2012) Bilateral pneumothorax after bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy in fibrosarcoma. J Thorac Dis 4:229–231

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Matsuura Y, Ninomiya H, Ichinose J et al (2020) Pathogenesis of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax complicating osteosarcoma. Ann Thorac Surg 110:e81–e83

Kawatani N, Yajima T, Shimizu K et al (2023) Risk factors for late-onset pulmonary fistula after pulmonary segmentectomy. J Thorac Dis 15:1009–1017

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage ( www.editage.jp ) for English language editing.

This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation of Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

Shogo Nishino, Mayu Yunokawa, Atsushi Fusegi, Satoki Misaka, Yoichi Aoki, Akiko Abe, Makiko Omi & Hiroyuki Kanao

Department of Medical Oncology, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation of Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

Mayu Yunokawa

Department of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation of Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

Yosuke Matsuura

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Shogo Nishino, Mayu Yunokawa; Formal Analysis: Shogo Nishino; Investigation: Shogo Nishino, Mayu Yunokawa, Satoki Misaka; Methodology: Mayu Yunokawa, Atsushi Fusegi; Project administration: Mayu Yunokawa; Supervision: Hiroyuki Kanao; Writing-original draft: Shogo Nishino; Writing-review&editing: Mayu Yunokawa, Yosuke Matsuura, Atsushi Fusegi, Yoichi Aoki, Akiko Abe, Makiko Omi, Hiroyuki Kanao.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mayu Yunokawa .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This case report did not require review by the relevant Ethics Committees.

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of this case report and accompanying images.

Mayu Yunokawa.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

About this article

Nishino, S., Yunokawa, M., Matsuura, Y. et al. Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax during chemotherapy with bevacizumab for cervical cancer: a case report and literature review. Int Canc Conf J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13691-024-00696-0

Download citation

Received : 18 March 2024

Accepted : 19 June 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13691-024-00696-0

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

• Bevacizumab
• Cervical cancer
• Lung metastases
• Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
• Thoracic surgery
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research