functions of a literature review in research

• My Playlists
• Media Upload

• How To Use Media Hopper Create
• How To Use Media Hopper Create In Learn
• Creative Commons
• All Channels

Literature reviews: functions, types and methods

Related media.

When we think of a literature review, we often forget to consider the different types of reviews and the different roles or functions that literature reviews can have.

In this short presentation I will first discuss some functions of literature reviews, and then make some points about how the function or purpose of your review should inform the type that you choose to do, and the methods that you employ.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 1:52 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• 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

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 12:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

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." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that 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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• 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.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

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 .

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

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

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

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.

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

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 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.

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a critical analysis of the literature related to your research topic. It evaluates and critiques the literature to establish a theoretical framework for your research topic and/or identify a gap in the existing research that your research will address.

A literature review is not a summary of the literature. You need to engage deeply and critically with the literature. Your literature review should show your understanding of the literature related to your research topic and lead to presenting a rationale for your research.

A literature review focuses on:

• the context of the topic
• key concepts, ideas, theories and methodologies
• key researchers, texts and seminal works
• major issues and debates
• identifying conflicting evidence
• the main questions that have been asked around the topic
• the organisation of knowledge on the topic
• definitions, particularly those that are contested
• showing how your research will advance scholarly knowledge (generally referred to as identifying the ‘gap’).

This module will guide you through the functions of a literature review; the typical process of conducting a literature review (including searching for literature and taking notes); structuring your literature review within your thesis and organising its internal ideas; and styling the language of your literature review.

The purposes of a literature review

A literature review serves two main purposes:

1) To show awareness of the present state of knowledge in a particular field, including:

• seminal authors
• the main empirical research
• theoretical positions
• controversies
• breakthroughs as well as links to other related areas of knowledge.

2) To provide a foundation for the author’s research. To do that, the literature review needs to:

• help the researcher define a hypothesis or a research question, and how answering the question will contribute to the body of knowledge;
• provide a rationale for investigating the problem and the selected methodology;
• provide a particular theoretical lens, support the argument, or identify gaps.

Before you engage further with this module, try the quiz below to see how much you already know about literature reviews.

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
• Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
• Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
• Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
• Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

• Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Searching >>
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• Library databases
• Library website

Library Guide to Capstone Literature Reviews: Role of the Literature Review

The role of the literature review.

Your literature review gives readers an understanding of the scholarly research on your topic.

In your literature review you will:

• demonstrate that you are a well-informed scholar with expertise and knowledge in the field by giving an overview of the current state of the literature
• find a gap in the literature, or address a business or professional issue, depending on your doctoral study program; the literature review will illustrate how your research contributes to the scholarly conversation
• provide a synthesis of the issues, trends, and concepts surrounding your research

Be aware that the literature review is an iterative process. As you read and write initial drafts, you will find new threads and complementary themes, at which point you will return to search, find out about these new themes, and incorporate them into your review.

The purpose of this guide is to help you through the literature review process. Take some time to look over the resources in order to become familiar with them. The tabs on the left side of this page have additional information.

Short video: Research for the Literature Review

Short Video: Research for the Literature Review

(4 min 10 sec) Recorded August 2019 Transcript 

Literature review as a dinner party

To think about the role of the literature review, consider this analogy:  pretend that you throw a dinner party for the other researchers working in your topic area. First, you’d need to develop a guest list.

• The guests of honor would be early researchers or theorists; their work likely inspired subsequent studies, ideas, or controversies that the current researchers pursue.
• Then, think about the important current researchers to invite. Which guests might agree with each other?  Which others might provide useful counterpoints?
• You likely won’t be able to include everyone on the guest list, so you may need to choose carefully so that you don’t leave important figures out. 
• Alternatively, if there aren’t many researchers working in your topic area, then your guest list will need to include people working in other, related areas, who can still contribute to the conversation.

After the party, you describe the evening to a friend. You’ll summarize the evening’s conversation. Perhaps one guest made a comment that sparked a conversation, and then you describe who responded and how the topic evolved. There are other conversations to share, too. This is how you synthesize the themes and developments that you find in your research. Thinking about your literature research this way will help you to present your dinner party (and your literature review) in a lively and engaging way.

Short video: Empirical research

Video: How to locate and identify empirical research for your literature review

(6 min 16 sec) Recorded May 2020 Transcript 

Here are some useful resources from the Writing Center, the Office of Research and Doctoral Services, and other departments within the Office of Academic Support. Take some time to look at what is available to help you with your capstone/dissertation.

• Familiarize yourself with Walden support
• Doctoral Capstone Resources website
• Capstone writing resources
• Office of Student Research Administration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Visit the Writing Center

You can watch recorded webinars on the literature review in our Library Webinar Archives .

• Next Page: Scope
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

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

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The Relationship between Oral Health and Schizophrenia in Advanced Age-A Narrative Review in the Context of the Current Literature

Affiliation.

• 1 Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14620, USA.
• PMID: 37892634
• PMCID: PMC10607055
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm12206496

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder that makes patients incompetent to perform day-to-day activities due to their progressing mental illness. In addition to disturbances with thoughts, behavioral changes, and impaired cognitive functions, oro-systemic health also becomes compromised. Even though the population with schizophrenia is primarily made up of older people, little is known about this group's oral health treatment. The present review explores the relationship between oral healthcare and elderly patients with schizophrenia. Our literature search included databases, like PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, for appropriate and evidence-based information. Preventive and management strategies outlined in the included articles and future research perspectives in this field are discussed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review that looked at dental care and related characteristics in older schizophrenia patients. The findings highlight the necessity for targeted dental interventions to address the dental health challenges faced by this vulnerable population. Integrating dental health into the overall medical management of elderly individuals with schizophrenia is crucial. Although specific therapies remain limited, the emphasis is on preventive dentistry to reduce the occurrence and progression of oral diseases in this group.

Keywords: antipsychotics; elderly; geriatric; oral health; schizophrenia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

A flow diagram of the…

A flow diagram of the search strategy conducted (PRISMA flow of study selection…

Similar articles

• Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
• Dementia -- Caring, Ethics, Ethnical and Economical Aspects: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2008 Jun. SBU Assessment No. 172. Stockholm: Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU); 2008 Jun. SBU Assessment No. 172. PMID: 28876770 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• Effectiveness of professional oral health care intervention on the oral health of residents with dementia in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review protocol. Yi Mohammadi JJ, Franks K, Hines S. Yi Mohammadi JJ, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):110-22. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2330. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26571287
• Necessity of oral health intervention in schizophrenic patients - A review. Gupta S, Pk P, Gupta R. Gupta S, et al. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 31;6(4):605-612. doi: 10.3126/nje.v6i4.17254. eCollection 2016 Dec. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016. PMID: 28804672 Free PMC article. Review.
• Negative Impacts of Psychiatric Medications on Oral Health: A Literature Review. Abed H, Ezzat Y, Alsaadawi L, Almarzouki R, Aboulkhair R, Alqarni A, Sharka R. Abed H, et al. Cureus. 2023 Dec 4;15(12):e49915. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49915. eCollection 2023 Dec. Cureus. 2023. PMID: 38174204 Free PMC article. Review.
• Oral Health Status and Factors Related to Oral Health in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Matched Case-Control Observational Study. Aghasizadeh Sherbaf R, Kaposvári GM, Nagy K, Álmos ZP, Baráth Z, Matusovits D. Aghasizadeh Sherbaf R, et al. J Clin Med. 2024 Mar 10;13(6):1584. doi: 10.3390/jcm13061584. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38541811 Free PMC article.
• Zhang T., Fang Y., Wang L., Gu L., Tang J. Exosome and exosomal contents in schizophrenia. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2023;163:365–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.05.072. - DOI - PubMed
• World Health Organization . International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. 11th ed. WHO; Geneva, Switzerland: 2018.
• Mueser K.T., McGurk S.R. Schizophrenia. Lancet. 2004;363:2063–2072. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16458-1. - DOI - PubMed
• Kilbourne A.M., Horvitz-Lennon M., Post E.P., McCarthy J.F., Cruz M., Welsh D., Blow F.C. Oral health in Veterans Affairs patients diagnosed with serious mental illness. J. Public Health Dent. 2007;67:42–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00007.x. - DOI - PubMed
• Kiyak H.A., Reichmuth M. Barriers to and Enablers of Older Adults’ Use of Dental Services. J. Dent. Educ. 2005;69:975–986. doi: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2005.69.9.tb03994.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Grants and funding, linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Plant-derived terpenoids: a plethora of bioactive compounds with several health functions and industrial applications—a comprehensive overview.

1. Introduction

Biosynthetic pathways, 2. terpenoids as semiochemicals, 2.1. insect–plant activity, 2.1.1. terpenoids with toxic or repellent properties, 2.1.2. terpenoids as attractants.

2.2. Antifungal Activity

3. terpenoids ir1n human health, 3.1. terpenoids on cancer prevention, 3.2. terpenoids in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases, 3.3. neuroprotective effects of terpenoids.

4. Industrial Applications of Terpenoids

4.1. pharmaceutical and medical industry, 4.2. cosmetics industry, 4.3. food industry, 5. green emerging extraction techniques, 5.1. pressurized liquid extraction (ple).

5.2. Static Headspace (HS) Extraction

5.3. microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (mahd), 5.4. supercritical fluid extraction (sfe), 6. concluding remarks, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Adefegha, S.A.; Oboh, G.; Oluokun, O.O. Food Bioactives: The Food Image behind the Curtain of Health Promotion and Prevention against Several Degenerative Diseases. In Studies in Natural Products Chemistry ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; Volume 72, pp. 391–421. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatzivasileiou, A.O.; Ward, V.; Edgar, S.M.B.; Stephanopoulos, G. Two-Step Pathway for Isoprenoid Synthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019 , 116 , 506–511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perreca, E.; Rohwer, J.; González-Cabanelas, D.; Loreto, F.; Schmidt, A.; Gershenzon, J.; Wright, L.P. Effect of Drought on the Methylerythritol 4-Phosphate (MEP) Pathway in the Isoprene Emitting Conifer Picea Glauca. Front. Plant Sci. 2020 , 11 , 546295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Volke, D.C.; Rohwer, J.; Fischer, R.; Jennewein, S. Investigation of the Methylerythritol 4-Phosphate Pathway for Microbial Terpenoid Production through Metabolic Control Analysis. Microb. Cell Fact. 2019 , 18 , 192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, H.; Dickschat, J.S. Germacrene A–A Central Intermediate in Sesquiterpene Biosynthesis. Chem. Eur. J. 2020 , 26 , 17318–17341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lanier, E.R.; Andersen, T.B.; Hamberger, B. Plant Terpene Specialized Metabolism: Complex Networks or Simple Linear Pathways? Plant J. 2023 , 114 , 1178–1201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lin, Y.L.; Ma, L.T.; Lee, Y.R.; Shaw, J.F.; Wang, S.Y.; Chu, F.H. Differential Gene Expression Network in Terpenoid Synthesis of Antrodia Cinnamomea in Mycelia and Fruiting Bodies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017 , 65 , 1874–1886. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Boncan, D.A.T.; Tsang, S.S.K.; Li, C.; Lee, I.H.T.; Lam, H.M.; Chan, T.F.; Hui, J.H.L. Terpenes and Terpenoids in Plants: Interactions with Environment and Insects. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 , 21 , 7382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yazaki, K.; Arimura, G.I.; Ohnishi, T. “Hidden” Terpenoids in Plants: Their Biosynthesis, Localization and Ecological Roles. Plant Cell Physiol. 2017 , 58 , 1615–1621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Georgiev, B.; Nikolova, M.; Aneva, I.; Dzhurmanski, A.; Sidjimova, B.; Berkov, S. Plant Products with Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitory Activity for Insect Control. BioRisk 2022 , 2022 , 309–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jankowska, M.; Rogalska, J.; Wyszkowska, J.; Stankiewicz, M. Molecular Targets for Components of Essential Oils in the Insect Nervous System—A Review. Molecules 2018 , 23 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dudareva, N.; Negre, F.; Nagegowda, D.A.; Orlova, I. Plant Volatiles: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2006 , 25 , 417–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tisgratog, R.; Sanguanpong, U.; Grieco, J.P.; Ngoen-Kluan, R.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Plants Traditionally Used as Mosquito Repellents and the Implication for Their Use in Vector Control. Acta Trop. 2016 , 157 , 136–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pavela, R. Acute, Synergistic and Antagonistic Effects of Some Aromatic Compounds on the Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. (Lep., Noctuidae) Larvae. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014 , 60 , 247–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• López, M.D.; Pascual-Villalobos, M.J. Mode of Inhibition of Acetylcholinesterase by Monoterpenoids and Implications for Pest Control. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010 , 31 , 284–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson, J.A.; Coats, J.R. Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition by Nootkatone and Carvacrol in Arthropods. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2012 , 102 , 124–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sigel, E.; Steinmann, M.E. Structure, Function, and Modulation of GABAA Receptors. J Biol. Chem. 2012 , 287 , 40224–40231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Carvalho, K.d.S.; e Silva, S.L.d.C.; de Souza, I.A.; Gualberto, S.A.; da Cruz, R.C.D.; dos Santos, F.R.; de Carvalho, M.G. Toxicological Evaluation of Essential Oil from the Leaves of Croton Tetradenius (Euphorbiaceae) on Aedes Aegypti and Mus Musculus. Parasitol. Res. 2016 , 115 , 3441–3448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farooqui, T. Review of Octopamine in Insect Nervous Systems. Open Access Insect Physiol. 2012 , 4 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fongang, F.; Yannick, S.; Kezetas, B.; Jules, J. Terpenoids as Important Bioactive Constituents of Essential Oils. In Essential Oils—Bioactive Compounds, New Perspectives and Applications ; Oliveria, M., Silva, S., da Costa, W., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampaio, L.A.; Pina, L.T.S.; Serafini, M.R.; Tavares, D.d.S.; Guimarães, A.G. Antitumor Effects of Carvacrol and Thymol: A Systematic Review. Front. Pharmacol. 2021 , 12 , 702487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Song, Q. Responses of the Pollinating Wasp Ceratosolen Solmsi Marchali to Odor Variation between Two Floral Stages of Ficus Hispida. J. Chem. Ecol. 2008 , 34 , 1536–1544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahuja, I.; Rohloff, J.; Bones, A.M. Defence Mechanisms of Brassicaceae: Implications for Plant-Insect Interactions and Potential for Integrated Pest Management. Sustain. Agric. 2009 , 2 , 623–670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naidoo, S.; Christie, N.; Acosta, J.J.; Mphahlele, M.M.; Payn, K.G.; Myburg, A.A.; Külheim, C. Terpenes Associated with Resistance against the Gall Wasp, Leptocybe invasa , in Eucalyptus Grandis. Plant Cell Environ. 2018 , 41 , 1840–1851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Armbruster, W.S. Reproductive Interactions Between Sympatric Dalechampia Species: Are Natural Assemblages “Random” or Organized? Ecology 1986 , 67 , 522–533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arnold, S.E.; Forbes, S.J.; Hall, D.R.; Farman, D.I.; Bridgemohan, P.; Spinelli, G.R.; Bray, D.P.; Perry, G.B.; Grey, L.; Belmain, S.R.; et al. Floral Odors and the Interaction between Pollinating Ceratopogonid Midges and Cacao. J. Chem. Ecol. 2019 , 45 , 869–878. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Majetic, C.J.; Raguso, R.A.; Ashman, T. The Sweet Smell of Success: Floral Scent Affects Pollinator Attraction and Seed Fitness in Hesperis matronalis . Funct. Ecol. 2009 , 23 , 480–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, X.; Cai, X.; Bian, L.; Luo, Z.; Xin, Z.; Chen, Z. Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of Chrysopa phyllochroma (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to Plant Volatiles. Environ. Entomol. 2015 , 44 , 1425–1433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cascone, P.; Iodice, L.; Maffei, M.E.; Bossi, S.; Arimura, G.I.; Guerrieri, E. Tobacco Overexpressing β-Ocimene Induces Direct and Indirect Responses against Aphids in Receiver Tomato Plants. J. Plant Physiol. 2015 , 173 , 28–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, H.; Li, J.; Dong, Y.; Hao, H.; Ling, Z.; Bai, H.; Wang, H.; Cui, H.; Shi, L. Time-Series Transcriptome Provides Insights into the Gene Regulation Network Involved in the Volatile Terpenoid Metabolism during the Flower Development of Lavender. BMC Plant Biol. 2019 , 19 , 313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Plata-Rueda, A.; Campos, J.M.; da Silva Rolim, G.; Martínez, L.C.; Dos Santos, M.H.; Fernandes, F.L.; Serrão, J.E.; Zanuncio, J.C. Terpenoid Constituents of Cinnamon and Clove Essential Oils Cause Toxic Effects and Behavior Repellency Response on Granary Weevil, Sitophilus Granarius. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018 , 156 , 263–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Oliveira, J.L.; Campos, E.V.R.; Pereira, A.E.S.; Nunes, L.E.S.; Da Silva, C.C.L.; Pasquoto, T.; Lima, R.; Smaniotto, G.; Polanczyk, R.A.; Fraceto, L.F. Geraniol Encapsulated in Chitosan/Gum Arabic Nanoparticles: A Promising System for Pest Management in Sustainable Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018 , 66 , 5325–5334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R.; De Feo, V. Essential Oils and Antifungal Activity. Pharmaceuticals 2017 , 10 , 86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Freiesleben, S.H.; Jager, A.K. Correlation between Plant Secondary Metabolites and Their Antifungal Mechanisms—A Review. Med. Aromat. Plants 2014 , 3 , 2167-0412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Işcan, G.; Işcan, A.; Demirci, F. Anticandidal Effects of Thymoquinone: Mode of Action Determined by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Nat. Prod. Commun. 2016 , 11 , 977–978. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haque, E.; Irfan, S.; Kamil, M.; Sheikh, S.; Hasan, A.; Ahmad, A.; Lakshmi, V.; Nazir, A.; Mir, S.S. Terpenoids with Antifungal Activity Trigger Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Microbiology 2016 , 85 , 436–443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seto-Young, D.; Monk, B.; Mason, A.B.; Perlin, D.S. Exploring an Antifungal Target in the Plasma Membrane H+-ATPase of Fungi. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 1997 , 1326 , 249–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, J.; Liu, R.; Sun, F.; An, L.; Shang, Z.; Kong, L.; Yang, M. Eucalyptal D Enhances the Antifungal Effect of Fluconazole on Fluconazole-Resistant Candida Albicans by Competitively Inhibiting Efflux Pump. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2019 , 9 , 211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cotoras, M.; Castro, P.; Vivanco, H.; Melo, R.; Mendoza, L. Farnesol Induces Apoptosis-like Phenotype in the Phytopathogenic Fungus Botrytis Cinerea. Mycologia 2013 , 105 , 28–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costa-Orlandi, C.B.; Sardi, J.C.O.; Pitangui, N.S.; de Oliveira, H.C.; Scorzoni, L.; Galeane, M.C.; Medina-Alarcón, K.P.; Melo, W.C.M.A.; Marcelino, M.Y.; Braz, J.D.; et al. Fungal Biofilms and Polymicrobial Diseases. J. Fungi 2017 , 3 , 22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, M.; Du, M.; Fan, M.; Bian, Z. In Vitro Activity of Eugenol against Candida Albicans Biofilms. Mycopathologia 2007 , 163 , 137–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, M.S.A.; Ahmad, I. Biofilm Inhibition by Cymbopogon Citratus and Syzygium Aromaticum Essential Oils in the Strains of Candida Albicans. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2012 , 140 , 416–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cho, K.S.; Lim, Y.R.; Lee, K.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, I.S. Terpenes from Forests and Human Health. Toxicol. Res. 2017 , 33 , 97–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Proshkina, E.; Plyusnin, S.; Babak, T.; Lashmanova, E.; Maganova, F.; Koval, L.; Platonova, E.; Shaposhnikov, M.; Moskalev, A. Terpenoids as Potential Geroprotectors. Antioxidants 2020 , 9 , 529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masyita, A.; Mustika Sari, R.; Dwi Astuti, A.; Yasir, B.; Rahma Rumata, N.; Emran, T.B.; Nainu, F.; Simal-Gandara, J. Terpenes and Terpenoids as Main Bioactive Compounds of Essential Oils, Their Roles in Human Health and Potential Application as Natural Food Preservatives. Food Chem. X 2022 , 13 , 100217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, L.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Song, J.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, R.; Liu, B.; Pang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Chen, J.; et al. Renoprotective Effects of Artemisinin and Hydroxychloroquine Combination Therapy on IgA Nephropathy via Suppressing NF-κB Signaling and NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation by Exosomes in Rats. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2019 , 169 , 113619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, W.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; Guo, S.; Wang, Z.; Yu, X. Advances in Pharmacological Activities of Terpenoids. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2020 , 15 , 1934578X20903555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kłos, P.; Chlubek, D. Plant-Derived Terpenoids: A Promising Tool in the Fight against Melanoma. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reguengo, L.M.; Nascimento, R.d.P.d.; Machado, A.P.d.F.; Marostica Junior, M.R. Signaling Pathways and the Potential Anticarcinogenic Effect of Native Brazilian Fruits on Breast Cancer. Food Res. Int. 2022 , 155 , 111117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Machado, T.Q.; Da Fonseca, A.C.C.; Duarte, A.B.S.; Robbs, B.K.; De Sousa, D.P. A Narrative Review of the Antitumor Activity of Monoterpenes from Essential Oils: An Update. BioMed Res. Int. 2022 , 2022 , 6317201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abu-Izneid, T.; Rauf, A.; Shariati, M.A.; Khalil, A.A.; Imran, M.; Rebezov, M.; Uddin, M.S.; Mahomoodally, M.F.; Rengasamy, K.R.R. Sesquiterpenes and Their Derivatives-Natural Anticancer Compounds: An Update. Pharmacol. Res. 2020 , 161 , 105165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, G.; Chu, H. Andrographolide Inhibits Proliferation and Induces Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis in Human Melanoma Cells. Oncol. Lett. 2018 , 15 , 5301–5305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coricovac, D.; Dehelean, C.A.; Pinzaru, I.; Mioc, A.; Aburel, O.M.; Macasoi, I.; Draghici, G.A.; Petean, C.; Soica, C.; Boruga, M.; et al. Assessment of Betulinic Acid Cytotoxicity and Mitochondrial Metabolism Impairment in a Human Melanoma Cell Line. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 , 22 , 4870. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, Z.; Li, Q.; Xia, L.; Li, X.; Sun, C.; Wang, Q.; Cai, X.; Yang, G. Borneol Promotes Apoptosis of Human Glioma Cells through Regulating HIF-1a Expression via MTORC1/EIF4E Pathway. J. Cancer 2020 , 11 , 4810–4822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Meng, X.; Dong, X.; Wang, W.; Yang, L.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, T.; Ma, H.; Qi, D.; Su, J. Natural Borneol Enhances Paclitaxel-Induced Apoptosis of ESCC Cells by Inactivation of the PI3K/AKT. J. Food Sci. 2018 , 83 , 1436–1443. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, T.Y.; Wu, Y.J.; Chang, C.I.; Chiu, C.C.; Wu, M.L. The Effect of Bornyl Cis-4-Hydroxycinnamate on Melanoma Cell Apoptosis Is Associated with Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 , 19 , 1370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wu, Y.J.; Su, T.R.; Chang, C.I.; Chen, C.R.; Hung, K.F.; Liu, C. (+)-Bornyl p-Coumarate Extracted from Stem of Piper betle Induced Apoptosis and Autophagy in Melanoma Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 , 21 , 3737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abbas, M.M.; Kandil, Y.İ.; Abbas, M.A. R-(−)-Carvone Attenuated Doxorubicin Induced Cardiotoxicity in Vivo and Potentiated Its Anticancer Toxicity in Vitro. Balk. Med. J. 2020 , 37 , 98–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nordin, N.; Yeap, S.K.; Rahman, H.S.; Zamberi, N.R.; Abu, N.; Mohamad, N.E.; How, C.W.; Masarudin, M.J.; Abdullah, R.; Alitheen, N.B. In Vitro Cytotoxicity and Anticancer Effects of Citral Nanostructured Lipid Carrier on MDA MBA-231 Human Breast Cancer Cells. Sci. Rep. 2019 , 9 , 1614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Estévez-Sarmiento, F.; Saavedra, E.; Ruiz-Estévez, M.; León, F.; Quintana, J.; Brouard, I.; Estévez, F. Chlorinated Guaiane-Type Sesquiterpene Lactones as Cytotoxic Agents against Human Tumor Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 , 21 , 9767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abbasifarid, E.; Bolhassani, A.; Irani, S.; Sotoodehnejadnematalahi, F. Synergistic Effects of Exosomal Crocin or Curcumin Compounds and HPV L1-E7 Polypeptide Vaccine Construct on Tumor Eradication in C57BL/6 Mouse Model. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , e0258599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, D.; Wang, Z.; Lin, M.; Shang, Y.; Wang, F.; Zhou, J.Y.; Wang, F.; Zhang, X.; Luo, X.; Huang, W. In Vitro and in Vivo Antitumor Activity of Cucurbitacin C, a Novel Natural Product from Cucumber. Front. Pharmacol. 2019 , 10 , 1287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Si, W.; Lyu, J.; Liu, Z.; Wang, C.; Huang, J.; Jiang, L.; Ma, T. Cucurbitacin E Inhibits Cellular Proliferation and Enhances the Chemo-Response in Gastric Cancer by Suppressing AKt Activation. J. Cancer 2019 , 10 , 5843–5851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mun, H.; Townley, H.E. Mechanism of Action of the Sesquiterpene Compound Helenalin in Rhabdomyosarcoma Cells. Pharmaceuticals 2021 , 14 , 1258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jayakumar, T.; Liu, C.H.; Wu, G.Y.; Lee, T.Y.; Manubolu, M.; Hsieh, C.Y.; Yang, C.H.; Sheu, J.R. Hinokitiol Inhibits Migration of A549 Lung Cancer Cells via Suppression of MMPs and Induction of Antioxidant Enzymes and Apoptosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 , 19 , 939. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alipanahpour Dil, E.; Asfaram, A.; Goudarzi, A.; Zabihi, E.; Javadian, H. Biocompatible Chitosan-Zinc Oxide Nanocomposite Based Dispersive Micro-Solid Phase Extraction Coupled with HPLC-UV for the Determination of Rosmarinic Acid in the Extracts of Medical Plants and Water Sample. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020 , 154 , 528–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, X.; Tang, J. Myrcene Exhibits Antitumor Activity Against Lung Cancer Cells by Inducing Oxidative Stress and Apoptosis Mechanisms. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2020 , 15 , 1934578X20961189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martins, B.X.; Arruda, R.F.; Costa, G.A.; Jerdy, H.; de Souza, S.B.; Santos, J.M.; de Freitas, W.R.; Kanashiro, M.M.; de Carvalho, E.C.Q.; Sant’Anna, N.F.; et al. Myrtenal-Induced V-ATPase Inhibition—A Toxicity Mechanism behind Tumor Cell Death and Suppressed Migration and Invasion in Melanoma. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2019 , 1863 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khusnutdinova, E.; Petrova, A.; Zileeva, Z.; Kuzmina, U.; Zainullina, L.; Vakhitova, Y.; Babkov, D.; Kazakova, O. Novel A-Ring Chalcone Derivatives of Oleanolic and Ursolic Amides with Anti-Proliferative Effect Mediated through Ros-Triggered Apoptosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 , 22 , 9796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hatiboglu, M.A.; Kocyigit, A.; Guler, E.M.; Akdur, K.; Nalli, A.; Karatas, E.; Tuzgen, S. Thymoquinone Induces Apoptosis in B16-F10 Melanoma Cell Through Inhibition of p-STAT3 and Inhibits Tumor Growth in a Murine Intracerebral Melanoma Model. World Neurosurg. 2018 , 114 , e182–e190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Deng, Y.; Li, F.; He, P.; Yang, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Tong, Y.; Li, Q.; Mei, X.; et al. Triptolide Sensitizes Breast Cancer Cells to Doxorubicin through the DNA Damage Response Inhibition. Mol. Carcinog. 2018 , 57 , 807–814. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinheiro-Neto, F.R.; Lopes, E.M.; Acha, B.T.; Gomes, L.d.S.; Dias, W.A.; Reis Filho, A.C.d.; Leal, B.d.S.; Rodrigues, D.C.d.N.; Silva, J.d.N.; Dittz, D.; et al. α-Phellandrene Exhibits Antinociceptive and Tumor-Reducing Effects in a Mouse Model of Oncologic Pain. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2021 , 418 , 115497. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Q.; Li, M.; Yang, M.; Yang, J.; Xie, J.; Lu, X.; Wang, F.; Chen, W. α-Pinene Regulates MiR-221 and Induces G2/M Phase Cell Cycle Arrest in Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells. Biosci. Rep. 2018 , 38 , BSR20180980. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Negreiros, H.A.; de Moura, K.G.; Barreto do Nascimento, M.L.L.; do Nascimento Rodrigues, D.C.; Ferreir, P.M.P.; Braz, D.C.; de Farias, M.G.; de Sousa Corrêia, L.; Pereira, A.R.S.; Santos, L.K.B.; et al. Alpha-Terpineol as Antitumor Candidate in Pre-Clinical Studies. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 2021 , 21 , 2023–2031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pudełek, M.; Catapano, J.; Kochanowski, P.; Mrowiec, K.; Janik-Olchawa, N.; Czyż, J.; Ryszawy, D. Therapeutic Potential of Monoterpene α-Thujone, the Main Compound of Thuja occidentalis L. Essential Oil, against Malignant Glioblastoma Multiforme Cells in Vitro. Fitoterapia 2019 , 134 , 172–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bai, Z.; Yao, C.; Zhu, J.; Xie, Y.; Ye, X.Y.; Bai, R.; Xie, T. Anti-Tumor Drug Discovery Based on Natural Product β-Elemene: Anti-Tumor Mechanisms and Structural Modification. Molecules 2021 , 26 , 1499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balavandi, Z.; Neshasteh-Riz, A.; Koosha, F.; Eynali, S.; Hoormand, M.; Shahidi, M. The Use of SS-Elemene to Enhance Radio Sensitization of A375 Human Melanoma Cells. Cell J. 2020 , 21 , 419–425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dhyani, P.; Sati, P.; Sharma, E.; Attri, D.C.; Bahukhandi, A.; Tynybekov, B.; Szopa, A.; Sharifi-Rad, J.; Calina, D.; Suleria, H.A.R.; et al. Sesquiterpenoid Lactones as Potential Anti-Cancer Agents: An Update on Molecular Mechanisms and Recent Studies. Cancer Cell Int. 2022 , 22 , 305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, B.I.M.; Nascimento, E.A.; Silva, C.J.; Silva, T.G.; Aguiar, J.S. Anticancer Activity of Monoterpenes: A Systematic Review. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2021 , 48 , 5775–5785. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alipanah, H.; Farjam, M.; Zarenezhad, E.; Roozitalab, G.; Osanloo, M. Chitosan Nanoparticles Containing Limonene and Limonene-Rich Essential Oils: Potential Phytotherapy Agents for the Treatment of Melanoma and Breast Cancers. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2021 , 21 , 186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdul Ghani, M.A.; Ugusman, A.; Latip, J.; Zainalabidin, S. Role of Terpenophenolics in Modulating Inflammation and Apoptosis in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 , 24 , 5339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haines, D.D.; Cowan, F.M.; Tosaki, A. Evolving Strategies for Use of Phytochemicals in Prevention and Long-Term Management of Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024 , 25 , 6176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aktaş, İ.; Özmen, O.; Tutun, H.; Yalçın, A.; Türk, A. Artemisinin Attenuates Doxorubicin Induced Cardiotoxicity and Hepatotoxicity in Rats. Biotech. Histochem. 2020 , 95 , 121–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, S.K.; Choe, J.Y.; Park, K.Y. Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Artemisinin on Uric Acid-Induced NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation through Blocking Interaction between NLRP3 and NEK7. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2019 , 517 , 338–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, F.; Gao, Q.; Yang, J.; Wang, C.; Cao, J.; Sun, J.; Fan, Z.; Fu, L. Artemisinin Suppresses Myocardial Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury via NLRP3 Inflammasome Mechanism. Mol. Cell Biochem. 2020 , 474 , 171–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ma, W.; Guo, W.; Shang, F.; Li, Y.; Li, W.; Liu, J.; Ma, C.; Teng, J. Bakuchiol Alleviates Hyperglycemia-Induced Diabetic Cardiomyopathy by Reducing Myocardial Oxidative Stress via Activating the SIRT1/Nrf2 Signaling Pathway. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2020 , 2020 , 3732718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, Z.; Gao, L.; Xiao, L.; Kong, L.; Shi, H.; Tian, X.; Zhao, L. Bakuchiol Protects against Pathological Cardiac Hypertrophy by Blocking NF-ΚB Signaling Pathway. Biosci. Rep. 2018 , 38 , BSR20181043. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wen, Y.; Geng, L.; Zhou, L.; Pei, X.; Yang, Z.; Ding, Z. Betulin Alleviates on Myocardial Inflammation in Diabetes Mice via Regulating Siti1/NLRP3/NF-ΚB Pathway. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020 , 85 , 106653. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yu, C.; Cai, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, J.; Zhu, N. Betulin Alleviates Myocardial Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury in Rats via Regulating the Siti1/NLRP3/NF-ΚB Signaling Pathway. Inflammation 2021 , 44 , 1096–1107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, Y.H.; Lim, W.; Sung, M.K. Carnosic Acid Modulates Increased Hepatic Lipogenesis and Adipocytes Differentiation in Ovariectomized Mice Fed Normal or High-Fat Diets. Nutrients 2018 , 10 , 1984. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wei, Y.; Xu, H.; Chen, J.; Yang, X.; Xiong, J.; Wang, J.; Cheng, F. Carnosic Acid Protects against Pressure Overload-induced Cardiac Remodelling by Inhibiting the AKT/GSK3β/NOX4 Signalling Pathway. Exp. Ther. Med. 2020 , 20 , 3709–3719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Q.L.; Yang, J.J.; Zhang, H.S. Carvedilol (CAR) Combined with Carnosic Acid (CAA) Attenuates Doxorubicin-Induced Cardiotoxicity by Suppressing Excessive Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, Apoptosis and Autophagy. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019 , 109 , 71–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, D.; Ye, B.; Lin, L.; Jin, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Chen, Y.; Han, X.; Wang, W.; Wu, G.; et al. Carnosol attenuates angiotensin II-induced cardiac remodeling and inflammation via directly binding to p38 and inhibiting p38 activation. Int. Immunopharm. 2024 , 134 , 112143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ou, S.; Lv, J.; Peng, L.; Zhao, J.; Chi, L. Carnosol Promotes Endothelial Differentiation under H 2 O 2 -Induced Oxidative Stress. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2016 , 69 , 101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sadeghzadeh, S.; Hejazian, S.; Jamhiri, M.; Hafizibarjin, Z.; Sadeghzadeh, S.; Safari, F. The Effect of Carvacrol on Transcription Levels of Bcl-2 Family Proteins in Hypertrophied Heart of Rats. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2018 , 22 , 54–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ye, S.; Luo, W.; Khan, Z.A.; Wu, G.; Xuan, L.; Shan, P.; Lin, K.; Chen, T.; Wang, J.; Hu, X.; et al. Celastrol Attenuates Angiotensin II-Induced Cardiac Remodeling by Targeting STAT3. Circ. Res. 2020 , 126 , 1007–1023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shih, M.F.; Pan, K.H.; Liu, C.C.; Shen, C.R.; Cherng, J.Y. Treatment of β-Thujaplicin Counteracts Di(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate (DEHP)-Exposed Vascular Smooth Muscle Activation, Inflammation and Atherosclerosis Progression. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2018 , 92 , 333–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xiao, H.; Liang, S.; Cai, Q.; Liu, J.; Jin, L.; Yang, Z.; Chen, X. Hinokitiol Protects Cardiomyocyte from Oxidative Damage by Inhibiting GSK3 β-Mediated Autophagy. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2022 , 2022 , 2700000. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, W.; Cao, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Q.; Jiang, Y.; Yao, J.; Li, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W. Ferruginol Restores SIRT1-PGC-1α-Mediated Mitochondrial Biogenesis and Fatty Acid Oxidation for the Treatment of DOX-Induced Cardiotoxicity. Front. Pharmacol. 2021 , 12 , 773834. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, X.; Li, X.; Wang, C.; Li, H.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y.; Feng, J.; Ali Alharbi, S.; Deng, Y. Ameliorative Effect of Ferruginol on Isoprenaline Hydrochloride-Induced Myocardial Infarction in Rats. Environ. Toxicol. 2021 , 36 , 249–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, Y.; Yuan, P.; Cao, Y.; Ke, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, W.; Zheng, X. Geniposide in Gardenia Jasminoides Var. Radicans Makino Modulates Blood Pressure via Inhibiting WNK Pathway Mediated by the Estrogen Receptors. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2020 , 72 , 1956–1969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, X.; Wu, S.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, G.; Qing, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, D. Inhibition of Autophagy by Geniposide Protects against Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020 , 85 , 106609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, C.; Zhang, X.; Lu, Y.; Wang, F.; Xu, Z.; Liu, S.; Zheng, H.; Liu, X. Geniposide Inhibits NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation via Autophagy in BV-2 Microglial Cells Exposed to Oxygen–Glucose Deprivation/Reoxygenation. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020 , 84 , 106547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, P.; Shen, D.F.; Meng, Y.Y.; Kong, C.Y.; Zhang, X.; Yuan, Y.P.; Yan, L.; Tang, Q.Z.; Ma, Z.G. Geniposide Protects against Sepsis-Induced Myocardial Dysfunction through AMPKα-Dependent Pathway. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2020 , 152 , 186–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, W.; Huang, M.; Ouyang, H.; Peng, J.; Liang, J. Oridonin Inhibits Vascular Inflammation by Blocking NF-κB and MAPK Activation. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2018 , 826 , 133–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, J.H.; Lan, C.C.; Hsu, Y.T.; Tsai, C.L.; Tzeng, I.S.; Wang, P.; Kuo, C.Y.; Hsieh, P.C. Oridonin Attenuates Lipopolysaccharide-Induced ROS Accumulation and Inflammation in HK-2 Cells. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2020 , 2020 , 9724520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, Y.; Yan, H.; Han, W.; Wang, X.; Wang, K.; Wei, B.; Xu, X. Beneficial Effects of Oridonin on Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury: Insight Gained by Metabolomic Approaches. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2019 , 861 , 172587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, C.; Chen, C.; Chen, A.; Wu, Y.; Wen, J.; Huang, F.; Zeng, Z. Oridonin Attenuates Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury via Downregulating Oxidative Stress and NLRP3 Inflammasome Pathway in Mice. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2020 , 2020 , 7395187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• He, H.; Jiang, H.; Chen, Y.; Ye, J.; Wang, A.; Wang, C.; Liu, Q.; Liang, G.; Deng, X.; Jiang, W.; et al. Oridonin Is a Covalent NLRP3 Inhibitor with Strong Anti-Inflammasome Activity. Nat. Commun. 2018 , 9 , 2550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, H.; Lv, H.; Li, H.; Ci, X.; Peng, L. Oridonin Protects LPS-Induced Acute Lung Injury by Modulating Nrf2-Mediated Oxidative Stress and Nrf2-Independent NLRP3 and NF-ΚB Pathways. Cell Commun. Signal. 2019 , 17 , 62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Sun, H.; Song, Y.; Ma, Z.; Zhang, G.; Gu, X.; Zhao, L. Retraction Pterostilbene Attenuates Inflammation in Rat Heart Subjected to Ischemia-Reperfusion: Role of TLR4/NF-κB Signaling Pathway. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015 , 8 , 1737. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, J.; Zhao, C.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, G.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Wu, N.; Ma, C. Sweroside Protects Against Myocardial Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury by Inhibiting Oxidative Stress and Pyroptosis Partially via Modulation of the Keap1/Nrf2 Axis. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021 , 8 , 650368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, L.Q.; Yu, Y.; Chen, H.; Li, M.; Ihsan, A.; Tong, H.Y.; Huang, X.J.; Gao, Y. Sweroside Alleviated Aconitine-Induced Cardiac Toxicity in H9c2 Cardiomyoblast Cell Line. Front. Pharmacol. 2018 , 9 , 1138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, G.; Jang, J.H.; Kim, S.W.; Han, S.H.; Ma, K.H.; Jang, J.K.; Kang, H.C.; Cho, Y.Y.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, J.Y. Sweroside Prevents Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis by Suppressing Activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 , 21 , 2790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• El-Marasy, S.A.; El Awdan, S.A.; Hassan, A.; Abdallah, H.M.I. Cardioprotective Effect of Thymol against Adrenaline-Induced Myocardial Injury in Rats. Heliyon 2020 , 6 , e04431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pan, X.C.; Liu, Y.; Cen, Y.Y.; Xiong, Y.L.; Li, J.M.; Ding, Y.Y.; Tong, Y.F.; Liu, T.; Chen, X.H.; Zhang, H.G. Dual Role of Triptolide in Interrupting the NLRP3 Inflammasome Pathway to Attenuate Cardiac Fibrosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 , 20 , 360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hua, F.; Shi, L.; Zhou, P. Phenols and Terpenoids: Natural Products as Inhibitors of NLRP3 Inflammasome in Cardiovascular Diseases. Inflammopharmacology 2022 , 30 , 137–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Shi, H.; Yu, Y.; Yu, Y.; Li, M.; Chen, R. NLRP3 Inflammasome, an Immune-inflammatory Target in Pathogenesis and Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases. Clin. Transl. Med. 2020 , 10 , 91–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Montenegro, Z.J.S.; Álvarez-Rivera, G.; Sánchez-Martínez, J.D.; Gallego, R.; Valdés, A.; Bueno, M.; Cifuentes, A.; Ibáñez, E. Neuroprotective Effect of Terpenoids Recovered from Olive Oil By-Products. Foods 2021 , 10 , 1507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xu, B.; Bai, L.; Chen, L.; Tong, R.; Feng, Y.; Shi, J. Terpenoid Natural Products Exert Neuroprotection via the PI3K/Akt Pathway. Front. Pharmacol. 2022 , 13 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mony, T.J.; Elahi, F.; Choi, J.W.; Park, S.J. Neuropharmacological Effects of Terpenoids on Preclinical Animal Models of Psychiatric Disorders: A Review. Antioxidants 2022 , 11 , 1834. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• González-Cofrade, L.; De Las Heras, B.; Apaza Ticona, L.; Palomino, O.M. Molecular Targets Involved in the Neuroprotection Mediated by Terpenoids. Planta Med. 2019 , 85 , 1304–1315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, K.; Yang, Y.; Ge, H.; Wang, J.; Chen, X.; Lei, X.; Zhong, J.; Zhang, C.; Xian, J.; Lu, Y.; et al. Artesunate Promotes the Proliferation of Neural Stem/Progenitor cells and Alleviates Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury through PI3K/Akt/FOXO3a/P27kip1 Signaling Pathway. Aging 2020 , 12 , 8029–8048. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, W.; Chen, W.; Wang, P.; Chu, J. Asiatic Acid Protects Differentiated PC12 Cells from Aβ25–35-Induced Apoptosis and Tau Hyperphosphorylation via Regulating PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β Signaling. Life Sci. 2018 , 208 , 96–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Giribabu, N.; Karim, K.; Kilari, E.K.; Nelli, S.R.; Salleh, N. Oral Administration of Centella asiatica (L.) Urb Leave Aqueous Extract Ameliorates Cerebral Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, and Apoptosis in Male Rats with Type-2 Diabetes. Inflammopharmacology 2020 , 28 , 1599–1622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wu, X.; Wang, J.; Song, L.; Guan, Y.; Cao, C.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C. Catalpol Weakens Depressive-like Behavior in Mice with Streptozotocin-Induced Hyperglycemia via PI3K/AKT/Nrf2/HO-1 Signaling Pathway. Neuroscience 2021 , 473 , 102–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhu, H.; Wang, J.; Shao, Y.; Wan, D. Catalpol May Improve Axonal Growth via Regulating MiR-124 Regulated PI3K/AKT/MTOR Pathway in Neurons after Ischemia. Ann. Transl. Med. 2019 , 7 , 306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dai, W.; Wang, X.; Teng, H.; Li, C.; Wang, B.; Wang, J. Celastrol Inhibits Microglial Pyroptosis and Attenuates Inflammatory Reaction in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Rats. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2019 , 66 , 215–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wei, H.; Duan, G.; He, J.; Meng, Q.; Liu, Y.; Chen, W.; Meng, Y. Geniposide Attenuates Epilepsy Symptoms in a Mouse Model through the PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β Signaling Pathway. Exp. Ther. Med. 2018 , 15 , 1136–1142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, M.; Yang, L.; Chen, Z.; Dai, L.; Xi, C.; Wu, X.; Wu, G.; Wang, Y.; Hu, J. Geniposide Ameliorates Chronic Unpredictable Mild Stress Induced Depression-like Behavior through Inhibition of Ceramide-PP2A Signaling via the PI3K/Akt/GSK3β Axis. Psychopharmacology 2021 , 238 , 2789–2800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, D.; Chen, Q.; Yao, L. Geniposide Alleviates Neuropathic Pain in CCI Rats by Inhibiting the EGFR/PI3K/AKT Pathway and Ca 2+ Channels. Neurotox. Res. 2022 , 40 , 1057–1069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, Y.; Wu, Z.; Yi, F.; Orange, M.; Yao, M.; Yang, B.; Liu, J.; Zhu, H. By Activating Akt/ENOS Bilobalide B Inhibits Autophagy and Promotes Angiogenesis Following Focal Cerebral Ischemia Reperfusion. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 2018 , 47 , 604–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Usuki, T.; Yoshimoto, Y.; Sato, M.; Takenaka, T.; Takezawa, R.; Yoshida, Y.; Satake, M.; Suzuki, N.; Hashizume, D.; Dzyuba, S.V. Bilobalide and PC12 Cells: A Structure Activity Relationship Study. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2020 , 28 , 115251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, W.; Song, J.; Yan, R.; Li, L.; Xiao, Z.; Zhou, W.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, W.; Du, G. Diterpene Ginkgolides Protect against Cerebral Ischemia/Reperfusion Damage in Rats by Activating Nrf2 and CREB through PI3K/Akt Signaling. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2018 , 39 , 1259–1272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Q.; Jin, Z.; Xu, Z.; Yang, H.; Li, L.; Li, G.; Li, F.; Gu, S.; Zong, S.; Zhou, J.; et al. Antioxidant Effects of Ginkgolides and Bilobalide against Cerebral Ischemia Injury by Activating the Akt/Nrf2 Pathway in Vitro and in Vivo. Cell Stress Chaperones 2019 , 24 , 441–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, W.B.; Cao, L.; Zhao, Y.Y.; Xiao, W.; Xiao, B.G. Comparing the Role of Ginkgolide B and Ginkgolide K on Cultured Astrocytes Exposed to Oxygen-glucose Deprivation. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018 , 18 , 4417–4427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, B.; Zhao, Y.; Li, W.; Hang, J.; Yin, M.; Yu, H. Echinocystic Acid Provides a Neuroprotective Effect via the PI3K/AKT Pathway in Intracerebral Haemorrhage Mice. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020 , 8 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Park, J.Y.; Amarsanaa, K.; Cui, Y.; Lee, J.H.; Wu, J.; Yang, Y.S.; Eun, S.Y.; Jung, S.C. Methyl Lucidone Exhibits Neuroprotective Effects on Glutamate-Induced Oxidative Stress in HT-22 Cells via Nrf-2/HO-1 Signaling. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2019 , 62 , 67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lorigooini, Z.; Boroujeni, S.N.; Sayyadi-Shahraki, M.; Rahimi-Madiseh, M.; Bijad, E.; Amini-Khoei, H. Limonene through Attenuation of Neuroinflammation and Nitrite Level Exerts Antidepressant-like Effect on Mouse Model of Maternal Separation Stress. Behav. Neurol. 2021 , 2021 , 8817309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, C.; Wen, C.; Yang, M.; Gan, D.; Fan, C.; Li, A.; Li, Q.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, L.; Lu, D. Lycopene Protects against T-BHP-Induced Neuronal Oxidative Damage and Apoptosis via Activation of the PI3K/Akt Pathway. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019 , 46 , 3387–3397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Guo, H.; Wang, X. Platycodin D Protects Cortical Neurons against Oxygen-Glucose Deprivation/Reperfusion in Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy. J. Cell Biochem. 2019 , 120 , 14028–14034. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sun, C.; Cao, X.C.; Liu, Z.Y.; Ma, C.L.; Li, B.M. Polygalasaponin F Protects Hippocampal Neurons against Glutamate-Induced Cytotoxicity. Neural. Regen. Res. 2022 , 17 , 178–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, W.; Wulin, H.; Shao, G.; Wei, L.; Qi, R.; Ma, B.; Chen, N.; Shi, R. Polygalasaponin F Inhibits Neuronal Apoptosis Induced by Oxygen-Glucose Deprivation and Reoxygenation through the PI3K/Akt Pathway. Basic. Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2020 , 127 , 196–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, S.; Yang, T.; Cen, K.; Zou, Y.; Shi, X.; Zhou, D.; Gao, Y.; Chai, L.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, Y.; et al. In Vitro Evaluation of the Neuroprotective Effect of Panax Notoginseng Saponins by Activating the EGFR/PI3K/AKT Pathway. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2020 , 2020 , 1403572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tu, L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, D.; Xiang, P.; Shen, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, S. Protective Effects of Notoginsenoside R1 via Regulation of the PI3K-Akt-MTOR/JNK Pathway in Neonatal Cerebral Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury. Neurochem. Res. 2018 , 43 , 1210–1226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khoshnazar, M.; Parvardeh, S.; Bigdeli, M.R. Alpha-Pinene Exerts Neuroprotective Effects via Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Apoptotic Mechanisms in a Rat Model of Focal Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2020 , 29 , 104977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mehri, S.; Meshki, M.A.; Hosseinzadeh, H. Linalool as a Neuroprotective Agent against Acrylamide-Induced Neurotoxicity in Wistar Rats. Drug Chem Toxicol 2015 , 38 , 162–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weston-Green, K.; Clunas, H.; Jimenez Naranjo, C. A Review of the Potential Use of Pinene and Linalool as Terpene-Based Medicines for Brain Health: Discovering Novel Therapeutics in the Flavours and Fragrances of Cannabis. Front. Psychiatry 2021 , 12 , 583211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sánchez-Martínez, J.D.; Bueno, M.; Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Tudela, J.; Ibañez, E.; Cifuentes, A. In Vitro Neuroprotective Potential of Terpenes from Industrial Orange Juice by-Products. Food Funct. 2021 , 12 , 302–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Maitra, U.; Stephen, C.; Ciesla, L.M. Drug Discovery from Natural Products—Old Problems and Novel Solutions for the Treatment of Neurodegenerative Diseases. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2022 , 210 , 114553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wojtunik-Kulesza, K.A.; Kasprzak, K.; Oniszczuk, T.; Oniszczuk, A. Natural Monoterpenes: Much More than Only a Scent. Chem. Biodivers. 2019 , 16 , e1900434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akhtar, A.; Andleeb, A.; Waris, T.S.; Bazzar, M.; Moradi, A.R.; Awan, N.R.; Yar, M. Neurodegenerative Diseases and Effective Drug Delivery: A Review of Challenges and Novel Therapeutics. J. Control. Release 2021 , 330 , 1152–1167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yoo, K.Y.; Park, S.Y. Terpenoids as Potential Anti-Alzheimer’s Disease Therapeutics. Molecules 2012 , 17 , 3524–3538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marino, A.; Battaglini, M.; Moles, N.; Ciofani, G. Natural Antioxidant Compounds as Potential Pharmaceutical Tools against Neurodegenerative Diseases. ACS Omega 2022 , 7 , 25974–25990. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021 , 71 , 209–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dehelean, C.A.; Marcovici, I.; Soica, C.; Mioc, M.; Coricovac, D.; Iurciuc, S.; Cretu, O.M.; Pinzaru, I. Plant-Derived Anticancer Compounds as New Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Alternative Therapy. Molecules 2021 , 26 , 1109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhu, L.; Chen, L. Progress in Research on Paclitaxel and Tumor Immunotherapy. Cell Mol. Biol. Lett. 2019 , 24 , 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, Z.; Jacob, J.A.; Loganathachetti, D.S.; Nainangu, P.; Chen, B. β-Elemene: Mechanistic Studies on Cancer Cell Interaction and Its Chemosensitization Effect. Front. Pharmacol. 2017 , 8 , 105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nijst, P.; Tang, W.H.W. Managing Cancer Patients and Survivors with Advanced Heart Failure. Curr. Treat Options Cardiovasc. Med. 2021 , 23 , 73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallaher, J.R.; Charles, A. Acute Cholecystitis A Review. JAMA Netw. 2022 , 327 , 965–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mukhtar, Y.M.; Adu-Frimpong, M.; Xu, X.; Yu, J. Biochemical Significance of Limonene and Its Metabolites: Future Prospects for Designing and Developing Highly Potent Anticancer Drugs. Biosci. Rep. 2018 , 38 , BSR20181253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weston-Green, K. The United Chemicals of Cannabis: Beneficial effects of Cannabis phytochemicals on the brain and cognition. In Recent Advances in Cannabinoid Research ; Costain, W., Laprairie, R.B., Eds.; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 83–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiong, Y.; Huang, J. Anti-Malarial Drug: The Emerging Role of Artemisinin and Its Derivatives in Liver Disease Treatment. Chin. Med. 2021 , 16 , 80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bridgford, J.L.; Xie, S.C.; Cobbold, S.A.; Pasaje, C.F.A.; Herrmann, S.; Yang, T.; Gillett, D.L.; Dick, L.R.; Ralph, S.A.; Dogovski, C.; et al. Artemisinin Kills Malaria Parasites by Damaging Proteins and Inhibiting the Proteasome. Nat. Commun. 2018 , 9 , 3801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, M.; Yuan, S.; Li, L.; Zheng, J.; Zhao, D.; Wang, C.; Wang, H.; Liu, X.; Liu, J. Application of Terpenoid Compounds in Food and Pharmaceutical Products. Fermentation 2023 , 9 , 119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tetali, S.D. Terpenes and Isoprenoids: A Wealth of Compounds for Global Use. Planta 2019 , 249 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shahidi, F.; De Camargo, A.C. Tocopherols and Tocotrienols in Common and Emerging Dietary Sources: Occurrence, Applications, and Health Benefits. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016 , 17 , 1745. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grether-Beck, S.; Marini, A.; Jaenicke, T.; Stahl, W.; Krutmann, J. Molecular Evidence That Oral Supplementation with Lycopene or Lutein Protects Human Skin against Ultraviolet Radiation: Results from a Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017 , 176 , 1231–1240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Y.W.; Kim, M.J.; Chung, B.Y.; Bang, D.Y.; Lim, S.K.; Choi, S.M.; Lim, D.S.; Cho, M.C.; Yoon, K.; Kim, H.S.; et al. Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of D-Limonene. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 2013 , 16 , 17–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, Z.; Zhi, H.; Fang, Z.; Zhang, P. Genetic Engineering of Yeast, Filamentous Fungi and Bacteria for Terpene Production and Applications in Food Industry. Food Res. Int. 2021 , 147 , 110487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gutiérrez-Del-río, I.; López-Ibáñez, S.; Magadán-Corpas, P.; Fernández-Calleja, L.; Pérez-Valero, Á.; Tuñón-Granda, M.; Miguélez, E.M.; Villar, C.J.; Lombó, F. Terpenoids and Polyphenols as Natural Antioxidant Agents in Food Preservation. Antioxidants 2021 , 10 , 1264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kozłowska, M.; Gruczyńska, E. Comparison of the Oxidative Stability of Soybean and Sunflower Oils Enriched with Herbal Plant Extracts. Chem. Pap. 2018 , 72 , 2607–2615. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodriguez-Garcia, I.; Cruz-Valenzuela, M.R.; Silva-Espinoza, B.A.; Gonzalez-Aguilar, G.A.; Moctezuma, E.; Gutierrez-Pacheco, M.M.; Tapia-Rodriguez, M.R.; Ortega-Ramirez, L.A.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F. Oregano (Lippia Graveolens) Essential Oil Added within Pectin Edible Coatings Prevents Fungal Decay and Increases the Antioxidant Capacity of Treated Tomatoes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016 , 96 , 3772–3778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kutyna, D.R.; Borneman, A.R. Heterologous Production of Flavour and Aroma Compounds in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. Genes 2018 , 9 , 326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Triaux, Z.; Petitjean, H.; Marchioni, E.; Steyer, D.; Marcic, C. Comparison of Headspace, Hydrodistillation and Pressurized Liquid Extraction of Terpenes and Terpenoids from Food Matrices—Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. J. Anal. Chem. 2021 , 76 , 284–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, C.; Hong, K. Production of Terpenoids by Synthetic Biology Approaches. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020 , 8 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Isidore, E.; Karim, H.; Ioannou, I. Extraction of Phenolic Compounds and Terpenes from Cannabis Sativa l. By-Products: From Conventional to Intensified Processes. Antioxidants 2021 , 10 , 942. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yusoff, I.M.; Mat Taher, Z.; Rahmat, Z.; Chua, L.S. A Review of Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction for Plant Bioactive Compounds: Phenolics, Flavonoids, Thymols, Saponins and Proteins. Food Res. Int. 2022 , 157 , 111268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rodríguez-Llorente, D.; Cañada-Barcala, A.; Álvarez-Torrellas, S.; Águeda, V.I.; García, J.; Larriba, M. A Review of the Use of Eutectic Solvents, Terpenes and Terpenoids in Liquid–Liquid Extraction Processes. Processes 2020 , 8 , 1220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Awad, A.M.; Kumar, P.; Ismail-Fitry, M.R.; Jusoh, S.; Ab Aziz, M.F.; Sazili, A.Q. Green Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Plant Biomass and Their Application in Meat as Natural Antioxidant. Antioxidants 2021 , 10 , 1465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sánchez-Martínez, J.D.; Alvarez-Rivera, G.; Gallego, R.; Fagundes, M.B.; Valdés, A.; Mendiola, J.A.; Ibañez, E.; Cifuentes, A. Neuroprotective Potential of Terpenoid-Rich Extracts from Orange Juice by-Products Obtained by Pressurized Liquid Extraction. Food Chem. X 2022 , 13 , 100242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Morón-Ortiz, Á.; Zhou, J.; Benítez-González, A.; Mapelli-Brahm, P.; Meléndez-Martínez, A.J.; Barba, F.J. Effects of Pressurized Liquid Extraction with Dimethyl Sulfoxide on the Recovery of Carotenoids and Other Dietary Valuable Compounds from the Microalgae Spirulina, Chlorella and Phaeodactylum tricornutum . Food Chem. 2023 , 405 , 134885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shapira, A.; Berman, P.; Futoran, K.; Guberman, O.; Meiri, D. Tandem Mass Spectrometric Quantification of 93 Terpenoids in Cannabis Using Static Headspace Injections. Anal. Chem. 2019 , 91 , 11425–11432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Deng, H.; He, R.; Huang, R.; Pang, C.; Ma, Y.; Xia, H.; Liang, D.; Liao, L.; Xiong, B.; Wang, X.; et al. Optimization of a Static Headspace GC-MS Method and Its Application in Metabolic Fingerprinting of the Leaf Volatiles of 42 Citrus Cultivars. Front. Plant Sci. 2022 , 13 , 1050289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lamberti, L.; Grillo, G.; Gallina, L.; Carnaroglio, D.; Chemat, F.; Cravotto, G. Microwave-Assisted Hydrodistillation of Hop ( Humulus lupulus L.) Terpenes: A Pilot-Scale Study. Foods 2021 , 10 , 2726. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Radivojac, A.; Bera, O.; Micić, D.; Đurović, S.; Zeković, Z.; Blagojević, S.; Pavlić, B. Conventional versus Microwave-Assisted Hydrodistillation of Sage Herbal Dust: Kinetics Modeling and Physico-Chemical Properties of Essential Oil. Food Bioprod. Process. 2020 , 123 , 90–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, X.; Feng, C.; Jia, A.; Gao, J.; Zhang, R. Recovery of Essential Oils from the Withered Flowers of Magnolia Soulangeana Soul.-Bod. by Microwave-Assisted Hydrodistillation with Uniform Heating and Its New Application in the Hypolipidemic Field. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023 , 204 , 117355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Çelebi Uzkuç, N.M.; Uzkuç, H.; Berber, M.M.; Tarhan Kuzu, K.; Özmen Toğay, S.; İşleten Hoşoğlu, M.; Kırca Toklucu, A.; Kurt, S.B.; Sahiner, N.; Karagül Yüceer, Y. Stabilisation of Lavender Essential Oil Extracted by Microwave-Assisted Hydrodistillation: Characteristics of Starch and Soy Protein-Based Microemulsions. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021 , 172 , 114034. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pavlić, B.; Teslić, N.; Zengin, G.; Đurović, S.; Rakić, D.; Cvetanović, A.; Gunes, A.K.; Zeković, Z. Antioxidant and Enzyme-Inhibitory Activity of Peppermint Extracts and Essential Oils Obtained by Conventional and Emerging Extraction Techniques. Food Chem. 2021 , 338 , 127724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Andrade Lima, M.; Kestekoglou, I.; Charalampopoulos, D.; Chatzifragkou, A. Supercritical Fluid Extraction of Carotenoids from Vegetable Waste Matrices. Molecules 2019 , 24 , 466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sánchez-Camargo, A.d.P.; Gutiérrez, L.F.; Vargas, S.M.; Martinez-Correa, H.A.; Parada-Alfonso, F.; Narváez-Cuenca, C.E. Valorisation of Mango Peel: Proximate Composition, Supercritical Fluid Extraction of Carotenoids, and Application as an Antioxidant Additive for an Edible Oil. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2019 , 152 , 104574. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vardanega, R.; Nogueira, G.C.; Nascimento, C.D.O.; Faria-Machado, A.F.; Meireles, M.A.A. Selective Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Annatto Seeds by Sequential Supercritical CO 2 Process. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2019 , 150 , 122–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lima, R.N.; Ribeiro, A.S.; Cardozo-Filho, L.; Vedoy, D.; Alves, P.B. Extraction from Leaves of Piper Klotzschianum Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide and Co-Solvents. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2019 , 147 , 205–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Y.J.; Choi, H.J.; Chung, M.S.; Ko, M.J. Selective Extraction of Oxygenated Terpene in Caraway ( Carum carvi L.) Using Subcritical Water Extraction (SWE) Technique. Food Chem. 2022 , 381 , 132192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Spinozzi, E.; Ferrati, M.; Lo Giudice, D.; Felicioni, E.; Petrelli, R.; Benelli, G.; Maggi, F.; Cespi, M. Microwave-Assisted Hydrodistillation of the Insecticidal Essential Oil from Carlina Acaulis: A Fractional Factorial Design Optimization Study. Plants 2023 , 12 , 622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Singh, S.; Verma, D.K.; Thakur, M.; Tripathy, S.; Patel, A.R.; Shah, N.; Utama, G.L.; Srivastav, P.P.; Benavente-Valdés, J.R.; Chávez-González, M.L.; et al. Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SCFE) as Green Extraction Technology for High-Value Metabolites of Algae, Its Potential Trends in Food and Human Health. Food Res. Internat. 2021 , 150 , 110746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Câmara, J.S.; Perestrelo, R.; Berenguer, C.V.; Andrade, C.F.P.; Gomes, T.M.; Olayanju, B.; Kabir, A.; Rocha, C.M.R.; Teixeira, J.A.; Pereira, J.A.M. Green Extraction Techniques as Advanced Sample Preparation Approaches in Biological, Food, and Environmental Matrices: A Review. Molecules 2022 , 27 , 2953. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Essien, S.O.; Young, B.; Baroutian, S. Recent Advances in Subcritical Water and Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Plant Materials. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020 , 97 , 156–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Câmara, J.S.; Perestrelo, R.; Ferreira, R.; Berenguer, C.V.; Pereira, J.A.M.; Castilho, P.C. Plant-Derived Terpenoids: A Plethora of Bioactive Compounds with Several Health Functions and Industrial Applications—A Comprehensive Overview. Molecules 2024 , 29 , 3861. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29163861

Câmara JS, Perestrelo R, Ferreira R, Berenguer CV, Pereira JAM, Castilho PC. Plant-Derived Terpenoids: A Plethora of Bioactive Compounds with Several Health Functions and Industrial Applications—A Comprehensive Overview. Molecules . 2024; 29(16):3861. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29163861

Câmara, José S., Rosa Perestrelo, Rui Ferreira, Cristina V. Berenguer, Jorge A. M. Pereira, and Paula C. Castilho. 2024. "Plant-Derived Terpenoids: A Plethora of Bioactive Compounds with Several Health Functions and Industrial Applications—A Comprehensive Overview" Molecules 29, no. 16: 3861. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29163861

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals