a brief overview of a research study

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Summary

Definition:

A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. It is often used as a tool to quickly communicate the main findings of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or decision-makers.

Structure of Research Summary

The Structure of a Research Summary typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides a brief background of the research problem or question, explains the purpose of the study, and outlines the research objectives.
• Methodology : This section explains the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. It describes the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Results : This section presents the main findings of the study, including statistical analysis if applicable. It may include tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains their implications. It discusses the significance of the findings, compares them to previous research, and identifies any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main points of the research and provides a conclusion based on the findings. It may also suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• References : This section lists the sources cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

How to Write Research Summary

Here are the steps you can follow to write a research summary:

• Read the research article or study thoroughly: To write a summary, you must understand the research article or study you are summarizing. Therefore, read the article or study carefully to understand its purpose, research design, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the main points : Once you have read the research article or study, identify the main points, key findings, and research question. You can highlight or take notes of the essential points and findings to use as a reference when writing your summary.
• Write the introduction: Start your summary by introducing the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study. Briefly explain why the research is important and its significance.
• Summarize the methodology : In this section, summarize the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. Explain the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Present the results: Summarize the main findings of the study. Use tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data if necessary.
• Interpret the results: In this section, interpret the results and explain their implications. Discuss the significance of the findings, compare them to previous research, and identify any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclude the summary : Summarize the main points of the research and provide a conclusion based on the findings. Suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• Revise and edit : Once you have written the summary, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free of errors. Make sure that your summary accurately represents the research article or study.
• Add references: Include a list of references cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

Example of Research Summary

Here is an example of a research summary:

Title: The Effects of Yoga on Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the effects of yoga on mental health. The study aimed to investigate whether yoga practice can improve mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life.

Methodology : The study analyzed data from 14 randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of yoga on mental health outcomes. The sample included a total of 862 participants. The yoga interventions varied in length and frequency, ranging from four to twelve weeks, with sessions lasting from 45 to 90 minutes.

Results : The meta-analysis found that yoga practice significantly improved mental health outcomes. Participants who practiced yoga showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as stress levels. Quality of life also improved in those who practiced yoga.

Discussion : The findings of this study suggest that yoga can be an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. The study supports the growing body of evidence that suggests that yoga can have a positive impact on mental health. Limitations of the study include the variability of the yoga interventions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion : Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support the use of yoga as an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length and frequency of yoga interventions for different populations.

References :

• Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Langhorst, J., Dobos, G., & Berger, B. (2013). Yoga for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and anxiety, 30(11), 1068-1083.
• Khalsa, S. B. (2004). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: a bibliometric analysis of published research studies. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 48(3), 269-285.
• Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3-12.

Purpose of Research Summary

The purpose of a research summary is to provide a brief overview of a research project or study, including its main points, findings, and conclusions. The summary allows readers to quickly understand the essential aspects of the research without having to read the entire article or study.

Research summaries serve several purposes, including:

• Facilitating comprehension: A research summary allows readers to quickly understand the main points and findings of a research project or study without having to read the entire article or study. This makes it easier for readers to comprehend the research and its significance.
• Communicating research findings: Research summaries are often used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public. The summary presents the essential aspects of the research in a clear and concise manner, making it easier for non-experts to understand.
• Supporting decision-making: Research summaries can be used to support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. This information can be used by policymakers or practitioners to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Saving time: Research summaries save time for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders who need to review multiple research studies. Rather than having to read the entire article or study, they can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.

Characteristics of Research Summary

The following are some of the key characteristics of a research summary:

• Concise : A research summary should be brief and to the point, providing a clear and concise overview of the main points of the research.
• Objective : A research summary should be written in an objective tone, presenting the research findings without bias or personal opinion.
• Comprehensive : A research summary should cover all the essential aspects of the research, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research summary should accurately reflect the key findings and conclusions of the research.
• Clear and well-organized: A research summary should be easy to read and understand, with a clear structure and logical flow.
• Relevant : A research summary should focus on the most important and relevant aspects of the research, highlighting the key findings and their implications.
• Audience-specific: A research summary should be tailored to the intended audience, using language and terminology that is appropriate and accessible to the reader.
• Citations : A research summary should include citations to the original research articles or studies, allowing readers to access the full text of the research if desired.

When to write Research Summary

Here are some situations when it may be appropriate to write a research summary:

• Proposal stage: A research summary can be included in a research proposal to provide a brief overview of the research aims, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.
• Conference presentation: A research summary can be prepared for a conference presentation to summarize the main findings of a study or research project.
• Journal submission: Many academic journals require authors to submit a research summary along with their research article or study. The summary provides a brief overview of the study’s main points, findings, and conclusions and helps readers quickly understand the research.
• Funding application: A research summary can be included in a funding application to provide a brief summary of the research aims, objectives, and expected outcomes.
• Policy brief: A research summary can be prepared as a policy brief to communicate research findings to policymakers or stakeholders in a concise and accessible manner.

Advantages of Research Summary

Research summaries offer several advantages, including:

• Time-saving: A research summary saves time for readers who need to understand the key findings and conclusions of a research project quickly. Rather than reading the entire research article or study, readers can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.
• Clarity and accessibility: A research summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the research project’s main points, making it easier for readers to understand the research without having to be experts in the field.
• Improved comprehension: A research summary helps readers comprehend the research by providing a brief and focused overview of the key findings and conclusions, making it easier to understand the research and its significance.
• Enhanced communication: Research summaries can be used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public, in a concise and accessible manner.
• Facilitated decision-making: Research summaries can support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. Policymakers or practitioners can use this information to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Increased dissemination: Research summaries can be easily shared and disseminated, allowing research findings to reach a wider audience.

Limitations of Research Summary

Limitations of the Research Summary are as follows:

• Limited scope: Research summaries provide a brief overview of the research project’s main points, findings, and conclusions, which can be limiting. They may not include all the details, nuances, and complexities of the research that readers may need to fully understand the study’s implications.
• Risk of oversimplification: Research summaries can be oversimplified, reducing the complexity of the research and potentially distorting the findings or conclusions.
• Lack of context: Research summaries may not provide sufficient context to fully understand the research findings, such as the research background, methodology, or limitations. This may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research.
• Possible bias: Research summaries may be biased if they selectively emphasize certain findings or conclusions over others, potentially distorting the overall picture of the research.
• Format limitations: Research summaries may be constrained by the format or length requirements, making it challenging to fully convey the research’s main points, findings, and conclusions.
• Accessibility: Research summaries may not be accessible to all readers, particularly those with limited literacy skills, visual impairments, or language barriers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Surveys Academic Research

Research Summary: What is it & how to write one

The Research Summary is used to report facts about a study clearly. You will almost certainly be required to prepare a research summary during your academic research or while on a research project for your organization.

If it is the first time you have to write one, the writing requirements may confuse you. The instructors generally assign someone to write a summary of the research work. Research summaries require the writer to have a thorough understanding of the issue.

This article will discuss the definition of a research summary and how to write one.

What is a research summary?

A research summary is a piece of writing that summarizes your research on a specific topic. Its primary goal is to offer the reader a detailed overview of the study with the key findings. A research summary generally contains the article’s structure in which it is written.

You must know the goal of your analysis before you launch a project. A research overview summarizes the detailed response and highlights particular issues raised in it. Writing it might be somewhat troublesome. To write a good overview, you want to start with a structure in mind. Read on for our guide.

Why is an analysis recap so important?

Your summary or analysis is going to tell readers everything about your research project. This is the critical piece that your stakeholders will read to identify your findings and valuable insights. Having a good and concise research summary that presents facts and comes with no research biases is the critical deliverable of any research project.

We’ve put together a cheat sheet to help you write a good research summary below.

Research Summary Guide

• Why was this research done?  – You want to give a clear description of why this research study was done. What hypothesis was being tested?
• Who was surveyed? – The what and why or your research decides who you’re going to interview/survey. Your research summary has a detailed note on who participated in the study and why they were selected. 
• What was the methodology? – Talk about the methodology. Did you do face-to-face interviews? Was it a short or long survey or a focus group setting? Your research methodology is key to the results you’re going to get. 
• What were the key findings? – This can be the most critical part of the process. What did we find out after testing the hypothesis? This section, like all others, should be just facts, facts facts. You’re not sharing how you feel about the findings. Keep it bias-free.
• Conclusion – What are the conclusions that were drawn from the findings. A good example of a conclusion. Surprisingly, most people interviewed did not watch the lunar eclipse in 2022, which is unexpected given that 100% of those interviewed knew about it before it happened.
• Takeaways and action points – This is where you bring in your suggestion. Given the data you now have from the research, what are the takeaways and action points? If you’re a researcher running this research project for your company, you’ll use this part to shed light on your recommended action plans for the business.

LEARN ABOUT:   Action Research

If you’re doing any research, you will write a summary, which will be the most viewed and more important part of the project. So keep a guideline in mind before you start. Focus on the content first and then worry about the length. Use the cheat sheet/checklist in this article to organize your summary, and that’s all you need to write a great research summary!

But once your summary is ready, where is it stored? Most teams have multiple documents in their google drives, and it’s a nightmare to find projects that were done in the past. Your research data should be democratized and easy to use.

We at QuestionPro launched a research repository for research teams, and our clients love it. All your data is in one place, and everything is searchable, including your research summaries! 

Authors: Prachi, Anas

MORE LIKE THIS

Trend Report: Guide for Market Dynamics & Strategic Analysis

May 29, 2024

Cannabis Industry Business Intelligence: Impact on Research

May 28, 2024

Top 10 Dynata Alternatives & Competitors

May 27, 2024

What Are My Employees Really Thinking? The Power of Open-ended Survey Analysis

May 24, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• How it works

Writing a Summary – Explanation & Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

In a world bombarded with vast amounts of information, condensing and presenting data in a digestible format becomes invaluable. Enter summaries. 

A summary is a brief and concise account of the main points of a larger body of work. It distils complex ideas, narratives, or data into a version that is quicker to read and easier to understand yet still retains the essence of the original content.

Importance of Summaries

The importance of summarising extends far beyond just making reading more manageable. In academic settings, summaries aid students in understanding and retaining complex materials, from textbook chapters to research articles. They also serve as tools to showcase one’s grasp of the subject in essays and reports. 

In professional arenas, summaries are pivotal in business reports, executive briefings, and even emails where key points need to be conveyed quickly to decision-makers. Meanwhile, summarising skills come into play in our personal lives when we relay news stories to friends, recap a movie plot, or even scroll through condensed news or app notifications on our smartphones.

Why Do We Write Summaries?

In our modern information age, the sheer volume of content available can be overwhelming. From detailed research papers to comprehensive news articles, the quest for knowledge is often met with lengthy and complex resources. This is where the power of a well-crafted summary comes into play. But what drives us to create or seek out summaries? Let’s discuss.

Makes Important Things Easy to Remember

At the heart of summarisation is the goal to understand. A well-written summary aids in digesting complex material. By distilling larger works into their core points, we reinforce the primary messages, making them easier to remember. This is especially crucial for students who need to retain knowledge for exams or professionals prepping for a meeting based on a lengthy report.

Simplification of Complex Topics

Not everyone is an expert in every field. Often, topics come laden with jargon, intricate details, and nuanced arguments. Summaries act as a bridge, translating this complexity into accessible and straightforward content. This is especially beneficial for individuals new to a topic or those who need just the highlights without the intricacies.

Aid in Researching and Understanding Diverse Sources

Researchers, writers, and academics often wade through many sources when working on a project. This involves finding sources of different types, such as primary or secondary sources , and then understanding their content. Sifting through each source in its entirety can be time-consuming. Summaries offer a streamlined way to understand each source’s main arguments or findings, making synthesising information from diverse materials more efficient.

Condensing Information for Presentation or Sharing

In professional settings, there is often a need to present findings, updates, or recommendations to stakeholders. An executive might not have the time to go through a 50-page report, but they would certainly appreciate a concise summary highlighting the key points. Similarly, in our personal lives, we often summarise movie plots, book stories, or news events when sharing with friends or family.

Characteristics of a Good Summary

Crafting an effective summary is an art. It’s more than just shortening a piece of content; it is about capturing the essence of the original work in a manner that is both accessible and true to its intent. Let’s explore the primary characteristics that distinguish a good summary from a mediocre one:

Conciseness

At the core of a summary is the concept of brevity. But being concise doesn’t mean leaving out vital information. A good summary will:

• Eliminate superfluous details or repetitive points.
• Focus on the primary arguments, events, or findings.
• Use succinct language without compromising the message.

Objectivity

Summarising is not about infusing personal opinions or interpretations. A quality summary will:

• Stick to the facts as presented in the original content.
• Avoid introducing personal biases or perspectives.
• Represent the original author’s intent faithfully.

A summary is meant to simplify and make content accessible. This is only possible if the summary itself is easy to understand. Ensuring clarity involves:

• Avoiding jargon or technical terms unless they are essential to the content. If they are used, they should be clearly defined.
• Structuring sentences in a straightforward manner.
• Making sure ideas are presented in a way that even someone unfamiliar with the topic can grasp the primary points.

A jumble of ideas, no matter how concise, will not make for a good summary. Coherence ensures that there’s a logical flow to the summarised content. A coherent summary will:

• Maintain a logical sequence, often following the structure of the original content.
• Use transition words or phrases to connect ideas and ensure smooth progression.
• Group related ideas together to provide structure and avoid confusion.

Steps of Writing a Summary

The process of creating a compelling summary is not merely about cutting down content. It involves understanding, discerning, and crafting. Here is a step-by-step guide to writing a summary that encapsulates the essence of the original work:

Reading Actively

Engage deeply with the content to ensure a thorough understanding.

• Read the entire document or work first to grasp its overall intent and structure.
• On the second read, underline or highlight the standout points or pivotal moments.
• Make brief notes in the margins or on a separate sheet, capturing the core ideas in your own words.

Identifying the Main Idea

Determine the backbone of the content, around which all other details revolve.

• Ask yourself: “What is the primary message or theme the author wants to convey?”
• This can often be found in the title, introduction, or conclusion of a piece.
• Frame the main idea in a clear and concise statement to guide your summary.

List Key Supporting Points

Understand the pillars that uphold the main idea, providing evidence or depth to the primary message.

• Refer back to the points you underlined or highlighted during your active reading.
• Note major arguments, evidence, or examples that the author uses to back up the main idea.
• Prioritise these points based on their significance to the main idea.

Draft the Summary

Convert your understanding into a condensed, coherent version of the original.

• Start with a statement of the main idea.
• Follow with the key supporting points, maintaining logical order.
• Avoid including trivial details or examples unless they’re crucial to the primary message.
• Use your own words, ensuring you are not plagiarising the original content.

Fine-tune your draft to ensure clarity, accuracy, and brevity.

• Read your draft aloud to check for flow and coherence.
• Ensure that your summary remains objective, avoiding any personal interpretations or biases.
• Check the length. See if any non-essential details can be removed without sacrificing understanding if it is too lengthy.
• Ensure clarity by ensuring the language is straightforward, and the main ideas are easily grasped.

The research done by our experts have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• Authentic Sources

Dos and Don’ts of Summarising Key Points

Summarising, while seemingly straightforward, comes with its nuances. Properly condensing content demands a balance between brevity and fidelity to the original work. To aid in crafting exemplary summaries, here is a guide on the essential dos and don’ts:

Use your Own Words

This ensures that you have truly understood the content and are not merely parroting it. It also prevents issues of plagiarism.

Tip: After reading the original content, take a moment to reflect on it. Then, without looking at the source, write down the main points in your own words.

Attribute Sources Properly

Giving credit is both ethical and provides context to readers, helping them trace back to the original work if needed. How to cite sources correctly is a skill every writer should master.

Tip: Use signal phrases like “According to [Author/Source]…” or “As [Author/Source] points out…” to seamlessly incorporate attributions.

Ensure Accuracy of the Summarised Content

A summary should be a reliable reflection of the original content. Distorting or misrepresenting the original ideas compromises the integrity of the summary.

Tip: After drafting your summary, cross-check with the original content to ensure all key points are represented accurately and ensure you are referencing credible sources .

Avoid Copy-Pasting Chunks of Original Content

This not only raises plagiarism concerns but also shows a lack of genuine engagement with the material.

Tip: If a particular phrase or sentence from the original is pivotal and cannot be reworded without losing its essence, use block quotes , quotation marks, and attribute the source.

Do not Inject your Personal Opinion

A summary should be an objective reflection of the source material. Introducing personal biases or interpretations can mislead readers.

Tip: Stick to the facts and arguments presented in the original content. If you find yourself writing “I think” or “In my opinion,” reevaluate the sentence.

Do not Omit Crucial Information

While a summary is meant to be concise, it shouldn’t be at the expense of vital details that are essential to understanding the original content’s core message.

Tip: Prioritise information. Always include the main idea and its primary supports. If you are unsure whether a detail is crucial, consider its impact on the overall message.

Examples of Summaries

Here are a few examples that will help you get a clearer view of how to write a summary. 

Example 1: Summary of a News Article

Original Article: The article reports on the recent discovery of a rare species of frog in the Amazon rainforest. The frog, named the “Emerald Whisperer” due to its unique green hue and the soft chirping sounds it makes, was found by a team of researchers from the University of Texas. The discovery is significant as it offers insights into the biodiversity of the region, and the Emerald Whisperer might also play a pivotal role in understanding the ecosystem balance.

Summary: Researchers from the University of Texas have discovered a unique frog, termed the “Emerald Whisperer,” in the Amazon rainforest. This finding sheds light on the region’s biodiversity and underscores the importance of the frog in ecological studies.

Example 2: Summary of a Research Paper

Original Paper: In a study titled “The Impact of Urbanisation on Bee Populations,” researchers conducted a year-long observation on bee colonies in three urban areas and three rural areas. Using specific metrics like colony health, bee productivity, and population size, the study found that urban environments saw a 30% decline in bee populations compared to rural settings. The research attributes this decline to factors like pollution, reduced green spaces, and increased temperatures in urban areas.

Summary: A study analysing the effects of urbanisation on bee colonies found a significant 30% decrease in bee populations in urban settings compared to rural areas. The decline is linked to urban factors such as pollution, diminished greenery, and elevated temperatures.

Example 3: Summary of a Novel

Original Story: In the novel “Winds of Fate,” protagonist Clara is trapped in a timeless city where memories dictate reality. Throughout her journey, she encounters characters from her past, present, and imagined future. Battling her own perceptions and a menacing shadow figure, Clara seeks an elusive gateway to return to her real world. In the climax, she confronts the shadow, which turns out to be her own fear, and upon overcoming it, she finds her way back, realising that reality is subjective.

Summary: “Winds of Fate” follows Clara’s adventures in a surreal city shaped by memories. Confronting figures from various phases of her life and battling a symbolic shadow of her own fear, Clara eventually discovers that reality’s perception is malleable and subjective.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is a summary.

A summary condenses a larger piece of content, capturing its main points and essence.  It is usually one-fourth of the original content.

What is a summary?

A summary is a concise representation of a larger text or content, highlighting its main ideas and points. It distils complex information into a shorter form, allowing readers to quickly grasp the essence of the original material without delving into extensive details. Summaries prioritise clarity, brevity, and accuracy.

When should I write a summary?

Write a summary when you need to condense lengthy content for easier comprehension and recall. It’s useful in academic settings, professional reports, presentations, and research to highlight key points. Summaries aid in comparing multiple sources, preparing for discussions, and sharing essential details of extensive materials efficiently with others.

How can I summarise a source without plagiarising?

To summarise without plagiarising: Read the source thoroughly, understand its main ideas, and then write the summary in your own words. Avoid copying phrases verbatim. Attribute the source properly. Use paraphrasing techniques and cross-check your summary against the original to ensure distinctiveness while retaining accuracy. Always prioritise understanding over direct replication.

What is the difference between a summary and an abstract?

A summary condenses a text, capturing its main points from various content types like books, articles, or movies. An abstract, typically found in research papers and scientific articles, provides a brief overview of the study’s purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. Both offer concise versions, but abstracts are more structured and specific.

You May Also Like

Scholarly sources, also known as academic sources, refer to materials created to meet the standards and expectations of the academic community.

Academic sources, also known as scholarly sources or academic references, are materials used by researchers, scholars, and students to support their academic work. These sources are specifically created for use in academic contexts and contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field of study.

In academia, research, journalism, and writing, the skill of quoting sources is fundamental. Accurate and proper quoting adds credibility to your work and demonstrates respect for the original authors and their ideas.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Research Summary: What Is It & How To Write One

Introduction

A research summary is a requirement during academic research and sometimes you might need to prepare a research summary during a research project for an organization.

Most people find a research summary a daunting task as you are required to condense complex research material into an informative, easy-to-understand article most times with a minimum of 300-500 words.

In this post, we will guide you through all the steps required to make writing your research summary an easier task. 

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is a piece of writing that summarizes the research of a specific topic into bite-size easy-to-read and comprehend articles. The primary goal is to give the reader a detailed outline of the key findings of a research.

It is an unavoidable requirement in colleges and universities. To write a good research summary, you must understand the goal of your research, as this would help make the process easier. 

A research summary preserves the structure and sections of the article it is derived from.

Research Summary or Abstract: What’s The Difference?

The Research Summary and Abstract are similar, especially as they are both brief, straight to the point, and provide an overview of the entire research paper. However, there are very clear differences.

To begin with, a Research summary is written at the end of a research activity, while the Abstract is written at the beginning of a research paper. 

A Research Summary captures the main points of a study, with an emphasis on the topic, method , and discoveries, an Abstract is a description of what your research paper would talk about and the reason for your research or the hypothesis you are trying to validate.

Let us take a deeper look at the difference between both terms.

What is an Abstract?

An abstract is a short version of a research paper. It is written to convey the findings of the research to the reader. It provides the reader with information that would help them understand the research, by giving them a clear idea about the subject matter of a research paper. It is usually submitted before the presentation of a research paper.

What is a Summary?

A summary is a short form of an essay, a research paper, or a chapter in a book. A research summary is a narration of a research study, condensing the focal points of research to a shorter form, usually aligned with the same structure of the research study, from which the summary is derived.

What Is The Difference Between an Abstract and a Summary?

An abstract communicates the main points of a research paper, it includes the questions, major findings, the importance of the findings, etc.

An abstract reflects the perceptions of the author about a topic, while a research summary reflects the ideology of the research study that is being summarized.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before commencing a research summary, there is a need to understand the style and organization of the content you plan to summarize. There are three fundamental areas of the research that should be the focal point:

• When deciding on the content include a section that speaks to the importance of the research, and the techniques and tools used to arrive at your conclusion.
• Keep the summary well organized, and use paragraphs to discuss the various sections of the research.
• Restrict your research to 300-400 words which is the standard practice for research summaries globally. However, if the research paper you want to summarize is a lengthy one, do not exceed 10% of the entire research material.

Once you have satisfied the requirements of the fundamentals for starting your research summary, you can now begin to write using the following format:

• Why was this research done?   – A clear description of the reason the research was embarked on and the hypothesis being tested.
• Who was surveyed? – Your research study should have details of the source of your information. If it was via a survey, you should document who the participants of the survey were and the reason that they were selected.
• What was the methodology? – Discuss the methodology, in terms of what kind of survey method did you adopt. Was it a face-to-face interview, a phone interview, or a focus group setting?
• What were the key findings? – This is perhaps the most vital part of the process. What discoveries did you make after the testing? This part should be based on raw facts free from any personal bias.
• Conclusion – What conclusions did you draw from the findings?
• Takeaways and action points – This is where your views and perception can be reflected. Here, you can now share your recommendations or action points.
• Identify the focal point of the article –  In other to get a grasp of the content covered in the research paper, you can skim the article first, in a bid to understand the most essential part of the research paper. 
• Analyze and understand the topic and article – Writing a summary of a research paper involves being familiar with the topic –  the current state of knowledge, key definitions, concepts, and models. This is often gleaned while reading the literature review. Please note that only a deep understanding ensures efficient and accurate summarization of the content.
• Make notes as you read – Highlight and summarize each paragraph as you read. Your notes are what you would further condense to create a draft that would form your research summary.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

• Title – This highlights the area of analysis, and can be formulated to briefly highlight key findings.
• Abstract – this is a very brief and comprehensive description of the study, required in every academic article, with a length of 100-500 words at most. 
• Introduction – this is a vital part of any research summary, it provides the context and the literature review that gently introduces readers to the subject matter. The introduction usually covers definitions, questions, and hypotheses of the research study. 
• Methodology –This section emphasizes the process and or data analysis methods used, in terms of experiments, surveys, sampling, or statistical analysis. 
• Results section – this section lists in detail the results derived from the research with evidence obtained from all the experiments conducted.
• Discussion – these parts discuss the results within the context of current knowledge among subject matter experts. Interpretation of results and theoretical models explaining the observed results, the strengths of the study, and the limitations experienced are going to be a part of the discussion. 
• Conclusion – In a conclusion, hypotheses are discussed and revalidated or denied, based on how convincing the evidence is.
• References – this section is for giving credit to those who work you studied to create your summary. You do this by providing appropriate citations as you write.

Research Summary Example 1

Below are some defining elements of a sample research summary.

Title – “The probability of an unexpected volcanic eruption in Greenwich”

Introduction – this section would list the catastrophic consequences that occurred in the country and the importance of analyzing this event. 

Hypothesis –  An eruption of the Greenwich supervolcano would be preceded by intense preliminary activity manifesting in advance, before the eruption.

Results – these could contain a report of statistical data from various volcanic eruptions happening globally while looking critically at the activity that occurred before these events. 

Discussion and conclusion – Given that Greenwich is now consistently monitored by scientists and that signs of an eruption are usually detected before the volcanic eruption, this confirms the hypothesis. Hence creating an emergency plan outlining other intervention measures and ultimately evacuation is essential. 

Research Summary Example 2

Below is another sample sketch.

Title – “The frequency of extreme weather events in the UK in 2000-2008 as compared to the ‘60s”

Introduction – Weather events bring intense material damage and cause pain to the victims affected.

Hypothesis – Extreme weather events are more frequent in recent times compared to the ‘50s

Results – The frequency of several categories of extreme events now and then are listed here, such as droughts, fires, massive rainfall/snowfalls, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Discussion and conclusion – Several types of extreme events have become more commonplace in recent times, confirming the hypothesis. This rise in extreme weather events can be traced to rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures and global warming explain the rising frequency of these disasters. Addressing the rising CO2 levels and paying attention to climate change is the only to combat this phenomenon.

A research summary is the short form of a research paper, analyzing the important aspect of the study. Everyone who reads a research summary has a full grasp of the main idea being discussed in the original research paper. Conducting any research means you will write a summary, which is an important part of your project and would be the most read part of your project.

Having a guideline before you start helps, this would form your checklist which would guide your actions as you write your research summary. It is important to note that a Research Summary is different from an Abstract paper written at the beginning of a research paper, describing the idea behind a research paper.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• abstract in research papers
• abstract writing
• action research
• research summary
• research summary vs abstract
• research surveys
• Angela Kayode-Sanni

You may also like:

Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

A comprehensive guide on the definition of research questions, types, importance, good and bad research question examples

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

Introduction Action research is an evidence-based approach that has been used for years in the field of education and social sciences....

How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

In this article, we will share some tips for writing an effective abstract, plus samples you can learn from.

The McNamara Fallacy: How Researchers Can Detect and to Avoid it.

Introduction The McNamara Fallacy is a common problem in research. It happens when researchers take a single piece of data as evidence...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

• 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: May 25, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

What is the Background of the Study and How to Write It

What is the Background of the Study in Research? 

The background of the study is the first section of a research paper and gives context surrounding the research topic. The background explains to the reader where your research journey started, why you got interested in the topic, and how you developed the research question that you will later specify. That means that you first establish the context of the research you did with a general overview of the field or topic and then present the key issues that drove your decision to study the specific problem you chose.

Once the reader understands where you are coming from and why there was indeed a need for the research you are going to present in the following—because there was a gap in the current research, or because there is an obvious problem with a currently used process or technology—you can proceed with the formulation of your research question and summarize how you are going to address it in the rest of your manuscript.

Why is the Background of the Study Important?

No matter how surprising and important the findings of your study are, if you do not provide the reader with the necessary background information and context, they will not be able to understand your reasons for studying the specific problem you chose and why you think your study is relevant. And more importantly, an editor who does not share your enthusiasm for your work (because you did not fill them in on all the important details) will very probably not even consider your manuscript worthy of their and the reviewers’ time and will immediately send it back to you.

To avoid such desk rejections , you need to make sure you pique the reader’s interest and help them understand the contribution of your work to the specific field you study, the more general research community, or the public. Introducing the study background is crucial to setting the scene for your readers.

Table of Contents:

• What is “Background Information” in a Research Paper?
• What Should the Background of a Research Paper Include?
• Where Does the Background Section Go in Your Paper?

Background of the Study Structure

Before writing your study background, it is essential to understand what to include. The following elements should all be included in the background and are presented in greater detail in the next section:

• A general overview of the topic and why it is important (overlaps with establishing the “importance of the topic” in the Introduction)
• The current state of the research on the topic or on related topics in the field
• Controversies about current knowledge or specific past studies that undergird your research methodology
• Any claims or assumptions that have been made by researchers, institutions, or politicians that might need to be clarified
• Methods and techniques used in the study or from which your study deviated in some way

Presenting the Study Background

As you begin introducing your background, you first need to provide a general overview and include the main issues concerning the topic. Depending on whether you do “basic” (with the aim of providing further knowledge) or “applied” research (to establish new techniques, processes, or products), this is either a literature review that summarizes all relevant earlier studies in the field or a description of the process (e.g., vote counting) or practice (e.g., diagnosis of a specific disease) that you think is problematic or lacking and needs a solution.

Example s of a general overview

If you study the function of a Drosophila gene, for example, you can explain to the reader why and for whom the study of fly genetics is relevant, what is already known and established, and where you see gaps in the existing literature. If you investigated how the way universities have transitioned into online teaching since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic has affected students’ learning progress, then you need to present a summary of what changes have happened around the world, what the effects of those changes have been so far, and where you see problems that need to be addressed. Note that you need to provide sources for every statement and every claim you make here, to establish a solid foundation of knowledge for your own study. 

Describing the current state of knowledge

When the reader understands the main issue(s), you need to fill them in more specifically on the current state of the field (in basic research) or the process/practice/product use you describe (in practical/applied research). Cite all relevant studies that have already reported on the Drosophila gene you are interested in, have failed to reveal certain functions of it, or have suggested that it might be involved in more processes than we know so far. Or list the reports from the education ministries of the countries you are interested in and highlight the data that shows the need for research into the effects of the Corona-19 pandemic on teaching and learning.

Discussing controversies, claims, and assumptions

Are there controversies regarding your topic of interest that need to be mentioned and/or addressed? For example, if your research topic involves an issue that is politically hot, you can acknowledge this here. Have any earlier claims or assumptions been made, by other researchers, institutions, or politicians, that you think need to be clarified?

Mentioning methodologies and approaches

While putting together these details, you also need to mention methodologies : What methods/techniques have been used so far to study what you studied and why are you going to either use the same or a different approach? Are any of the methods included in the literature review flawed in such a way that your study takes specific measures to correct or update? While you shouldn’t spend too much time here justifying your methods (this can be summarized briefly in the rationale of the study at the end of the Introduction and later in the Discussion section), you can engage with the crucial methods applied in previous studies here first.

When you have established the background of the study of your research paper in such a logical way, then the reader should have had no problem following you from the more general information you introduced first to the specific details you added later. You can now easily lead over to the relevance of your research, explain how your work fits into the bigger picture, and specify the aims and objectives of your study. This latter part is usually considered the “ statement of the problem ” of your study. Without a solid research paper background, this statement will come out of nowhere for the reader and very probably raise more questions than you were planning to answer.   

Where does the study background section go in a paper?

Unless you write a research proposal or some kind of report that has a specific “Background” chapter, the background of your study is the first part of your introduction section . This is where you put your work in context and provide all the relevant information the reader needs to follow your rationale. Make sure your background has a logical structure and naturally leads into the statement of the problem at the very end of the introduction so that you bring everything together for the reader to judge the relevance of your work and the validity of your approach before they dig deeper into the details of your study in the methods section .

Consider Receiving Professional Editing Services

Now that you know how to write a background section for a research paper, you might be interested in our AI text editor at Wordvice AI. And be sure to receive professional editing services , including academic editing and proofreading , before submitting your manuscript to journals. On the Wordvice academic resources website, you can also find many more articles and other resources that can help you with writing the other parts of your research paper , with making a research paper outline before you put everything together, or with writing an effective cover letter once you are ready to submit.

• Manuscript Preparation

What is the Background of a Study and How Should it be Written?

• 3 minute read
• 928.2K views

Table of Contents

The background of a study is one of the most important components of a research paper. The quality of the background determines whether the reader will be interested in the rest of the study. Thus, to ensure that the audience is invested in reading the entire research paper, it is important to write an appealing and effective background. So, what constitutes the background of a study, and how must it be written?

What is the background of a study?

The background of a study is the first section of the paper and establishes the context underlying the research. It contains the rationale, the key problem statement, and a brief overview of research questions that are addressed in the rest of the paper. The background forms the crux of the study because it introduces an unaware audience to the research and its importance in a clear and logical manner. At times, the background may even explore whether the study builds on or refutes findings from previous studies. Any relevant information that the readers need to know before delving into the paper should be made available to them in the background.

How is a background different from the introduction?

The introduction of your research paper is presented before the background. Let’s find out what factors differentiate the background from the introduction.

• The introduction only contains preliminary data about the research topic and does not state the purpose of the study. On the contrary, the background clarifies the importance of the study in detail.
• The introduction provides an overview of the research topic from a broader perspective, while the background provides a detailed understanding of the topic.
• The introduction should end with the mention of the research questions, aims, and objectives of the study. In contrast, the background follows no such format and only provides essential context to the study.

How should one write the background of a research paper?

The length and detail presented in the background varies for different research papers, depending on the complexity and novelty of the research topic. At times, a simple background suffices, even if the study is complex. Before writing and adding details in the background, take a note of these additional points:

• Start with a strong beginning: Begin the background by defining the research topic and then identify the target audience.
• Cover key components: Explain all theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may feel unfamiliar to the target audience thoroughly.
• Take note of important prerequisites: Go through the relevant literature in detail. Take notes while reading and cite the sources.
• Maintain a balance: Make sure that the background is focused on important details, but also appeals to a broader audience.
• Include historical data: Current issues largely originate from historical events or findings. If the research borrows information from a historical context, add relevant data in the background.
• Explain novelty: If the research study or methodology is unique or novel, provide an explanation that helps to understand the research better.
• Increase engagement: To make the background engaging, build a story around the central theme of the research

Avoid these mistakes while writing the background:

• Ambiguity: Don’t be ambiguous. While writing, assume that the reader does not understand any intricate detail about your research.
• Unrelated themes: Steer clear from topics that are not related to the key aspects of your research topic.
• Poor organization: Do not place information without a structure. Make sure that the background reads in a chronological manner and organize the sub-sections so that it flows well.

Writing the background for a research paper should not be a daunting task. But directions to go about it can always help. At Elsevier Author Services we provide essential insights on how to write a high quality, appealing, and logically structured paper for publication, beginning with a robust background. For further queries, contact our experts now!

How to Use Tables and Figures effectively in Research Papers

• Research Process

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

You may also like.

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)

The research paper introduction section, along with the Title and Abstract, can be considered the face of any research paper. The following article is intended to guide you in organizing and writing the research paper introduction for a quality academic article or dissertation.

The research paper introduction aims to present the topic to the reader. A study will only be accepted for publishing if you can ascertain that the available literature cannot answer your research question. So it is important to ensure that you have read important studies on that particular topic, especially those within the last five to ten years, and that they are properly referenced in this section. 1 What should be included in the research paper introduction is decided by what you want to tell readers about the reason behind the research and how you plan to fill the knowledge gap. The best research paper introduction provides a systemic review of existing work and demonstrates additional work that needs to be done. It needs to be brief, captivating, and well-referenced; a well-drafted research paper introduction will help the researcher win half the battle.

The introduction for a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your research topic
• Capture reader interest
• Summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Define your specific research problem and problem statement
• Highlight the novelty and contributions of the study
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The research paper introduction can vary in size and structure depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or is a review paper. Some research paper introduction examples are only half a page while others are a few pages long. In many cases, the introduction will be shorter than all of the other sections of your paper; its length depends on the size of your paper as a whole.

• Break through writer’s block. Write your research paper introduction with Paperpal Copilot

Table of Contents

What is the introduction for a research paper, why is the introduction important in a research paper, craft a compelling introduction section with paperpal. try now, 1. introduce the research topic:, 2. determine a research niche:, 3. place your research within the research niche:, craft accurate research paper introductions with paperpal. start writing now, frequently asked questions on research paper introduction, key points to remember.

The introduction in a research paper is placed at the beginning to guide the reader from a broad subject area to the specific topic that your research addresses. They present the following information to the reader

• Scope: The topic covered in the research paper
• Context: Background of your topic
• Importance: Why your research matters in that particular area of research and the industry problem that can be targeted

The research paper introduction conveys a lot of information and can be considered an essential roadmap for the rest of your paper. A good introduction for a research paper is important for the following reasons:

• It stimulates your reader’s interest: A good introduction section can make your readers want to read your paper by capturing their interest. It informs the reader what they are going to learn and helps determine if the topic is of interest to them.
• It helps the reader understand the research background: Without a clear introduction, your readers may feel confused and even struggle when reading your paper. A good research paper introduction will prepare them for the in-depth research to come. It provides you the opportunity to engage with the readers and demonstrate your knowledge and authority on the specific topic.
• It explains why your research paper is worth reading: Your introduction can convey a lot of information to your readers. It introduces the topic, why the topic is important, and how you plan to proceed with your research.
• It helps guide the reader through the rest of the paper: The research paper introduction gives the reader a sense of the nature of the information that will support your arguments and the general organization of the paragraphs that will follow. It offers an overview of what to expect when reading the main body of your paper.

What are the parts of introduction in the research?

A good research paper introduction section should comprise three main elements: 2

• What is known: This sets the stage for your research. It informs the readers of what is known on the subject.
• What is lacking: This is aimed at justifying the reason for carrying out your research. This could involve investigating a new concept or method or building upon previous research.
• What you aim to do: This part briefly states the objectives of your research and its major contributions. Your detailed hypothesis will also form a part of this section.

How to write a research paper introduction?

The first step in writing the research paper introduction is to inform the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening statement. The second step involves establishing the kinds of research that have been done and ending with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to address. Finally, the research paper introduction clarifies how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses. If your research involved testing hypotheses, these should be stated along with your research question. The hypothesis should be presented in the past tense since it will have been tested by the time you are writing the research paper introduction.

The following key points, with examples, can guide you when writing the research paper introduction section:

• Highlight the importance of the research field or topic
• Describe the background of the topic
• Present an overview of current research on the topic

Example: The inclusion of experiential and competency-based learning has benefitted electronics engineering education. Industry partnerships provide an excellent alternative for students wanting to engage in solving real-world challenges. Industry-academia participation has grown in recent years due to the need for skilled engineers with practical training and specialized expertise. However, from the educational perspective, many activities are needed to incorporate sustainable development goals into the university curricula and consolidate learning innovation in universities.

• Reveal a gap in existing research or oppose an existing assumption
• Formulate the research question

Example: There have been plausible efforts to integrate educational activities in higher education electronics engineering programs. However, very few studies have considered using educational research methods for performance evaluation of competency-based higher engineering education, with a focus on technical and or transversal skills. To remedy the current need for evaluating competencies in STEM fields and providing sustainable development goals in engineering education, in this study, a comparison was drawn between study groups without and with industry partners.

• State the purpose of your study
• Highlight the key characteristics of your study
• Describe important results
• Highlight the novelty of the study.
• Offer a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

Example: The study evaluates the main competency needed in the applied electronics course, which is a fundamental core subject for many electronics engineering undergraduate programs. We compared two groups, without and with an industrial partner, that offered real-world projects to solve during the semester. This comparison can help determine significant differences in both groups in terms of developing subject competency and achieving sustainable development goals.

Write a Research Paper Introduction in Minutes with Paperpal

Paperpal Copilot is a generative AI-powered academic writing assistant. It’s trained on millions of published scholarly articles and over 20 years of STM experience. Paperpal Copilot helps authors write better and faster with:

• Real-time writing suggestions
• In-depth checks for language and grammar correction
• Paraphrasing to add variety, ensure academic tone, and trim text to meet journal limits

With Paperpal Copilot, create a research paper introduction effortlessly. In this step-by-step guide, we’ll walk you through how Paperpal transforms your initial ideas into a polished and publication-ready introduction.

How to use Paperpal to write the Introduction section

Step 1: Sign up on Paperpal and click on the Copilot feature, under this choose Outlines > Research Article > Introduction

Step 2: Add your unstructured notes or initial draft, whether in English or another language, to Paperpal, which is to be used as the base for your content.

Step 3: Fill in the specifics, such as your field of study, brief description or details you want to include, which will help the AI generate the outline for your Introduction.

Step 4: Use this outline and sentence suggestions to develop your content, adding citations where needed and modifying it to align with your specific research focus.

Step 5: Turn to Paperpal’s granular language checks to refine your content, tailor it to reflect your personal writing style, and ensure it effectively conveys your message.

You can use the same process to develop each section of your article, and finally your research paper in half the time and without any of the stress.

The purpose of the research paper introduction is to introduce the reader to the problem definition, justify the need for the study, and describe the main theme of the study. The aim is to gain the reader’s attention by providing them with necessary background information and establishing the main purpose and direction of the research.

The length of the research paper introduction can vary across journals and disciplines. While there are no strict word limits for writing the research paper introduction, an ideal length would be one page, with a maximum of 400 words over 1-4 paragraphs. Generally, it is one of the shorter sections of the paper as the reader is assumed to have at least a reasonable knowledge about the topic. 2 For example, for a study evaluating the role of building design in ensuring fire safety, there is no need to discuss definitions and nature of fire in the introduction; you could start by commenting upon the existing practices for fire safety and how your study will add to the existing knowledge and practice.

When deciding what to include in the research paper introduction, the rest of the paper should also be considered. The aim is to introduce the reader smoothly to the topic and facilitate an easy read without much dependency on external sources. 3 Below is a list of elements you can include to prepare a research paper introduction outline and follow it when you are writing the research paper introduction. Topic introduction: This can include key definitions and a brief history of the topic. Research context and background: Offer the readers some general information and then narrow it down to specific aspects. Details of the research you conducted: A brief literature review can be included to support your arguments or line of thought. Rationale for the study: This establishes the relevance of your study and establishes its importance. Importance of your research: The main contributions are highlighted to help establish the novelty of your study Research hypothesis: Introduce your research question and propose an expected outcome. Organization of the paper: Include a short paragraph of 3-4 sentences that highlights your plan for the entire paper

Cite only works that are most relevant to your topic; as a general rule, you can include one to three. Note that readers want to see evidence of original thinking. So it is better to avoid using too many references as it does not leave much room for your personal standpoint to shine through. Citations in your research paper introduction support the key points, and the number of citations depend on the subject matter and the point discussed. If the research paper introduction is too long or overflowing with citations, it is better to cite a few review articles rather than the individual articles summarized in the review. A good point to remember when citing research papers in the introduction section is to include at least one-third of the references in the introduction.

The literature review plays a significant role in the research paper introduction section. A good literature review accomplishes the following: Introduces the topic – Establishes the study’s significance – Provides an overview of the relevant literature – Provides context for the study using literature – Identifies knowledge gaps However, remember to avoid making the following mistakes when writing a research paper introduction: Do not use studies from the literature review to aggressively support your research Avoid direct quoting Do not allow literature review to be the focus of this section. Instead, the literature review should only aid in setting a foundation for the manuscript.

Remember the following key points for writing a good research paper introduction: 4

• Avoid stuffing too much general information: Avoid including what an average reader would know and include only that information related to the problem being addressed in the research paper introduction. For example, when describing a comparative study of non-traditional methods for mechanical design optimization, information related to the traditional methods and differences between traditional and non-traditional methods would not be relevant. In this case, the introduction for the research paper should begin with the state-of-the-art non-traditional methods and methods to evaluate the efficiency of newly developed algorithms.
• Avoid packing too many references: Cite only the required works in your research paper introduction. The other works can be included in the discussion section to strengthen your findings.
• Avoid extensive criticism of previous studies: Avoid being overly critical of earlier studies while setting the rationale for your study. A better place for this would be the Discussion section, where you can highlight the advantages of your method.
• Avoid describing conclusions of the study: When writing a research paper introduction remember not to include the findings of your study. The aim is to let the readers know what question is being answered. The actual answer should only be given in the Results and Discussion section.

To summarize, the research paper introduction section should be brief yet informative. It should convince the reader the need to conduct the study and motivate him to read further. If you’re feeling stuck or unsure, choose trusted AI academic writing assistants like Paperpal to effortlessly craft your research paper introduction and other sections of your research article.

1. Jawaid, S. A., & Jawaid, M. (2019). How to write introduction and discussion. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S18.

2. Dewan, P., & Gupta, P. (2016). Writing the title, abstract and introduction: Looks matter!. Indian pediatrics, 53, 235-241.

3. Cetin, S., & Hackam, D. J. (2005). An approach to the writing of a scientific Manuscript1. Journal of Surgical Research, 128(2), 165-167.

4. Bavdekar, S. B. (2015). Writing introduction: Laying the foundations of a research paper. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63(7), 44-6.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

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

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

Related Reads:

• Scientific Writing Style Guides Explained
• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects
• 8 Most Effective Ways to Increase Motivation for Thesis Writing 

Practice vs. Practise: Learn the Difference

Academic paraphrasing: why paperpal’s rewrite should be your first choice , you may also like, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to write a high-quality conference paper, academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, phd qualifying exam: tips for success , ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., quillbot review: features, pricing, and free alternatives, what is an academic paper types and elements .

• Visit the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Apply to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln
• Give to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Search Form

Overview of research process.

The Research Process

Anything you write involves organization and a logical flow of ideas, so understanding the logic of the research process before beginning to write is essential. Simply put, you need to put your writing in the larger context—see the forest before you even attempt to see the trees.

In this brief introductory module, we’ll review the major steps in the research process, conceptualized here as a series of steps within a circle, with each step dependent on the previous one. The circle best depicts the recursive nature of the process; that is, once the process has been completed, the researcher may begin again by refining or expanding on the initial approach, or even pioneering a completely new approach to solving the problem.

Identify a Research Problem

You identify a research problem by first selecting a general topic that’s interesting to you and to the interests and specialties of your research advisor. Once identified, you’ll need to narrow it. For example, if teenage pregnancy is your general topic area, your specific topic could be a comparison of how teenage pregnancy affects young fathers and mothers differently.

Review the Literature

Find out what’s being asked or what’s already been done in the area by doing some exploratory reading. Discuss the topic with your advisor to gain additional insights, explore novel approaches, and begin to develop your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es), if applicable.

Determine Research Question

A good research question is a question worth asking; one that poses a problem worth solving. A good question should:

• Be clear . It must be understandable to you and to others.
• Be researchable . It should be capable of developing into a manageable research design, so data may be collected in relation to it. Extremely abstract terms are unlikely to be suitable.
• Connect with established theory and research . There should be a literature on which you can draw to illuminate how your research question(s) should be approached.
• Be neither too broad nor too narrow. See Appendix A for a brief explanation of the narrowing process and how your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es) are interconnected.

Appendix A Research Questions, Purpose Statement, Hypothesis(es)

Develop Research Methods

Once you’ve finalized your research question, purpose statement, and hypothesis(es), you’ll need to write your research proposal—a detailed management plan for your research project. The proposal is as essential to successful research as an architect’s plans are to the construction of a building.

See Appendix B to view the basic components of a research proposal.

Appendix B Components of a Research Proposal

Collect & Analyze Data

In Practical Research–Planning and Design (2005, 8th Edition), Leedy and Ormrod provide excellent advice for what the researcher does at this stage in the research process. The researcher now

• collects data that potentially relate to the problem,
• arranges the data into a logical organizational structure,
• analyzes and interprets the data to determine their meaning, 
• determines if the data resolve the research problem or not, and
• determines if the data support the hypothesis or not.

Document the Work

Because research reports differ by discipline, the most effective way for you to understand formatting and citations is to examine reports from others in your department or field. The library’s electronic databases provide a wealth of examples illustrating how others in your field document their research.

Communicate Your Research

Talk with your advisor about potential local, regional, or national venues to present your findings. And don’t sell yourself short: Consider publishing your research in related books or journals.

Refine/Expand, Pioneer

Earlier, we emphasized the fact that the research process, rather than being linear, is recursive—the reason we conceptualized the process as a series of steps within a circle. At this stage, you may need to revisit your research problem in the context of your findings. You might also investigate the implications of your work and identify new problems or refine your previous approach.

The process then begins anew . . . and you’ll once again move through the series of steps in the circle.

Continue to Module Two

Appendix C - Key Research Terms

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 01 March 2018

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

• Harriet Hunt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1254-0568 1 ,
• Alex Pollock 2 ,
• Pauline Campbell 3 ,
• Lise Estcourt 4 &
• Ginny Brunton 5  

Systematic Reviews volume  7 , Article number:  39 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

33k Accesses

182 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

Overviews of systematic reviews are a relatively new approach to synthesising evidence, and research methods and associated guidance are developing. Within this paper we aim to help readers understand key issues which are essential to consider when taking the first steps in planning an overview. These issues relate to the development of clear, relevant research questions and objectives prior to the development of an overview protocol.

Initial discussions and key concepts for this paper were formed during a workshop on overview methods at the 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium, at which all members of this author group presented work and contributed to wider discussions. Detailed descriptions of the various key features of overviews and their different objectives were created by the author group based upon current evidence (Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv. 2011;4:5, Pollock M, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:190-205, Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. UK and Ireland: Cochrane Symposium; 2016, Pieper D, et al. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:187–99, Lunny C, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:4-12, Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium; 2015, Hartling L, et al. Plos One. 2012;7:1-8, Ballard M, Montgomery P. Res Syn Meth. 2017;8:92-108) and author experiences conducting overviews.

Within this paper we introduce different types of overviews and suggest common research questions addressed by these overviews. We briefly reflect on the key features and objectives of the example overviews discussed.

Conclusions

Clear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview. Key stakeholders should be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview. Following best practice in common with other forms of systematic evidence synthesis, an overview protocol should be published, ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the overview.

Peer Review reports

It is estimated that around 22 new systematic reviews are published every day [ 1 ]. In order to keep pace with the increasing volume of reviews, new methodological approaches have been developed for synthesising this evidence including overviews (systematic reviews of systematic reviews). Overviews are most frequently employed where multiple systematic reviews already exist on similar or related topics, and aim to systematically bring together, appraise and synthesise the results of related systematic reviews. Overviews have evolved to address a growing need to filter the information overload, improve access to targeted information and inform healthcare decision-making [ 2 , 3 ]. Overviews can be useful tools to support decision-making by clinicians, policy makers and developers of clinical guidelines [ 2 , 4 ]. There are a range of factors to reflect upon prior to deciding whether to conduct an overview, including consideration of the methodological challenges and uncertainties. These challenges are discussed in depth in our accompanying paper on this topic [ 5 ].

Overviews are known by a variety of different names, all potentially reflecting different aspects and aims of the syntheses. Terms used include: overview; umbrella review; meta-review; (systematic) review of (systematic) reviews; synthesis of systematic reviews; and summary of systematic reviews. The common feature of the methods associated with all of these terms is the fundamental process of synthesising evidence which is derived, often exclusively, from systematic reviews. The systematic review forms the primary ‘unit of analysis’ and is the basis upon which an overview is built [ 6 ].

The term ‘overview of systematic reviews’ (often shortened to ‘overview’) has gained widespread acceptance, and is the term used by Cochrane to describe a review of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library [ 7 ]. We use the term ‘overview’ within this paper to describe systematic summaries of systematic review evidence, in line with the most commonly used terminology.

Overviews can play a role in signposting the reader to evidence, summarising existing research or highlighting the absence of evidence [ 7 ]. For this reason, overviews can provide an ‘entry point’ for policy makers and other consumers by summarising broad issues and current knowledge around a topic, and directing the reader to more detailed, fine-grained material contained in component systematic reviews and primary research [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].

Likewise, the involvement of stakeholders at an early point in planning and conducting an overview may help in shaping these aims for maximum overview impact [ 2 , 11 , 12 ].

Overviews arguably have a valuable role where evidence relating to a specific topic exists but is conflicting, bringing together reviews in a transparent and systematic way and aiding informed decision making by gathering, appraising and systematically analysing this evidence. While the evidence synthesised within an overview may be used to generate new insights and understanding, it is important to note that overviews are fundamentally a method of bringing together, summarising and enhancing accessibility of existing evidence.

Overviews are a relatively new and emerging method of summarising evidence, and consequently universally-accepted guidance for good practice relating to the conduct of overviews is currently lacking [ 5 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. During a 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium workshop [ 18 ] focused on the methods and challenges associated with overviews, it became apparent that there was a need to clarify, and distinguish between, different types of overviews and the objectives which these overviews addressed. Within this paper, we therefore describe types of overview and the common research questions and objectives they address. Within a second, linked paper [ 5 ], we build on this description of overview types, objectives and research questions, illustrating this through the use of five exemplar overviews, and exploring the impact and implications of different methodological approaches.

In presenting and discussing common research questions addressed by overviews with different objectives, and relating this to real examples in the second paper [ 5 ], we aim to help readers understand important issues to consider during the first steps to planning an overview.

Research questions and objectives addressed by overviews

In common with all research, overviews are carried out to address a clearly-stated research question. When planning an overview, determining the nature of the initial research question, and identifying who is asking the question, will dictate the scope of the overview objective(s). The objectives of an overview may include summarising existing evidence on a range of different topics, including: interventions; diagnostic accuracy of medical tests or procedures; prognosis or risk prediction; health equity [ 19 ]; or more qualitative aspects associated with any of the above, such as patient preference or device acceptability. In addition to summarising the results of multiple systematic reviews on related topics, overviews may also be used to investigate different aspects of questions already tackled by existing systematic reviews, such as variations in population, condition or intervention [ 10 , 12 , 12 ]. One example of this latter approach is provided in an overview which aimed to synthesise current evidence of the relationship between sedentary behaviour and health outcomes [ 20 ], reporting variation in results across populations and condition studied.

The principles which guide development of focussed clinical questions for systematic reviews remain valid for the development of research questions for overviews. Clearly defining the target population and setting, context, intervention, index test or phenomenon of interest, comparator or reference standard and outcome or treatment decisions are all essential parts of any overview protocol. The research question and overall overview objective will dictate the ‘type’ of overview that is required. This may be an overview of specific types of systematic review, or of systematic reviews which contain specific types of primary research study.

These defining elements of research questions and objectives are illustrated in Table  1 , and we consider the objectives of each overview type in more detail below.

Overviews of intervention reviews

Overviews of intervention reviews should be considered when the research question relates to the effectiveness of one or more intervention. Common objectives for overviews of intervention reviews are detailed below.

To summarise evidence from more than one systematic review of different interventions for the same condition or problem

This is the primary purpose of Cochrane Overviews of Interventions, and a number of overviews of interventions have been employed to tackle this objective [ 21 , 22 , 23 ].

For example, one overview has brought together all systematic reviews of interventions to improve arm function in people with stroke [ 22 ], whilst another overview has summarised systematic reviews of conservative interventions for the treatment of incontinence in women [ 21 ]. One example of a mixed methods overview assessed all workplace health promotion interventions using healthcare or wellbeing outcomes from systematic reviews of effectiveness, combining these with syntheses of identified policy documents and research on stakeholders’ perspectives of workplace intervention programmes [ 23 ].

To summarise evidence from more than one systematic review of the same intervention for the same condition or problem where different outcomes are addressed in different systematic reviews

Overviews of interventions can be used to summarise evidence assessing different outcomes for the same condition. Generally, systematic reviews should include all outcomes that are important to people making decisions about and influenced by an intervention. This includes the involvement of stakeholders in order to reflect aspects important to people receiving an intervention [ 24 ], and should be incorporated at the study, review and overview levels. Not all systematic reviews, however, focus on a single condition or outcome. For example, one overview has brought together all systematic reviews of the use of red cell transfusion to prevent or treat common complications in people with sickle cell disease, such as painful crises, stroke and acute chest syndrome [ 25 ]. This overview assessed the prevention of these complications during high-risk situations such as surgery, pregnancy or a sub-population identified as at high risk of a particular complication, such as abnormal transcranial Doppler and risk of stroke in children. Another overview summarised the safety of long-acting beta agonists (regular formoterol or salmeterol) in children with asthma with outcomes including all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events, asthma-related deaths and asthma-related non-fatal serious events [ 26 ]. This overview was prompted by concerns raised by two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma [ 27 , 28 ] that found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol and the weaker evidence base for the effectiveness of long-acting beta agonists in children.

To summarise evidence from more than one systematic review of the same intervention for different conditions, problems or populations

The same or similar interventions are often used for different conditions or different studies and reviews may focus on different populations. This type of evidence may be of interest where more than one patient population is being addressed, as generalisability of the effect may be more extensive. One recent example is of an overview of reviews of cognitive rehabilitation for different cognitive problems in people with stroke [ 29 ].

To summarise evidence about adverse effects of an intervention from more than one systematic review of use of the intervention for one or more conditions

Systematic reviews often report information on adverse effects, but few reviews are conducted with the main aim to report rates of these events. This may well change following the recent publication of the PRISMA harms checklist [ 30 ]. Due to the rarity of many adverse events, randomised controlled trials rarely contain sufficient data to give an accurate indication of prevalence [ 31 , 32 ]. It would therefore be inappropriate to rely on systematic reviews based solely on trial data to profile adverse events of a specific intervention, except in the rare situations where the recording of adverse effects data is the primary aim of the trial [ 33 ]. It may be appropriate to include data not previously included in a systematic review such as when conducting a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report, developing a clinical practice guideline or developing resources such as BMJ Clinical Evidence . One overview summarising evidence on adverse effects of herbal medicines across all conditions takes this broader approach to systematic review evidence and provides an example of methodological challenges encountered [ 34 ].

Overviews of diagnostic test accuracy reviews

Overviews of diagnostic test accuracy reviews should be considered when the research question relates to the accuracy of one or more diagnostic test. Common objectives for overviews of diagnostic test accuracy reviews are addressed below.

To summarise evidence from more than one systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy assessing the same medical test to address the same condition or problem

The purpose of diagnostic test accuracy overviews is to form a summary of systematic review evidence in order to address a specific research question, where the unit of interest is systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. These systematic reviews are designed to assess existing evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of a test or device using standard measures of accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) rather than measures of effectiveness as with reviews of interventions. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy commonly encounter greater heterogeneity than intervention reviews, due to variation in study populations, in the testing environment and context, or in procedures used to conduct the tests involved [ 35 ]. Overviews of diagnostic test accuracy which aim to assess the accuracy of a single medical test generally have more potential for identifying sources of heterogeneity than overviews which address a number of additional variables such as multiple tests or devices [ 35 ]. An example in which this approach has been taken is the overview of systematic review evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative loco-regional staging of primary gastric cancer [ 36 ]. The authors reported that substantial heterogeneity may have influenced the applicability of clinical usefulness for endoscopic ultrasonography for pre-operative loco-staging of primary gastric cancer [ 36 ]. By undertaking an overview, the authors were able to identify the need for greater understanding of the sources of heterogeneity before recommendations could be made about the clinical usefulness of EUS. Overview authors were also able to make more nuanced practice recommendations on test performance, and this ability to pinpoint specific areas for further research as well as issue practice guidance demonstrates a potential benefit of overviews.

To summarise evidence from more than one systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy assessing different medical tests to address the same condition or problem

Overviews assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of different medical tests addressing the same condition are similar in terms of scope and objectives to the overviews described in the previous section, with the key difference that a number of different medical tests are being assessed within included systematic reviews. For example, a recently-conducted overview summarising the diagnostic test accuracy of brief cognitive assessments for identifying dementia in a primary care population [ 37 ] included evidence from a range of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy of a number of different brief cognitive assessments. This enabled conclusions to be drawn about the accuracy of specific tests within the primary care population, and signposted a gap in current evidence for direct comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy of individual tests for identifying dementia in primary care. Again, these broader recommendations were made possible through the wider synthesis of existing evidence than had previously been conducted in this specific setting.

Overviews of reviews of prognosis/prevalence

Overviews of reviews of prognosis/prevalence should be considered when the objective is to summarise evidence about prognosis/prevalence from more than one systematic review. The implementation of overview methodology in this field is relatively recent, but there are a growing number of systematic reviews specifically investigating the predictive value of tests and devices, prognostic information and/or prognostic models. These address questions such as ‘what is the most likely course of this health condition?’ ‘What factors are associated with outcome?’ and ‘are there risk groups likely to have different outcomes?’ [ 38 ]. One example of such an overview evaluated the prognostic evidence alongside evidence on treatment, harms, diagnosis, classification and outcomes used for managing neck pain [ 39 ].

Overviews of reviews of risk factors

These overviews incorporate disease aetiology or risk factors when the risks of interest may not directly relate to prognostic variables or risk prediction models. When planning to conduct an overview of systematic review evidence in order to explore the effect of putative risk factors on a range of variables, factors to consider include whether the primary interest in conducting the overview is to explore associations between markers of a disease and known risk factors, or whether the main focus is the impact of those risk factors on single or multiple outcomes. An example overview addressing the latter purpose is an overview which aimed to evaluate the strength and validity of the evidence for the association between adiposity and risk of developing or dying from cancer [ 40 ]. The authors of this work found strong evidence of an association between obesity and 11 of the 36 studied cancer sites and subtypes. The cancers for which there was strong evidence of an association with obesity were mainly cancers of digestive organs and female hormone-related malignancies. The authors of the overview concluded that whilst other associations could be genuine, substantial uncertainty remains for the other cancers studied.

Overviews of qualitative reviews

Overviews of reviews of qualitative reviews should be considered when the objective is to summarise systematic review evidence relating to qualitative views or experiences. There is clear guidance available on the good conduct of an overview of qualitative syntheses [ 6 ], with commonalities across all types of overviews. Common features include employing an a priori peer-reviewed protocol formed around a clearly pre-specified research question with detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategies and methods for data extraction and appraisal, followed by clear and replicable methods for synthesis and summary of included data [ 6 ]. An example overview using qualitative data as well as quantitative information is provided by an overview exploring improving quality of care for persons with diabetes looking at a broad range of interventions, including patient education and support, telemedicine, organisational changes and outcomes relating to the process of care [ 10 ]. In combining these approaches, overview authors had potential to synthesise data on patient experiences of quality of care alongside quantitative evaluation of effectiveness, which could result in a richer set of evidence for informing practice and policy.

Whilst many overviews tacitly assess quantitative outcomes reported in systematic reviews [ 6 ], often the nature of overviews results in narrative synthesis which can draw on either quantitative or qualitative data within included systematic reviews. In this sense, many overviews include elements of qualitative data identified within the source systematic reviews.

Results and Discussion

There are many similarities between overviews and systematic reviews, and the principles which guide the planning of a systematic review (including production of a clinically-relevant research question and a pre-specified peer reviewed protocol) are relevant in conducting an overview [ 2 ]. Within this paper, we have described a brief classification to organise common research questions and objectives, using overviews based on frameworks developed within the Cochrane Handbooks for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 41 ] and Diagnostic Test Accuracy [ 42 ]. These descriptions cover overviews of intervention reviews, overviews of diagnostic test accuracy reviews, overviews of reviews of prognosis/prevalence, overviews of reviews of risk factors and overviews of reviews of qualitative studies.

Overviews aim to summarise evidence and to signpost readers to relevant sources to support decision making; this paper has highlighted that there are a wide range of potential reasons for selecting to do an overview, and that these varied reasons lead to overviews which may have a number of different methodological features.

Overviews of reviews of different interventions for the same condition, or of the same intervention but looking at different outcomes, will have high clinical relevance where clinical decisions are made between different treatments. Overviews of intervention reviews, bringing together evidence relating to the effectiveness of a specific treatment applied in alternative populations or settings will be of interest to healthcare providers delivering that treatment, or to consumers seeking information about the effective interventions. Overviews of risk factors will have similar clinical interest and potential relevance for policymakers and regulators. Overviews relating to the adverse effects of an intervention in the same or different conditions may allow commonalities to be drawn across a broader range of evidence than in a more focussed systematic review, with the potential to highlight equivalence or patterns not previously identified. Similarly, overviews of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy provide an opportunity to gain greater insights into test accuracy data summarised across different populations, settings or other variables, with potential to reduce the impact of data heterogeneity by drawing on a broader evidence base. Overviews of prognosis are also increasing in number and scope, offering potential to provide useful insights by summarising evidence of the likely course of a condition, factors associated with health outcomes or identifying risk groups associated with different health outcomes [ 38 ] . When applied within systematic frameworks, overviews of qualitative evidence provide scope for creating theoretically-defined conceptions of complex topics [ 43 ].

Often, the scope of systematic reviews can be described as either ‘lumping’ or ‘splitting’ information [ 44 , 45 ]. Lumping refers to finding commonalities across different approaches, whereas splitting creates a more narrowly-refined focus within a broader research field. Systematic reviews of primary research often split data by addressing a focussed and specific research question which may not be very useful for informing broader clinical and policy decision making. Conversely, overviews commonly adopt a ‘lumping’ approach, allowing greater leeway for generality in research findings [ 45 ], and arguably having greater applicability for policy makers. There are clearly challenges in ‘lumping’ large volumes of information, and presenting this in an accessible format, which is relevant and useful to the end user. Another significant challenge in lumping information is how to consistently synthesise such information in the face of inevitable heterogeneity.

The classification we have employed here suggests a range of common objectives and research questions which may be addressed by an overview, where the primary objective is to summarise the existing body of systematic review evidence on a topic. The scope of this summary of evidence is defined by previously stated inclusion and exclusion criteria [ 6 , 13 ]. This summary of evidence should not simply duplicate the reporting of individual systematic review summaries, but instead should aim to synthesise across included systematic review evidence in order to bring new insights to existing evidence. The suitability of reanalysis of existing data within an overview is debated, and it has been argued that, where novel analyses are the aim, conducting a review of trials may be more appropriate than an overview of reviews [ 14 ]. Methodological guidance on the reporting of systematic reviews using individual participant data has been published by the PRISMA-IPD Group [ 46 ] and may prove relevant to reporting within overviews which aim to incorporate novel analyses. It is clearly important for the stated overview research questions and objectives to specify any plans for data analysis, and for this to be planned with reference to the available methodological guidance, and with appropriate justification of the use of any overview of reviews, rather than a review of trials.

At its broadest sense, the common purpose of an overview is to provide an accessible summary of evidence, in order to support decision making by clinicians, policy makers and developers of clinical guidelines [ 2 ]. It is now widely accepted that in order to ensure relevance and impact of health research, key stakeholders (including but not restricted to people with a healthcare condition, their families, friends and caregivers, health professionals and decision makers) should be involved in the process [ 47 , 48 ]. Central to the conduct of an overview are the people involved in its production. From formulating the question to conducting the overview and disseminating findings, the specific purpose of an overview may change depending on who is asking the research question and clearly stakeholders should be actively involved throughout the process. The involvement of key stakeholders, including patients and their families or carers, should occur at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview.

Overviews are a relatively new methodological approach and consequently a number of aspects of overview methodology remain uncertain. It is the responsibility of a research team to decide on their approach before conducting an overview; central to this is determining what type of overview is to be conducted. Clear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives to be addressed by the overview are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview, and should be developed with the involvement of key stakeholders. Following best practice, these aspects should be covered within a published overview protocol as a mechanism for ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the overview. Our second paper [ 5 ] outlines a number of key methodological decisions which we consider important to address when planning an overview, and which will be important to incorporate within an overview protocol.

Despite a need for improved guidance for the conduct of overviews [ 2 ], there are a number of resources available which support the conduct of overviews [ 2 , 6 , 7 , 13 ], and updates to the relevant chapter of the Cochrane Handbook are currently in production [ 7 ]. Further guidance on the less common types of overview (such as those addressing reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy and prognosis) and more challenging aspects of overview production, such as methods for narratively synthesising findings, dealing with missing data, poor reporting and dealing with complexity versus granularity [ 10 ], would be a great benefit to those tackling overviews. In the absence of empirical evidence to support the selection and implementation of overview methods, we believe that the use of illustrated examples of real-life overviews will be helpful to authors planning new overviews, and to those seeking to establish evidence relating to optimal overview methods. This is therefore the focus of our second paper on this topic [ 5 ].

Abbreviations

British Medical Journal

Health Technology Assessment

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [systematic review reporting guidelines]

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – Individual Patient Data

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

Randomised Controlled Trials

Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Epidemiology MD. reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(5):e1002028.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hartling L, et al. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Res. Methodology. 2011;11(1):15–21.

Google Scholar  

Lunny C, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):231.

Pollock A, et al. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):145.

Aromataris E, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):132–40.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, L. and A. Oxman, Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews., in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 H. JPT and G. S, Editors. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration.

Pieper D, Antoine SL, Morfeld JC, Mathes T, Eikermann M. Methodological approaches in conducting overviews: current state in HTA agencies. Res Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(3):187–99.

Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):4.

Worswick J, et al. Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews—what does the evidence tell us? Systematic Reviews. 2013;2(1):26.

Caird J, et al. Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evidence Policy. 2015;11(1):81–97.

Whitlock EP, et al. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):776–82.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pollock M, et al. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):190–205.

Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium: Filtering the information overload for better decisions. Vienna: Wiley; 2015.

Ballard M, Montgomery P. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synthesis Methods. 2017;8

Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267–73.

Thomson D, Foisy M, Oleszczuk M, Wingert A, Chisholm A, Hartling L. Overview of reviews in child health: evidence synthesis and the knowledge base for a specific population. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Rev J. 2013;8(1):3–10.

Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. Birmingham: UK and Ireland Cochrane Symposium; 2016.

Hoving JL, et al. Work participation and arthritis: a systematic overview of challenges, adaptations and opportunities for interventions. Rheumatology. 2013;52(7):1254–64.

de Rezende LFM, et al. Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105620.

McClurg D, et al. Conservative interventions for urinary incontinence in women: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9

Pollock A, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11

Brunton G, et al. Developing evidence-informed, employer-led workplace health. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London; 2016.

Harris J, et al. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(2):207–14.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Estcourt LJ, et al. Red blood cell transfusion to treat or prevent complications in sickle cell disease: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2016;2

Cates CJ, Oleszczuk M, Stovold E, Wieland LS. Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(10):CD010005. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010005.pub .

Castle W, et al. Serevent nationwide surveillance study: comparison of salmeterol with salbutamol in asthmatic patients who require regular bronchodilator treatment. BMJ. 1993;306(6884):1034–7.

Nelson HS, et al. The salmeterol multicenter asthma research trial: a comparison of usual pharmacotherapy for asthma or usual pharmacotherapy plus salmeterol. CHEST J. 2006;129(1):15–26.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gillespie DC, Bowen A, Chung CS, Cockburn J, Knapp P, Pollock A. Rehabilitation for post-stroke cognitive impairment: an overview of recommendations arising from systematic reviews of current evidence. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(2):120–8.

Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG, Moher D, Vohra S. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157.

Frieden TR. Evidence for health decision making—beyond randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):465–75.

Berlin JA, Glasser SC, Ellenberg SS. Adverse event detection in drug development: recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1366–71.

Loke YK, et al. Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:32.

Posadzki P, Watson LK, Ernst E. Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews. Clin Med (Lond). 2013;13(1):7–12.

Bossuyt P, et al., Chapter 11: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In:, in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, and Gatsonis C, Editors. 2013, The Cochrane Collaboration.

Mocellin S, Pasquali S. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2

Hunt, H., E. Kuzma, and H. C, A review of existing systematic reviews summarising the accuracy of brief cognitive assessments for identifying dementia, particularly for use in primary care. Protocol., in PROSPERO 2016: PROSPERO online.

Williams, K. and C. Moons. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews of Prognosis. [Powerpoint presentation] 2012; Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwixm4Pz-6fZAhWQZlAKHbntBR8QFggxMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmethods.cochrane.org%2Fsites%2Fmethods.cochrane.org.prognosis%2Ffiles%2Fpublic%2Fuploads%2FAuckland%2520presentation_p . Accessed 15 Feb 2018.

Santaguida L, et al. A description of the methodology used in an overview of reviews to evaluate evidence on the treatment, harms, diagnosis/ classification, prognosis and outcomes used in the management of neck pain. Open Orthopaedics. 2013;7(Suppl 4 : M2):461–72.

Kyrgiou M, et al. Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. BMJ. 2017;356

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org .

Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, and Gatsonis C, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy 2013, The Cochrane Collaboration: Available from: http://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/ . Accessed 15 Feb 2018.

Gentles SJ, et al. Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):172.

Weir MC, et al. Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):756–63.

Baker PR, et al. The benefits and challenges of conducting an overview of systematic reviews in public health: a focus on physical activity. J Public Health. 2014;36(3):517–21.

Stewart LA, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657–65.

INVOLVE Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: examples. 2013.

Kreis J, et al. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):323–37.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The views and opinion expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding bodies.

Research conducted by Harriet Hunt referred to within this paper [ 38 ] was supported as part of doctoral programme funding by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC). The overview conducted by Pollock [ 3 ] was supported by a project grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. The overview conducted by McClurg [ 5 ] was supported by a project grant by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation.

Alex Pollock is employed by the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, which is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. Pauline Campbell is supported by the Chief Nurses Office of the Scottish Government.

The overview conducted by Estcourt [ 7 ] was supported by an NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant for the Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components.

The overview conducted by Brunton [ 10 ] was commissioned by the Department of Health as part of an ongoing programme of work on health policy research synthesis.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Exeter Test Group and PenCLAHRC, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke’s Campus, Exeter, Devon, EX1 1TE, UK

Harriet Hunt

Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK

Alex Pollock

Pauline Campbell

NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford and Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK

Lise Estcourt

UCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

Ginny Brunton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HH and AP wrote the original draft, with PC, LE and GB contributing sections and comments on following drafts of the manuscript. HH wrote the final manuscript with contributions from AP, PC, LE and GB. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harriet Hunt .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information, ethics approval and consent to participate.

As this work is an overview of existing systematic reviews and uses secondary anonymised data without access to individual identifiers, approval and consent to participate was not required.

Consent for publication

All authors have provided consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hunt, H., Pollock, A., Campbell, P. et al. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev 7 , 39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8

Download citation

Received : 02 February 2017

Accepted : 09 February 2018

Published : 01 March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review
• Evidence synthesis

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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