example of introduction in a literature review

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

When you need an introduction for a literature review

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

What to include in a literature review introduction

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

Examples of literature review introductions

Example 1: an effective introduction for an academic literature review paper.

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

Phd thesis literature review chapter introduction, phd thesis literature review introduction.

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Steps to write your own literature review introduction

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, minor revisions: sample peer review comments and examples, sample emails to your thesis supervisor, co-authorship guidelines to successfully co-author a scientific paper, how to select a journal for publication as a phd student.

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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.

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

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 July 30, 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”

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

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.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• 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 sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

 CREATE ACCOUNT  LOG IN

Writing: Literature Review Basics

• What is Synthesis?
• Organizing Your Research
• Paraphrasing, Summary, or Direct Quotation?
• Introductions
• Conclusions
• All Writing Guides: Home
• CORE Library Home

The Most Important Thing

The best time to write an introduction is AFTER you write the body of your paper.

Well, how do you know what to introduce until after you've figured out what you want to say?

The best time to write an introduction is as one of the last things you do.

Basic Introduction Template

For any other sort of scholarly writing, the following basic structure works well for an introduction:

• What has been said or done on this topic?  
• What is the problem with what has been said or done?
• What will you offer to solve the problem?  (The answer to this is your thesis statement.)
• How does your solution address necessary change?

Writing an Introduction

The job of an introduction is to preview what you are going to say so the audience knows what is coming.  A good introduction starts out generally and works towards a specific statement of what you intend to discuss in your writing. 

The introduction explains the focus and establishes the importance of the subject. It discusses what kind of work has been done on the topic and identifies any controversies within the field or any recent research which has raised questions about earlier assumptions. It may provide background or history, and it indicates why the topic is important, interesting, problematic, or relevant in some way.  It concludes with a purpose or thesis statement. In a stand-alone literature review, this statement will sum up and evaluate the state of the art in this field of research; in a review that is an introduction or preparatory to a larger work, such as the Culminating Project, it will suggest how the review findings will lead to the research the writer proposes to undertake.

In a literature review, an introduction may contain the following:

• A concise definition of a topic under consideration (this may be a descriptive or argumentative thesis, or proposal), as well as the scope of the related literature being investigated. (Example: If the topic under consideration is ‘women’s wartime diaries’, the scope of the review may be limited to published or unpublished works, works in English, works from a particular location, time period, or conflict, etc.)  
• The introduction should also note what topics are being included and what are intentional exclusions. (Example: “This review will not explore the diaries of adolescent girls.”)
• A final sentence should signal the list of key topics that will be used to discuss the selected sources.

Many theories have been proposed to explain what motivates human behavior. Although the literature covers a wide variety of such theories, this review will focus on five major themes which emerge repeatedly throughout the literature reviewed. These themes are incorporation of the self-concept into traditional theories of motivation, the influence of rewards on motivation, the increasing importance of internal forces of motivation, autonomy and self-control as sources of motivation, and narcissism as an essential component of motivation. Although the literature presents these themes in a variety of contexts, this paper will primarily focus on their application to self-motivation.

Let's break that apart.

• << Previous: Paraphrasing, Summary, or Direct Quotation?
• Next: Conclusions >>
• Last Updated: Feb 12, 2024 9:02 AM
• URL: https://azhin.org/cummings/basiclitreview

© 2015 - 2024

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Literature Review Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Literature Review Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction . We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template . This includes:

• The literature review opening/ introduction section
• The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory)
• The empirical research
• The research gap
• The closing section

We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master’s-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can access the free resources mentioned in this video below.

PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Literature review example: frequently asked questions, is the sample literature review real.

Yes. The literature review example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. It has not been edited in any way.

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every literature review will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a literature review here .

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

The best place to find more examples of literature review chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance. 

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point. 

How do I get the literature review template?

You can access our free literature review chapter template here .

Is the template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish. 

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

What will it take for you to guide me in my Ph.D research work?

Thank you so much for all this information. I am unable to download the literature review template and the excel worksheet. When I click the button it takes me to the top of the page. I would really love to use this template, thank you again!

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., apa format: basic guide for researchers, how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing....

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

• Writing well

How to write a literature review

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write a critique
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Structure of a literature review

Determine your purpose.

Work out what you need to address in the literature review. What are you being asked to do in your literature review? What are you searching the literature to discover? Check your assignment question and your criteria sheet to know what to focus on.

Do an extensive search of the literature

Find out what has been written on the topic.

What kind of literature?

Select appropriate source material: Use a variety of academic or scholarly sources that are relevant, current and authoritative. An extensive review of relevant material will include — books, journal articles, reports, government documents, conference proceedings and web resources. The Library would be the best place to search for your sources.

How many resources?

The number of sources that you will be required to review will depend on what the literature review is for and how advanced you are in your studies. It could be from five sources at first year undergraduate level to more than fifty for a thesis. Your lecturer will advise you on these details.

Note the bibliographical details of your sources

Keep a note of the publication title, date, authors’ names, page numbers and publishers. These details will save you time later.

Read the literature

• Critically read each source, look for the arguments presented rather than for facts.
• Take notes as you read and start to organise your review around themes and ideas.
• Consider using a table, matrix or concept map to identify how the different sources relate to each other.

Analyse the literature you have found

In order for your writing to reflect strong critical analysis, you need to evaluate the sources. For each source you are reviewing ask yourself these questions:

• What are the key terms and concepts?
• How relevant is this article to my specific topic?
• What are the major relationships, trends and patterns?
• How has the author structured the arguments?
• How authoritative and credible is this source?
• What are the differences and similarities between the sources?
• Are there any gaps in the literature that require further study?

Write the review

• Start by writing your thesis statement. This is an important introductory sentence that will tell your reader what the topic is and the overall perspective or argument you will be presenting.
• Like essays, a literature review must have an introduction, a body and a conclusion.

Introduction

Your introduction should give an outline of:

• why you are writing a review, and why the topic is important
• the scope of the review — what aspects of the topic will be discussed
• the criteria used for your literature selection (e.g. type of sources used, date range)
• the organisational pattern of the review.

Body paragraphs

Each body paragraph should deal with a different theme that is relevant to your topic. You will need to synthesise several of your reviewed readings into each paragraph, so that there is a clear connection between the various sources. You will need to critically analyse each source for how they contribute to the themes you are researching.

The body could include paragraphs on:

• historical background
• methodologies
• previous studies on the topic
• mainstream versus alternative viewpoints
• principal questions being asked
• general conclusions that are being drawn.

Your conclusion should give a summary of:

• the main agreements and disagreements in the literature
• any gaps or areas for further research
• your overall perspective on the topic.
• outlined the purpose and scope?
• identified appropriate and credible (academic/scholarly) literature?
• recorded the bibliographical details of the sources?
• analysed and critiqued your readings?
• identified gaps in the literature and research?
• explored methodologies / theories / hypotheses / models?
• discussed the varying viewpoints?
• written an introduction, body and conclusion?
• checked punctuation and spelling?

Further information

• HiQ: Managing weekly readings
• HiQ: Notetaking
• HiQ: Structuring your assignment
• RMIT University: Literature review - Overview

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Search strategies and Databases
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• How to organise the review
• Library summary

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: Search strategies and Databases
• Next: Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Aug 1, 2024 4:46 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

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.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Covid 19 - Lockdown, let out your PhD indagation with our Expert

• Live Support
• Quick Query
• [email protected]

Literature Review Introduction Sample

How to Write Literature Review Introduction Sample

Table of contents, literature review (lr) introduction: revelation of concept, sample text 1, conceptual framework, declaration on lr type, sample text 2, follow referencing style, in-text referencing for lr introduction, sample text 3.

Notes- Footnotes & Endnotes

Sample Text 4

• MLA Style (8th edition)

Sample Text 5

The Literature Review (LR) is an integral part of an in-depth research process, which involves critically scrutinized content attained from former research works and empirical reports. In a research paper , the LR is meant to address the identified issue and gain adequate knowledge to resolve it. However, since every research is unique in its way, soon the researcher discovers that the former research works are inadequate or limited in meeting the current research objectives. In this way, the LR brings forth the research gaps, which leads to further research process at the researcher’s end. 

It is important to note here that the Literature Review format may differ from one University to another. However, the process of analysis and declarations remain universal. For the formatting and the inclusion list always check the University module.

In this article, we will focus on understanding the relevance and content to be established in the Introduction part of the Literature Review.

On a standard basis, the structure of the Literature Review is meant to offer three sections – Introduction, Body, and the Conclusion. In the case of Introduction, the researcher must offer detailed information about the context and the intellectual narration about the topic. Historical contexts and the developmental process of the concern need to be summed up in this section. The researcher should declare the theories and the relevance of the theories to the research in a very comprehensive manner. While elaborating the relevance of the selected theories the key writers and philosophers should be introduced in the Introduction section of the LR. 

It is highly recommended that the researcher considers the inclusion of the Conceptual Framework in the LR Introduction. The objective behind the inclusion of the Conceptual Framework is to develop an in-depth thinking process and thereby understand the complexity of the identified issue of the research. This framework acts as a roadmap while constructing the Body and Conclusion or the Research Gaps. The conceptual framework as prescribed in Figure 1 should be considered while answering the specified questions one-by-one:

Figure 1: Map to Construct the Conceptual Framework

The Literature Review Introduction can vary as per the type of review process considered by the researcher. Following the selected topic and the availability of secondary sources the LR can be:

• A narrative or argumentative type,
• A systematic review type with either of meta-synthesis or meta-analysis approach, or
• A theoretical or integrative review type.

For all these types, it is necessary that the Literature Review Introduction makes clear declarations about the selection process and justify the selection of the type in the most intellectually logical manner.

If you select the narrative approach to review the collected literature, then mention it in the first few lines. You need to state that you will summarise the content of the selected literature and will derive the research gaps.

Alternatively, your literature review can be argumentative in approach. In this case, the Literature Review Introduction must declare the process of examining the biases and ways to identify the shortcomings of the selected literature.

In case, you select a systematic review of very narrowly selected literature; make sure that you identify the right process. Since systematic literature review can be shaped as meta-analysis or as meta-synthesis, the LR Introduction must clarify the approach. Mention how you follow statistical procedures to meet the meta-analysis approach and undergo a deductive process under quantitative methodology. For the meta-synthesis approach, give a clear idea about the non-statistical techniques under qualitative methodology.

For the theoretical approach of the literature review, introduce and establish the relevance of the selected theories in the LR Introduction. On the other hand, for the integrative review approach, generate the necessary framework about the process of leading the critiques.

The literature Review Introduction will not mention anything about the selected referencing style. The in-text citations will make it all clear. You must follow the right kind of in-text referencing style as per your selected subject and approach of your research.

In this article, we are offering three samples for a clear understanding. These exemplified referencing styles are:

• American Psychological Association (APA) referencing system,
• Chicago referencing or Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), &
• Modern Languages Association (MLA) referencing system.

It is the presence of the references in the form of ‘parenthetical in-text citations, which determines the selected referencing style for the entire research work. Note that for subjects from Humanities, the common selection is of MLA style. Even in Humanities, if you are from dealing with History, Business Fine Arts, then you can consider the Chicago style of referencing. As for the APA referencing style the subjects from Social Sciences, Engineering, Education, etc. remains as the basic selection.  Still, we would recommend that always have a consultation with your Guide or Supervisor about the right selection of the referencing style.

APA Style (7 th edition)

APA style  of referencing under 7 th edition is a parenthetical way of declaring the references. The bracketed mode of references that you need to add to the Literature Review Introduction must comprise of –

• The Surname of the Author
• Publication Date
• Page number or numbers

For instance, in Sample Text 1 for a fictitious book, ‘Evaluation of Education System’ by Simon Hillary , published in 2019; the APA style in-text referencing should appear like- (Hillary, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary, 2019, pp. 84-88). Note that ‘p.’ stands for a single page, whereas ‘pp.’ for consecutive multiple pages. The page or page numbers are used when you quote from a text directly. In case there is no direct quote, you can avoid using the page or page numbers. In some cases like old texts, it is recommended to use paragraph or couplet numbers.

This format is a general application that varies slightly in the case of multiple authors. Let’s add Walter as co-author for two authored books. The in-text citations under the APA system follow the following provisions of using the commas ‘,’: There is no difference while referring to in-text reference to any book, journal or web article, or internet sources.

• For a book with a single author: (Hillary, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary, 2019, pp. 84-88)
• For a book with two authors: (Hillary and Walter, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary and Walter, 2019, pp. 84-88)
• For a book with multiple authors: (Hillary et al., 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary et al., 2019, pp. 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), single author: (Hillary, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary, 2019, pp. 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), two authors: (Hillary and Walter, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary and Walter, 2019, pp. 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), multiple authors: (Hillary et al., 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary et al., 2019, pp. 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, single author: (Hillary, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary, 2019, pp. 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, two authors: (Hillary and Walter, 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary and Walter, 2019, pp. 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, multiple authors: (Hillary et al., 2019, p. 84) or (Hillary et al., 2019, pp. 84-88)

For APA in-text citations always remember:

• To capitalise all the proper nouns, this will include the surname/s of the author or authors,
• To capitalise the first alphabet of every word of any title is included in the text. Here, the prepositions and articles can remain in small letters.
• Indent of ½ inch from left for every direct quote in the text.

Chicago Style (17 th edition)

Chicago referencing style (17 th edition) is used for documentations of –

• Author-date citations, &
• Notes and bibliography.

Though this style is very similar to the APA style of adding-

Yet the placement of the comma makes all the difference in the in-text citation process. Instead of putting the comma ‘,’ after the Surname of the Author, Chicago places it after the publication date and there is no space for ‘p.’ or ‘pp.’.

If we consider the same text ‘Evaluation of Education System’ by Simon Hillary, published in 2019 by Oxford Open Press in Oxford; the Chicago style in-text referencing should appear like- (Hillary 2019, 84) or (Hillary 2019, 84-88). Let’s add Walter as co-author for two authored books.

Author-date (in-text)

There is no difference while referring to in-text reference to any book, journal or web article, or internet sources.

• For a book with a single author: (Hillary 2019, 84) or (Hillary 2019, 84-88)
• For a book with two authors: (Hillary and Walter 2019, 84) or (Hillary and Walter 2019, 84-88)
• For a book with multiple authors: (Hillary et al 2019, 84) or (Hillary et al 2019, 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), single author: (Hillary 2019, 84) or (Hillary 2019, 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), two authors: (Hillary and Walter 2019, 84) or (Hillary and Walter 2019, 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), multiple authors: (Hillary et al 2019, 84) or (Hillary et al 2019, 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, single author: (Hillary 2019, 84) or (Hillary 2019, 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, two authors: (Hillary and Walter 2019, 84) or (Hillary and Walter 2019, 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, multiple authors: (Hillary et al 2019, 84) or (Hillary et al 2019, 84-88)

The usage of Chicago is more particular when it comes to the inclusion of footnote or endnote in a text. Here, if you need to add any footnote or endnote to the Literature Review Introduction, then follow the following rules:

• For book: Full name of the Author, Book title (Place of Publication: Publisher, Publication year) page number/s
• Simon Hillary, Evaluation of Education System (Oxford: Oxford Open Press, 2019), 84-88
• Following in-text mentions – Hillary, Evaluation of Education System, 84-88
• For Journal Article: Full name of the Author, “Article Title,” Journal Name, Journal Volume, Journal No., Journal Issue (Month, Year): page number/s. Add DOI for electronic Journal publication.
• Edmund Walter, “Education System and Global Policies.” Journal for Intellect, 26, no. 3 (Summer, 2019): 65. https://doi.org/16.2329/jfiunivbchro.26.3.0065.
• Following in-text mentions – Walter, “Education System and Global Policies,” 65.
• For Web Articles or Internet Sources- “Page Title,” Name of the Website, Date of Access (Month-date-year), URL.
• “About Education System,” Educationresearch, accessed July 13, 2021, http://www.wr.dn/en/about-referencing-style.
• Following in-text mentions – “About Education System.”

MLA Style (8 th edition)

MLA referencing style under 8 th edition is also a parenthetical way of declaring the references. The brackets in the in-text referencing process for the Introduction of your Literature Review must comprise of –

• The Surname of the Author, and
• Page number/s of the text or context.

Considering the same book, ‘Evaluation of Education System’ by Simon Hillary, published in 2019; the MLA style in-text referencing should appear like- (Hillary 84) or (Hillary 84-88). It is important that in the case of MLA the non-consecutive pages are just added by commas, as in- (Hillary 84, 26, 104). Let’s add Walter as co-author for two authored books. There is no difference while referring to in-text reference to any book, journal or web article, or internet sources. Note that there is no use of ‘p.’ or ‘pp.’ for page number/s and there is no space for commas ‘,’.

• For a book with a single author: (Hillary 84) or (Hillary 84-88)
• For a book with two authors: (Hillary and Walter 84) or (Hillary and Walter 84-88)
• For a book with multiple authors: (Hillary et al 84) or (Hillary et al 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), single author: (Hillary 84) or (Hillary 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), two authors: (Hillary and Walter 84) or (Hillary and Walter 84-88)
• Journal Article (both Print & Electronic), multiple authors: (Hillary et al 84) or (Hillary et al 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, single author: (Hillary 84) or (Hillary 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, two authors: (Hillary and Walter 84) or (Hillary and Walter 84-88)
• Web Articles or Internet Sources, multiple authors: (Hillary et al 84) or (Hillary et al 84-88)

The MLA style is popular for its facilities to accommodate various kinds of exceptional in-text citations. In your Literature Review Introduction, these exceptions can occur in the following manner, yet MLA holds solutions for the-

No Author Citation: The in-text citation needs to be added by matching the very foremost element in the entry of the Cited Work, which can be the organisation’s name or source title.

Example: For the source- United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. International Annual Report for FY 2020-21, the in-text citation would be UNICEF (or United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund) 162.

No Page Number/s Citation: In an in-text citation, when there is no page number, then you can consider the number of the chapter, scene, section, or anything that can locate the page.

Example: For the source- ‘Evaluation of Education System’ by Simon Hillary, the in-text citation would be (Hillary ch 2).

Same Author Different Sources:   The in-text citation of different works by the same author, MLA follows the regulation of shortening the title of the sources.

Example: For the source- ‘Evaluation of Education System’ by Simon Hillary, and ‘Education in Global Platform’ by Simon Hillary, the in-text citation would be (Hillary, Evaluation 84; and Hilary, Global 65).

Same Last Names: The in-text citation of different authors with the same surnames, MLA follows the trend of adding the First name initial.

Example: For the authors- Thomas Hilary and Simon Hilary with different sources, the in-text citation would be (T. Hillary 65 & S. Hillary 84).

Indirect Citation: The in-text citation for the information attained from indirect sources, MLA prescribes the provision of adding the source with parentheses and by the end of the sentence.

Example: If a piece of information about Hillary has been gathered from James Walter’s text published in 2020, then the in-text citation would be Hillary declared that the style of referencing … (Walter ch.2)

MLA style is very peculiar for its art of paraphrasing or delivering the context with the sources. For instance, in your Introduction, you can have sentences like-

In the conclusion, it is suggested that the Literature Review Introduction is very important for the success of your research However, to get your research approved by the University you need to take care of all the aspects and points mentioned above. 

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2024

Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung)

• Fabrizio Citarella 1 , 2 ,
• Kazuki Takada 3 ,
• Priscilla Cascetta 4 ,
• Pierfilippo Crucitti 2 , 5 ,
• Roberta Petti 5 , 6 ,
• Bruno Vincenzi 1 , 2 ,
• Giuseppe Tonini 1 , 2 ,
• Francesco M. Venanzi 7 , 8 ,
• Alessandra Bulotta 7 , 8 ,
• Sara Oresti 7 , 8 ,
• Carlo Greco 2 , 9 ,
• Sara Ramella 2 , 9 ,
• Lucio Crinò 10 ,
• Angelo Delmonte 10 ,
• Roberto Ferrara 7 , 8 ,
• Massimo Di Maio 11 ,
• Fiorella Gurrieri 2 , 6 &
• Alessio Cortellini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1209-5735 1 , 2 , 12  

Journal of Translational Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  714 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

88 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Compared to other malignancies, few studies have investigated the role of family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with lung cancer, yielding largely heterogeneous results. We performed a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching the PubMed and Scopus databases from their inception to November 25, 2023, to identify studies reporting on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer. A total of 53 articles were included, most with a retrospective design and encompassing a variety of geographical areas and ethnicities.

Thirty studies (56.6%) assessed patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while 17 studies (32.1%) assessed patients with mixed histologies. Overall, the rates of FHC ranged from 8.3 to 68.9%, and the rates of family history of lung cancer ranged from 2 to 46.8%. Twenty-seven studies investigated FHC as a potential risk factor for lung cancer, with more than half reporting an increased risk for subjects with FHC. Five studies reported on the potential role of FHC in determining clinical outcomes, and twelve studies examined the relationship between FHC and germline mutations. Notably, only one study reported a significantly increased rate of germline mutations, including ATM , BRCA2 , and TP53 , for patients with a family history of lung cancer compared to those without, but both groups had a low prevalence of mutations (< 1%).

The FAHIC—Lung (NCT06196424) is the first cross-sectional/prospective study specifically developed to identify FHC patterns and within-family clusters of other risk factors, including smoking, to guide patients with NSCLC to systematic genetic counseling. Acknowledging the largely heterogeneous results of our systematic review and considering the clinical implications of detecting pathogenic germline variants (PGVs), the FAHIC-lung study aims to identify patients potentially enriched with PGVs/likely PGVs to direct them to germline screening outside of the research setting.

Introduction

Familial aggregation and inherited predisposition have been increasingly investigated in multiple cancer types. In breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal malignancies, international guidelines recommend genetic counselling in patients showing risk criteria for syndromes of inherited susceptibility to cancer, as aggregations with other malignancies have been widely described within families of these patient populations [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

With a predicted number of death of about 160 000 cases in 2023 in Europe and 127 070 in US [ 4 , 5 ], Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) still remains a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. A positive smoking history represents the main risk factor [ 6 ], while environmental factors such as exposure to radon, asbestosis and air pollution have been linked to lung cancer among never smokers [ 7 , 8 , 9 ].

Few studies have investigated the impact of a positive family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with NSCLC, describing the malignancies that can occur among relatives of patients with NSCLC, while only few and rare genetic syndromes associated with inherited germline genetic mutations, such as the Li-Fraumeni, have been directly linked to lung cancer risk [ 10 ]. Most of the studies did not provide information on the potential within-family clusters of other risk factors, including exposure to tobacco smoking, environmental carcinogens, and other geographical/epidemiological factors. Additionally, retrospective approaches to this topic are heavily impacted by recall bias and misclassification [ 11 , 12 ].

To underline the importance and potential clinical implications of investigating family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a recent retrospective study conducted in a cohort of 7.788 patients with NSCLC, who underwent commercially available germline genetic testing and reported an FHC of 71%, found that pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) or likely PGVs were present in 14.9% of the cases. Additionally, 2.9% of the cases carried a single PGV in a gene associated with autosomal recessive inheritance. Among positive patients, 61.3% carried a PGV/likely PGV in DNA damage and response (DDR) genes, and 95.1% of them harbored a PGV in genes with potential clinical implications, including BRCA2 (2.8%), CHEK2 (2.1%), ATM (1.9%), TP53 (1.3%), BRCA1 (1.2%), and EGFR (1.0%) [ 13 ].

In this manuscript, we present the results of a systematic review of the available evidence on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer, and the design of the FAHIC-lung study (NCT06196424), a cross-sectional study that aims to prospectively describe the FHC and the potential within-family distribution of smoking and other risk factors, to identify patients more likely to be carriers of PGVs or likely PGVs.

Systematic review—methods

Literature search strategy and study selection criteria.

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases from their inception date to November 25, 2023, to identify potentially relevant articles. The search terms were “non-small cell lung cancer or NSCLC,” “family history,” “lung cancer,” and “risk.”

The inclusion criteria for the study selection were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with NSCLC of any stage; (2) available information on the family history of cancer for the included population (e.g., prevalence and type of family history). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) lack of information on the family history of cancer; (2) studies not published in English; and (3) case reports.

As this study was a systematic review, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), with the registration code CRD4202450742 (available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024507422 ).

Data extraction and data synthesis

Two authors (F.C. and K.T.) performed the literature search and evaluated the eligibility of studies using the PICO (patients, interventions, comparison, and outcome) framework following the PRISMA criteria. Assuming a certain heterogeneity in the results, we adopted a textual narrative synthesis approach to summarize the included publications [ 14 ]. In view of that, we did not establish specific criteria for data synthesis (e.g., the minimum number of studies or level of consistency required for synthesis).

F.C. and T.K. independently reviewed and extracted data from the published papers, including first author, journal name, and year of publication. The prevalence (as a rate) of family history of cancer was summarized in a master table, along with the type of family history collected (e.g., lung-cancer specific vs. family history of any malignancy), study design, study population characteristics, smoking status of study participants and screened relatives (if available), primary tumor type (e.g., NSCLC, small cell lung cancer [SCLC], or others), number of patients included, and disease stage (e.g., early stage vs. advanced stage, if available). Study characteristics, context, and findings were summarized, and similarities/differences across studies were described in detail. Disagreements between the two authors (F.C. and K.T.) were discussed and resolved with a third independent author (A.C.).

Systematic review—results

We identified a total of 198 potentially relevant articles from the PubMed and Scopus online databases through an initial search strategy. After excluding 41 duplicate articles, we screened and reviewed the titles and abstracts of 157 articles, resulting in 54 being assessed for eligibility. Finally, a total of 53 articles were included in this systematic review. The flow diagram of the study selection process is shown in Fig.  1 while the whole search strategy with publications assessed at each step (identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion) is available as supplementary material (search strategy).

Flow diagram of the studies selection process according to the PRISMA guidelines

Overall, the vast majority of the studies had a retrospective design, with most of them being case–control or observational retrospective studies, with only one cross-sectional study [ 15 ] and one prospective study [ 16 ]. Study populations encompassed a variety of geographical areas/ethnicities, with 23 studies (43.4%) enrolling Asian patients, 13 studies (24.5%) enrolling patients with multiple ethnicities (all with a majority of white patients), 11 studies (20.7%) including non-specified ethnicities, and six studies (11.3%) including other populations. Even the included histology types showed heterogeneity, with 30 studies (56.6%) assessing patients with NSCLC, 17 studies (32.1%) assessing patients with a mixed type of lung cancer including small cell lung cancer (SCLC), four studies (7.5%) assessing other/unspecified types of lung cancer, one study (1.9%) assessing patients with adenocarcinoma, and one study (1.9%) assessing patients with EGFR -positive adenocarcinoma only.

FHC was collected through questionnaires in only three studies [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], while none of them used ad-hoc questionnaires specifically developed to collect FHC and the within-family distribution of other risk factors, including smoking. Twenty-five studies (47.2%) assessed family history (FH) by collecting all malignancies reported among relatives, 21 studies (39.6%) assessed FH of lung cancer, three studies (5.7%) assessed FHC and FH of lung cancer separately, three studies (5.7%) assessed FH of smoking-related and smoking-unrelated cancers, and two studies (3.8%) assessed FH of pre-specified types of cancer. The degree of relatedness ranged from first to second degree, although it was not reported for the majority of the included studies. One study reported on the smoking status among the relatives of study participants [ 20 ] and one study included the assessment of environmental factors (coal exposure) among the risk factors for lung cancer [ 21 ].

Overall, the rate of FHC in patients with lung cancer ranged from 8.3 [ 22 ] to 68.9% [ 20 ], while the rates of FH of lung cancer from 2 [ 23 ] to 46.8% [ 21 ]. Some studies enrolled cohorts of patients potentially enriched for FHC, such as 11 studies which assessed female patients only reporting FHC ranging from 7.7 [ 24 ] to 59.4% [ 25 ] and FH of lung cancer ranging from 6.2 [ 26 ] to 28% [ 27 ], four studies which specifically assessed never/light smoker patients only, reporting FHC ranging from 29.1 [ 28 ] to 68.9 [ 20 ], two studies assessing patients with small aggressive NSCLC, one study assessing male patients only, one study assessing smokers specifically, and one study assessing patients aged ≤ 45 years. A synoptic table with organization of results is available as supplementary file 1.

Studies investigating FHC as a risk factor for lung cancer

Overall, 27 studies investigated FHC as a potential risk factor for lung cancer (Table  1 ) [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Six out of 11 studies (54.5%) that investigated the role of FHC as a whole or in pre-specified type of cancers reported an increased risk of developing lung cancer for patients with FHC, while 11 out of 16 studies (68.7%) that investigated the role of FH of lung cancer reported a significant association.

One study reported a more pronounced increased risk for women aged ≤ 45 years and a synergistic effect of smoking and FHC in increasing the risk of lung cancer [ 29 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was specifically associated with an increased risk of early on set lung cancer (< 55 years old) [ 17 ]. One study that failed to demonstrate an association between FHC and lung cancer diagnosis, reported a significant effect for patients in whom at least one relative with cancer was diagnosed < 50 years of age [ 20 ], while one study that failed to demonstrate an association between FH of lung cancer and lung cancer risk, reported a significant effect for female patients only [ 42 ].

One study confirmed that FH of lung cancer was associated with risk of lung cancer in both the whole study population and among smokers [ 37 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was more strongly associated with lung cancer risk in case of first/second degree of relatedness compared to collateral relatives [ 40 ].

Studies investigating the potential impact of FHC on clinical outcomes.

Five studies reported on the potential role of FHC in determining clinical outcomes (Table  2 ) [ 19 , 28 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. One study reported no association between FH of lung cancer and outcomes [ 48 ], two studies reported a differential effect for FHC and FH of lung cancer [ 28 , 49 ] and one study reported a decreased risk of death for patients with FHC [ 50 ]. Similarly, one study reported improving outcomes from PD-1 immunotherapy with increasing burden of FHC [ 52 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and germline mutations.

Overall, 12 studies reported on the potential relationship between FHC and germline mutations (Table  3 ) [ 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Two studies did not show an enrichment of the germline mutations/polymorphisms of interest in patients with FHC [ 53 , 55 ], while three studies suggested a potential enrichment [ 46 , 54 , 57 ], with only one of them specifically reporting an increased rate of germline mutations including ATM, BRCA2 and TP53 for patients with family history of lung cancer compared to those with no FH [ 46 ]. Two studies reported a significant effect of the germline status in increasing the risk of lung cancer among patients with no FHC [ 33 , 36 ], while in three other studies the effect was independent of FHC [ 39 , 44 , 46 ]. One study showed a synergistic effect in increasing the risk of lung cancer of XRCC3/XRCC4 variants and FHC [ 37 ]. Two studies investigated the potential impact of germline polymorphisms on clinical outcomes, one showing an association between hOGG1 single nucleotide polymorphisms and worse survival specifically in patients without FHC [ 51 ], the other showing multifaceted effects of germline NOTCH4 polymorphisms depending on the FHC status [ 56 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and lung cancer somatic features.

Seven studies reported on the potential association between FHC and lung cancer somatic features (Table  4 ) [ 15 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Three studies did not confirm significant associations between FHC and somatic microsatellite instability status [ 58 ], somatic DDR genes status [ 52 ], or KRAS mutational status [ 59 ], while 2 studies reported a significant association between FHC and EGFR mutation [ 60 , 61 ]. In addition, another study reported an association between FHC and the occurrence of multiple somatic mutations in patients tested for multiple genes [ 62 ].

Studies investigating associations between FHC and other lung cancer features.

Nine studies included in this subgroup reported on associations between FHC and other lung cancer features (Table  5 ) [ 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. One study reported a link between younger age at diagnosis female gender and FHC [ 63 ], one study reported an increased prevalence of FH of breast cancer among female patients with lung cancer [ 64 ], while another study reported a 10-years increasing trend over time for the prevalence of FHC [ 22 ]. Importantly, one study reported a significant association between FHC and smoking [ 19 ], while another study reported that FH of lung cancer was more frequent among young women, with synergistic effect with smoking and coil exposure in determining the younger age at diagnosis [ 21 ].

FAHIC lung—methods/design

Study design and objectives.

The FAHIC—Lung study (observational, prospective, multicenter study to investigate the family history of cancer in patients with non-small cell lung cancer) is a cross-sectional/prospective, observational, multicenter study. Consecutive patients with histologically diagnosed NSCLC will be enrolled, regardless of their age, TNM stage, smoking status, and other clinicopathologic characteristics. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06196424.

The primary objective of the study is the identification of FHC patterns and within-family clusters of other risk factors to address patients with NSCLC for systematic genetic counseling for germline next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing to identify PGVs and likely PGVs. Secondary objectives include the description of clinicopathological and oncological characteristics of patients with NSCLC according to FHC patterns.

Patients’ family history will be carefully collected by investigators through a dedicated self-reported study questionnaire, which has been developed for the purpose of this study and validated by the genetic expert of the steering committee (F.G.) (Supplementary file 2). Study questionnaire will focus on: (1) family history of cancer; (2) type of tumors/primary tumor sites among relatives with history of cancer; (3) age at diagnosis among relatives with history of cancer; (4) biological sex of relatives with history of cancer; (5) exposure to tobacco smoking and smoking habits among relatives with history of cancer; (6) geographical origin of participants and relatives with history of cancer; (7) personal history of multiple malignancies; (8) potential professional and environmental exposure to carcinogens of participants and relatives with history of cancer; (9) ethnicity of both participants and relatives with history of cancer.

To minimize risks of recalling bias, patients will be followed up for four weeks through two study visits: the first study visit at enrolment and the follow-up study visit. During the first study visit all patient’s clinic-pathologic will be collected and study participants will be given the ad-hoc questionnaire, which will be returned to the study personnel at the follow-up study visit (Fig.  2 ).

FAHIC-lung study design diagram

The following clinic-pathologic characteristics will be collected: (1) smoking status (active/passive, package/year, total years of smoking); (2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS); (3) age at diagnosis; (4) tumor histology; (5) tumor stage at diagnosis according to the 8th edition of TNM staging system; (6) ethnicity; (7) professional and environmental exposure to carcinogens; (8) programmed death ligand-1 tumor proportion score (PD—L1 TPS); (9) any available oncogenic drivers including EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, c-MET , mutations and ALK, ROS-1, RET, NTRK translocation/gene fusions; (10) personal history of other synchronous/metachronous primary malignancies.

The study plan includes an observational phase and an analytical phase:

Observational phase : after collecting participants’ questionnaires, we will first reconstruct patients’ family trees with additional information on how other potential risk factors, such as smoking history and exposure to professional/environmental carcinogens, segregate within the families with a history of cancer.

Analytical phase : once we have identified family clusters of malignancies and risk factors potentially associated with the highest risk of being carriers of germline PGVs or likely PGVs, we will proceed with the collection of blood samples for germline testing in a subgroup of patients. This will enable us to assess and compare the prevalence of PGVs/likely PGVs between patients more likely to be carriers and the control cohort. This approach aims to achieve a robust comparison, minimize systematic referrals to genetic counseling for all NSCLC patients, and optimize NGS testing requests outside the research setting. Considering the validity and comprehensiveness of high-throughput techniques in identifying PGVs/likely PGVs [ 68 ], we will assess the germline status of the groups of interest through whole exome sequencing (WES) after DNA extraction from blood samples in a two step analysis.

In the first step, the raw sequencing data (FASTQ files) will undergo bioinformatic processing. Mapping will be performed using a high-throughput aligner to ensure accurate alignment of the sequenced reads to the human genome. Variant calling will then be conducted to identify deviations from the reference genome. Filtering and annotation of these variants will focus on a pre-specified list of pre-specified genes known to be associated potentially associated with cancer (Supplementary file 3). This curated gene list will be used to prioritize PGVs/likely PGVs variants. Online tools will be utilized for variant prioritization, organizing the genes based on their correlation with lung cancer, thus enabling us to pinpoint the most relevant variants for further investigation.

In the second step, we aim to discover novel variants that may contribute to lung cancer predisposition. This phase involves a more exploratory analysis of the FASTQ data, looking beyond the known pathogenic variants. We will leverage the extensive genealogical data we have collected on the patients’ family histories to identify potential new genetic markers. The stored FASTQ files will be re-analyzed to detect previously unreported variants, incorporating bioinformatics tools and techniques for variant discovery. These include advanced algorithms for variant detection and annotation, as well as integrative approaches to assess the potential pathogenicity of novel variants. The integration of genealogical data will enhance our ability to correlate these novel variants with familial patterns of lung cancer, potentially uncovering new genetic predispositions. This comprehensive approach ensures that we maximize the utility of the sequencing data, providing a robust platform for both targeted and discovery-driven genetic analysis.

Participants selection

Inclusion Criteria include: (1) histopathological diagnosis of NSCLC (all stages); (2) age ≥ 18 years old; (3) signed written informed consent; (4) availability of familiar and/or personal anamnestic data of cancer. Exclusion Criteria include: (1) unavailability of familiar and/or personal anamnestic data of cancer; (2) patient’s refusal.

Statistical plan and sample size

The sample size of patients enrolled has been determined only for the observational phase of the study. This determination focuses on identifying patients who are more likely to be carriers of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) or likely PGVs. This approach acknowledges the lack of information on the prevalence of germline PGVs/likely PGVs in patients with NSCLC who are not selected based on family history of cancer (FHC), as well as the limited knowledge regarding the potential characteristics that will define our group of interest. We hypothesized a prevalence of 10% of participants with an especially enriched family history of cancer to be directed to systematic germline testing; assuming a confidence level of 95% with a total width for the confidence interval of 0.1 (precision of ± 5%), the minimum number of subjects needed to properly describe the group of interest, following a binomial “exact” calculation of the sample size, is 175. To account for potential dropouts, we will enroll a minimum of 180 patients.

Descriptive statistics will be used as appropriate to report FHC data, the distribution of within-family other risk factors, and baseline clinicopathologic characteristics. Analyses will be performed using R-Studio software (R Core Team, 2021), and MedCalc® Statistical Software version 20 (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org ; 2021).

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarizing the available evidence on the role of FHC in patients with lung cancer, and the FAHIC-lung study (NCT06196424) is the first cross-sectional/prospective study specifically designed to identify patients with NSCLC more likely to be carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs, that should be systematically referred to genetic counselling and germline testing.

Our review shows that few studies have focused on the family history of cancer (FHC) in patients with lung cancer, resulting in overall heterogeneous results, beginning with the extremely wide range of FHC and family history of lung cancer rates. The category with the highest number of reports included studies assessing FHC as a potential risk factor for developing lung cancer. However, even in this category, the results were largely discordant, with a variety of different approaches and categorizations. Most of the included studies followed a retrospective approach, which is inherently associated with recall bias in collecting family history information, and none used questionnaires specifically designed to collect FHC. To mitigate this bias, we developed our ad-hoc study questionnaire, while the cross-sectional/prospective approach with the 4-week interval will allow study participants to gather and report FHC information as carefully as possible.

Something that set lung cancer apart from other malignancies, where the FHC has an established role in defining the probability of being a carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs, such as ovarian, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, is the role of smoking. As mentioned, smoking history represents the main risk factor for lung cancer [ 6 ], several evidence shows that passive smoking from family members can be a detrimental factor and that even the smoking habit can be “inherited”, with a sort of intergenerational transmission [ 69 , 70 ]. The FAHIC-lung questionnaire will allow us to mitigate this potential bias as well, collecting smoking habit information and environmental exposure to carcinogens among patients’ relatives with cancer.

More than a half of the studies that assessed FHC and FH of lung cancer as a potential risk factor for lung cancer concluded that FHC plays a detrimental role, with a potential synergistic effect with smoking, that seems even more pronounced among young/female patients. Our systematic review also suggests that younger patients, female, Asian, and never/light smokers may be especially enriched in FHC, although with no clear/conclusive results, while no somatic genomic feature seems to be significantly associated with FHC, except for EGFR mutations.

Recently, increasing attention has been focused on the study of germline mutations as risk factor for lung cancer, highlighting how DDR genes alterations can be found among patients with lung adenocarcinoma, even in the context of wider within-family primary tumors spectrums, including breast/pancreatic cancers or hematological malignancies [ 10 ]. Even in the context of TP53-associated genetic susceptibility, FHC is gaining a clearer role, to the point of recommending genetic counselling for patients with lung adenocarcinoma younger than 46 years old and with an especially enriched FHC or personal history of multiple primary tumors [ 71 ].

Importantly, in our systematic review only one of the studies that investigated the multifaceted role of germline mutations reported a significant enrichment among patients with FHC [ 46 ]. Rifkin and colleagues first reported a systematic review on the evidence linking germline mutations with lung cancer risk, then validated through a large case–control study of patients undergoing germline whole exome sequencing (WES) the significant association between lung cancer risk and ATM , BRCA2 and TP 53 pathogenetic/likely pathogenetic germline mutations [ 46 ]. However, despite the overall enrichment among controls, variant-based and gene-based analyses showed a low prevalence of germline PGV/likely PGV in both cases and controls [ 46 ]. In addition, they reported a higher rate of carriers among study participants with FH of lung cancer compared to those without, but with a very low overall prevalence (0.8% vs 0.7% for the combination of ATM/BRCA2/TP53 ) [ 46 ], suggesting that a simplified collection of FHC information is not enough to identify patients with the highest probability of being carriers and to properly optimize germ-line NGC access.

Among gene-specific susceptibility for lung cancer, EGFR -associated one needs a special mention. Genetic counselling is already recommended for patients with somatic EGFR positive NSCLC younger than 50 years, regardless of their family history [ 10 ], however, a proper syndromic EGFR -associated lung cancer should be suspected in the case of the novo EGFR T790M mutations, especially with a somatic variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥ 35% [ 10 , 72 ], with even more rare EGFR variants, such as V834L and V843I being increasingly recognized [ 73 , 74 ]. Lastly, we will have to consider the complexity related to the multifaceted role of multiple primary tumors. Beyond the consisting evidence linking DDR genes mutations to a personal history of multiple malignancies, recent studies reported on the potential role of pleiotropic loci in determining the risk of multiple malignancies [ 75 ].

Our study plan has, however, some limitations. First, we will have to rely on patients' ability and willingness to reconstruct their family history, therefore the recall bias will exert a certain effect despite the cross/sectional prospective approach. In addition, we have no strictly predefined definition of potential family clusters to be analyzed. However, we can anticipate that the identified group of interest will likely include young female patients with adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smokers, patients with EGFR mutations, patients with a history of multiple primary tumors, and patients with a high burden of family history. This high burden of family history is particularly expected to be enriched in non-smoking associated cancers, including lung cancer, and in the DDR-genes associated cancer spectrum, such as breast, ovarian, prostate, melanoma, and pancreatic cancers.To ensure a comprehensive analysis, we also plan to incorporate other factors collected through our detailed questionnaire. These factors include smoking habits of the patients, passive smoking exposure, working exposure to carcinogens, and smoking habits of family members. By evaluating these additional factors, we aim to identify within-family clusters of other risk factors. Specifically, we will focus on selecting patients without a history of passive smoking, identifying patients with a younger age at diagnosis among their relatives with cancer, and considering patients with low working exposure to carcinogens. Despite having these anticipations, we have deliberately chosen to adopt an unbiased approach without pre-established features to define patients for germline tests. Considering the very low prevalence of germline mutations reported so far [ 46 ], this strategy allows for a more comprehensive and inclusive analysis, ensuring that we do not overlook any potential associations or risk factors to unravel the complexity of FHC information and identify patients especially enriched in PGVs/likely PGVs. Furthermore, considering that this is an observational study, we decided to adopt a two steps approach, in order to identify patients at risk as a first step. This, to minimize the potential clinical implications for study participants and let their treating physicians refer them to genetic counseling as per their existing clinical practice. Once the group of interest will be identified, we will amend the protocol to collect blood samples and allocate fundings for germline testing. Lastly, we have to consider that the FAIHC lung study is being conducted in Italy, therefore the study population will mostly consist of white/Caucasian patients. Although this will prevent us from gathering broader information on the potential implications of different races, we will be able to focus and obtain reliable results on patients with European ancestry.

In the context of a worldwide progressive implementation of chest computed tomography based screening programs in subject with smoking history [ 76 ], and considering the initial evidence of the potential benefit of screening programs among never smokers and other subjects potentially enriched in FHC/PGVs [ 77 ], identifying patients with the highest risk of being carrier of PGVs/likely PGVs would be extremely important to develop dedicated preventing measures in non-smoker subjects. Considering the costs of commercially available germline NGS tests and the potential preventive, prognostic, and therapeutic implications of the detection of germline mutations related to familial cancers, we believe that establishing FHC patterns to identify a subgroup of patients especially enriched in PGVs to direct to germline screening outside of the research setting, would be extremely helpful in optimizing resources, spare time and eventually improve patients’ outcomes.

Data Availability

This systematic review does not involve the generation of new data. The data analyzed in this study are derived from publicly available studies and publications that are cited within the paper. All sources of data, including databases and search strategies used to identify relevant studies, are described in the Methods section. Readers interested in accessing the underlying data can refer to the referenced studies and publications for more detailed information. Due to data management regulations, individual patient-level data from the FAIHC-lung study are not available. However, inquiries from third parties can be directed to the corresponding author.

Guidelines Detail: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail .

Stjepanovic N, Moreira L, Carneiro F, et al. Hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1558–71.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Genetics of Prostate Cancer (PDQ ® )–Health Professional Version—NCI https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/hp/prostate-genetics-pdq .

Lung Cancer Statistics | How common is lung cancer? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html . Accessed 12 Mar 2023.

Malvezzi M, Santucci C, Boffetta P, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2023 with focus on lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:410–9.

Steuer CE, Jegede OA, Dahlberg SE, et al. Smoking behavior in patients with early-stage NSCLC: a report from ECOG-ACRIN 1505 trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16:960–7.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malhotra J, Malvezzi M, Negri E, et al. Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide. Eur Respir J. 2016;48:889–902.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Riudavets M, Garcia de Herreros M, Besse B, et al. Radon and lung cancer: current trends and future perspectives. Cancers. 2022;14:3142.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

A New Pathway from Air Pollution to Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers https://dailyreporter.esmo.org/esmo-congress-2022/research-advances-in-the-last-months/a-pathway-from-air-pollution-to-lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-has-been-identified .

Benusiglio PR, Fallet V, Sanchis-Borja M, et al. Lung cancer is also a hereditary disease. Eur Respir Rev. 2021;30: 210045.

Chang ET, Smedby KE, Hjalgrim H, et al. Reliability of self-reported family history of cancer in a large case-control study of lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:61–8.

Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S. Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA. 2004;292:1480–9.

Sorscher S, LoPiccolo J, Chen E, et al. Landscape of pathogenic germline variants in patients with lung cancer. JCO. 2022;40:388570–388570.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.

Lashkarizadeh M, Lashkarizadeh M, Nikian M, et al. The expression of HER2/neu in patients with lung cancer and its associated factors. Clin Respir J. 2023;17:90–5.

Tammemagi MC, Schmidt H, Martel S, et al. Participant selection for lung cancer screening by risk modelling (the Pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer [PanCan] study): a single-arm, prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1523–31.

Cassidy A, Balsan J, Vesin A, et al. Cancer diagnosis in first-degree relatives and non-small cell lung cancer risk: results from a multi-centre case-control study in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:3047–53.

Gaur P, Bhattacharya S, Kant S, et al. Hospital-based study on demographic, hematological, and biochemical profile of lung cancer patients. J Cancer Res Ther. 2020;16:839–42.

Isla D, Felip E, Viñolas N, et al. Lung cancer in women with a family history of cancer: the Spanish female-specific database WORLD07. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:6647–53.

Gorlova OY, Zhang Y, Schabath MB, et al. Never smokers and lung cancer risk: a case-control study of epidemiological factors. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1798–804.

Chen Y, Li G, Lei Y, et al. Lung cancer family history and exposure to occupational/domestic coal combustion contribute to variations in clinicopathologic features and gene fusion patterns in non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2019;10:695–707.

Zang R, Shi J-F, Lerut TE, et al. Ten-year trends of clinicopathologic features and surgical treatment of lung cancer in China. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109:389–95.

Tsugane S, Watanabe S, Sugimura H, et al. Smoking, occupation and family history in lung cancer patients under fifty years of age. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1987;17:309–17.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen K-Y, Hsiao C-F, Chang G-C, et al. Hormone replacement therapy and lung cancer risk in Chinese. Cancer. 2007;110:1768–75.

Titan AL, He H, Lui N, et al. The influence of hormone replacement therapy on lung cancer incidence and mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159:1546-1556.e4.

Jin K, Hung RJ, Thomas S, et al. Hormonal factors in association with lung cancer among Asian women: a pooled analysis from the international lung cancer consortium. Int J Cancer. 2021;148:2241–54.

Pathak A, Wenzlaff AS, Hyland PL, et al. Apoptosis-related single nucleotide polymorphisms and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in women. J Cancer Ther Res. 2014;3:1.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lee Y, Jeon JH, Goh S-H, et al. The clinical impact of family history of cancer in female never-smoker lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2019;136:15–22.

Osann KE. Lung cancer in women: the importance of smoking, family history of cancer, and medical history of respiratory disease. Cancer Res. 1991;51:4893–7.

Schwartz AG, Wenzlaff AS, Prysak GM, et al. Reproductive factors, hormone use, estrogen receptor expression and risk of non small-cell lung cancer in women. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5785–92.

Tammemagi CM, Freedman MT, Church TR, et al. Factors associated with human small aggressive non small cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2082–9.

Cote ML, Yoo W, Wenzlaff AS, et al. Tobacco and estrogen metabolic polymorphisms and risk of non-small cell lung cancer in women. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30:626–35.

Hong Y-S, Kang H-J, Kwak J-Y, et al. Association between microRNA196a2 rs11614913 genotypes and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in Korean population. J Prev Med Public Health. 2011;44:125–30.

Schwartz AG, Wenzlaff AS, Bock CH, et al. Admixture mapping of lung cancer in 1812 African-Americans. Carcinogenesis. 2011;32:312–7.

Sin DD, Tammemagi CM, Lam S, et al. Pro-surfactant protein B as a biomarker for lung cancer prediction. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4536–43.

Xu P, Liu L, Wang J, et al. Genetic variation in BCL2 3’-UTR was associated with lung cancer risk and prognosis in male Chinese population. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e72197.

He F, Chang S-C, Wallar GM, et al. Association of XRCC3 and XRCC4 gene polymorphisms, family history of cancer and tobacco smoking with non-small-cell lung cancer in a Chinese population: a case-control study. J Hum Genet. 2013;58:679–85.

Yilmaz M, Kacan T, Sari I, et al. Lack of association between the MTHFRC677T polymorphism and lung cancer in a Turkish population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:6333–7.

Tian G, Wang M, Xu X. The role of NQO1 polymorphisms in the susceptibility and chemotherapy response of Chinese NSCLC patients. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014;69:475–9.

Li J, Zhang M, Yang F, et al. High risk occupational exposure and family history were risk factors in young lung cancer in Chinese. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(12):23650–7.

Google Scholar  

White RW, Horvitz E. Evaluation of the feasibility of screening patients for early signs of lung carcinoma in web search logs. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:398–401.

Warkentin MT, Tammemägi MC, Freedman MT, et al. Factors associated with small aggressive non-small cell lung cancers in the national lung screening trial: a validation study. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2:pkx010.

Brown D, Zingone A, Yu Y, et al. Relationship between circulating inflammation proteins and lung cancer diagnosis in the national lung screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28:110–8.

Pineda Lancheros LE, Rojo Tolosa S, Gálvez Navas JM, et al. Effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the vitamin d metabolic pathway on susceptibility to non-small-cell lung cancer. Nutrients. 2022;14:4668.

Albano D, Dhamija A, Liao Y, et al. Lung cancer in nonsmokers—a risk factor analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;86: 102439.

Rifkin AS, Less EM, Wei J, et al. Association of reported candidate monogenic genes with lung cancer risk. Clin Lung Cancer. 2023;24:313–21.

Liu L, Yu H, Bai J, et al. Positive association of serum vitamin B6 levels with intrapulmonary lymph node and/or localized pleural metastases in non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study. Nutrients. 2023;15:2340.

Yang J, Li Y, Khoury T, et al. Relationships of hHpr1/p84/Thoc1 expression to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2008;38:105–12.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li N, Shao K, Chen Z, et al. The impact of positive cancer family history on the clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:331–6.

Li X, Pan X, Wang P, et al. Expression of ERCC1 mRNA in non-small cell lung cancer tissues and survival analysis of patients. Life Sci J. 2013;10(2):1926–31.

Su Y, Zhang H, Xu F, et al. DNA repair gene polymorphisms in relation to non-small cell lung cancer survival. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2015;36:1419–29.

Cortellini A, Giusti R, Filetti M, et al. High familial burden of cancer correlates with improved outcome from immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC independent of somatic DNA damage response gene status. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15:9.

Tefre T, Børresen AL, Aamdal S, et al. Studies of the L-myc DNA polymorphism and relation to metastasis in Norwegian lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 1990;61:809–12.

Javid J, Mir R, Mirza M, et al. CC genotype of anti-apoptotic gene BCL-2 (-938 C/A) is an independent prognostic marker of unfavorable clinical outcome in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2015;17:289–95.

Liu Y, Kheradmand F, Davis CF, et al. Focused analysis of exome sequencing data for rare germline mutations in familial and sporadic lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:52–61.

Xu Q, Lin D, Li X, et al. Association between single nucleotide polymorphisms of NOTCH signaling pathway-related genes and the prognosis of NSCLC. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:6895–905.

Liu M, Liu X, Suo P, et al. The contribution of hereditary cancer-related germline mutations to lung cancer susceptibility. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020;9:646–58.

Suzuki K, Ogura T, Yokose T, et al. Microsatellite instability in female non-small-cell lung cancer patients with familial clustering of malignancy. Br J Cancer. 1998;77:1003–8.

Yilmaz A, Mohamed N, Patterson KA, et al. Clinical and metabolic parameters in non-small cell lung carcinoma and colorectal cancer patients with and without KRAS mutations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:8645–60.

Cheng P-C, Cheng Y-C. Correlation between familial cancer history and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in Taiwanese never smokers with non-small cell lung cancer: a case-control study. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:281–7.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hsu K-H, Tseng J-S, Wang C-L, et al. Higher frequency but random distribution of EGFR mutation subtypes in familial lung cancer patients. Oncotarget. 2016;7:53299–308.

Chang F, Zhang H, Chen C, et al. Concomitant genetic alterations are associated with plasma D-dimer level in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol. 2022;18:679–90.

Ambrosone CB, Rao U, Michalek AM, et al. Lung cancer histologic types and family history of cancer. Analysis of histologic subtypes of 872 patients with primary lung cancer. Cancer. 1993;72:1192–8.

Tsuchiya M, Iwasaki M, Otani T, et al. Breast cancer in first-degree relatives and risk of lung cancer: assessment of the existence of gene sex interactions. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:419–23.

Banik A, Schwarzer R, Pawlowska I, et al. Women with family cancer history are at risk for poorer physical quality of life and lower self-efficacy: a longitudinal study among men and women with non-small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:62.

Chen P-H, Chuang J-H, Lu T-P, et al. Non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery in patients aged 75 years and older: a propensity matching study. Front Surg. 2022;9: 880007.

Li Q, Wei X, Wang Y, et al. Pulmonary mucoepidermoid carcinoma in the Chinese population: a clinical characteristic and prognostic analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12: 916906.

Parsons DW, Roy A, Yang Y, et al. Diagnostic yield of clinical tumor and germline whole-exome sequencing for children with solid tumors. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:616–24.

Dwivedi S, Pathak R, Agarwalla R, et al. The intergenerational transmission of tobacco habit: role of parents and the family. J Family Med Prim Care. 2016;5:373–7.

Saari AJ, Kentala J, Mattila KJ. The smoking habit of a close friend or family member–how deep is the impact? A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e003218.

Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman J-M, et al. Revisiting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome from TP53 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2345–52.

Oxnard GR, Chen R, Pharr JC, et al. Germline EGFR mutations and familial lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:5274–84.

van der Leest C, Wagner A, Pedrosa RM, et al: Novel EGFR V834L Germline Mutation Associated With Familial Lung Adenocarcinoma. JCO Precis Oncol 2:PO.17.00266, 2018

Ohtsuka K, Ohnishi H, Fujiwara M, et al: Predisposition to Lung Adenocarcinoma in a Family Harboring the Germline EGFR V843I Mutation. JCO Precis Oncol 3:PO.19.00104, 2019

Lu M, Zhang X, Chu Q, et al. Susceptibility genes associated with multiple primary cancers. Cancers. 2023;15:5788.

Passiglia F, Cinquini M, Bertolaccini L, et al. Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening by chest computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2574–85.

Triphuridet N, Zhang SS, Nagasaka M, et al. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening in asian female never-smokers is as efficacious in detecting lung cancer as in Asian male ever-smokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2023;18:698–717.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Operative Research Unit of Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio Citarella, Bruno Vincenzi, Giuseppe Tonini & Alessio Cortellini

Department of Medicine and Surgery, Universitá Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio Citarella, Pierfilippo Crucitti, Bruno Vincenzi, Giuseppe Tonini, Carlo Greco, Sara Ramella, Fiorella Gurrieri & Alessio Cortellini

Department of Surgery, Saiseikai Fukuoka General Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan

Kazuki Takada

Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France

Priscilla Cascetta

Thoracic Surgery Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Pierfilippo Crucitti & Roberta Petti

Operative Research Unit of Medical Genetics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy

Roberta Petti & Fiorella Gurrieri

Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Francesco M. Venanzi, Alessandra Bulotta, Sara Oresti & Roberto Ferrara

Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Radiation Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128, Rome, Italy

Carlo Greco & Sara Ramella

Thoracic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo Per Lo Studio Dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori”, Meldola, Italy

Lucio Crinò & Angelo Delmonte

Department of Oncology, Medical Oncology 1U, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, 10126, Turin, Italy

Massimo Di Maio

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Imperial College London, London, UK

Alessio Cortellini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the publication according to the ICMJE guidelines for the authorship (study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision). All authors read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study). Each author has agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Cortellini .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All the study procedures will follow the precepts of Good Clinical Practice and the declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the local ethical committees on human experimentation (Comitato Etico Territoriale Lazio AREA 2, registro sperimentazioni 27.23 CET 2 CBM, 12 Oct 2023).

Competing interests

Alessio Cortellini declares speaker’s fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, Sanofi/REGENERON, and Roche (outside of the present work) and advisory board roles/grant for consultancies from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, OncoC4, IQVIA, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI, REGENERON, Sanofi/REGENERON, Ardelis Health, AlphaSight, Access Infinity (outside of the present work). He also declares travel support from MSD and Roche. Sara Ramella declares advisory board roles and grant consultancies from Astra Zeneca, MSD (Merk) and Roche (outside of the present work). All other authors declare no conflicts of interest associated with the present study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file 1., supplementary file 2., supplementary file 3., supplementary file 4., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Citarella, F., Takada, K., Cascetta, P. et al. Clinical implications of the family history in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature and a new cross-sectional/prospective study design (FAHIC: lung). J Transl Med 22 , 714 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4

Download citation

Received : 02 July 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 31 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05538-4

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

• Lung cancer
• Family history of cancer
• Germline screening

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Applications of ICG in Breast Cancer for Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping: A Scoping Review Protocol

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Feryal Kurdi
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Yahya Kurdi
• ORCID record for Igor Vladimirovich Reshetov
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) in sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping for breast cancer patients. This review aims to assess the accuracy, efficacy, and safety of ICG in this context and to identify gaps in the existing research. The outcomes will contribute to the development of further research as part of a PhD project. Introduction: Breast cancer is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Accurate SLN mapping is crucial for staging and treatment planning in early-stage breast cancer. ICG has emerged as a promising agent for fluorescence imaging in SLN mapping. However, comprehensive assessment of its clinical utility, including accuracy and adverse effects, remains limited. This scoping review aims to consolidate evidence on the use of ICG in breast cancer SLN mapping. Inclusion criteria: Patients with early-stage breast cancer (T1, T2), selected T3 cases where sentinel lymph node biopsy is accurate, and clinically node-negative breast cancer. The intervention includes studies using ICG for SLN mapping and assessment of fluorescence imaging cameras. Methods: Five electronic databases will be searched (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) using search strategies developed in consultation with the academic supervisor. The search strategy is set to human studies published in English within the last 11 years. All retrieved citations will be imported to Zotero and then uploaded to Covidence for screening of titles, abstracts, and full text according to pre-specified inclusion criteria. Citations meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review will have their data extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. A data extraction tool will be developed to capture full details about the participants, concept, and context, and findings relevant to the scoping review will be summarized. Keywords: Indocyanine Green, ICG, Sentinel Lymph Node, Breast Cancer, Fluorescence, Axillary Lymph Node Mapping, NIR

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

I changed the orcid link of one of the authors, as well as changed the HTML styling of the abstract

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Addiction Medicine (336)
• Allergy and Immunology (658)
• Anesthesia (177)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2571)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (310)
• Dermatology (218)
• Emergency Medicine (390)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (913)
• Epidemiology (12083)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (743)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3990)
• Geriatric Medicine (375)
• Health Economics (666)
• Health Informatics (2577)
• Health Policy (992)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (959)
• Hematology (357)
• HIV/AIDS (825)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13569)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (783)
• Medical Education (396)
• Medical Ethics (107)
• Nephrology (423)
• Neurology (3757)
• Nursing (206)
• Nutrition (559)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (718)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (687)
• Oncology (1957)
• Ophthalmology (567)
• Orthopedics (233)
• Otolaryngology (301)
• Pain Medicine (247)
• Palliative Medicine (72)
• Pathology (469)
• Pediatrics (1088)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (453)
• Primary Care Research (442)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3352)
• Public and Global Health (6426)
• Radiology and Imaging (1360)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (793)
• Respiratory Medicine (858)
• Rheumatology (394)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (399)
• Sports Medicine (336)
• Surgery (431)
• Toxicology (51)
• Transplantation (184)
• Urology (163)