sample introduction of a literature review

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

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

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

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

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

When you need an introduction for a literature review

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

What to include in a literature review introduction

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

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Academic literature review paper

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

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

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

In some cases, you might include:

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

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

Examples of literature review introductions

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

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

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

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

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

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

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

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

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

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

Steps to write your own literature review introduction

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, introduce yourself in a phd interview (4 simple steps + examples), how to disagree with reviewers (with examples), 75 linking words for academic writing (+examples).

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

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

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

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

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

Steps to Completing a Literature Review

• Next: Find >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 CREATE ACCOUNT  LOG IN

Writing: Literature Review Basics

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

The Most Important Thing

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

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

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

Basic Introduction Template

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

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

Writing an Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Let's break that apart.

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

© 2015 - 2024

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

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

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

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Sample Literature Review on Critical Thinking (Gwendolyn Reece, American University Library)
• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Standalone Literature Reviews

• Attitudes towards the Disability in Ireland
• Martin, A., O'Connor-Fenelon, M. and Lyons, R. (2010). Non-verbal communication between nurses and people with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Diabilities, 14(4), 303-314.

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: Search strategies and Databases
• Next: Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 10:32 AM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

Literature Review Outline

Ai generator.

Literature Review. We all been there, especially those who are currently in high school or college. We get to review different types of literary pieces ranging from short stories , poem , and novels just to name a few. It can be confusing when you have a lot of ideas but you have no idea how to formulate them into one clean thought. It can also be quite frustrating if you have to start from the beginning or back to square one if you forgot a single part of the whole, but don’t worry, here are some literature review outline examples you can download to help you with your problems. Let’s check them out.

What is a Literature Review Outline?

A literature review outline is a structured framework that organizes and summarizes existing research on a specific topic. It helps identify key themes, gaps, and methodologies in the literature. The outline typically includes sections such as introduction, major themes, sub-themes, methodologies, and conclusions, facilitating a clear and comprehensive review of the literature.

Literature Review Format

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. It includes a systematic examination of scholarly article , book , and other sources relevant to the research area. Here’s a guide to structuring a literature review effectively:

Introduction

• Explain the purpose of the literature review.
• Define the scope of the review – what is included and what is excluded.
• State the research question or objective .
• Provide context or background information necessary to understand the literature review.
• Highlight the significance of the topic.
• Organize the literature review by themes, trends, or methodological approaches rather than by individual sources.
• Use headings and subheadings to categorize different themes or topics.
• For each theme or section, summarize the key findings of the relevant literature.
• Highlight major theories, methodologies, and conclusions.
• Note any significant debates or controversies.
• Critically evaluate the sources.
• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the existing research.
• Identify gaps or inconsistencies in the literature.
• Compare and contrast different sources.
• Synthesize the information to provide a coherent narrative.
• Show how the different studies are related to one another.
• Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Highlight the most important insights and their implications.
• Identify any gaps in the existing research that require further investigation.
• Suggest areas for future research.
• Discuss the overall significance of the literature review.
• Explain how it contributes to the field of study and the specific research question.
• List all the sources cited in the literature review.
• Follow the appropriate citation style (APA, MLA , Chicago, etc.) as required by your academic institution.

Research Literature Review Outline Example

I. Introduction Background Information: Provide context and background on the research topic. Explain the importance of the topic in the current research landscape. Purpose of the Review: State the main objectives of the literature review. Clarify the research questions or hypotheses guiding the review. Scope of the Review: Define the scope, including time frame, types of studies, and key themes. Explain any limitations or boundaries set for the review. II. Search Strategy Databases and Sources: List the databases and other sources used to find relevant literature. Keywords and Search Terms: Detail the specific keywords and search terms employed. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Describe the criteria for including or excluding studies. III. Theoretical Framework Relevant Theories: Introduce and explain the key theories and models related to the research topic. Application of Theories: Discuss how these theories provide a foundation for understanding the literature. IV. Review of Literature Thematic Organization: Organize the literature into themes or categories based on common findings or approaches. Example Structure: Theme 1: Impact of Rising Temperatures Summarize key studies and findings. Compare and contrast different research approaches. Theme 2: Changing Precipitation Patterns Highlight significant studies and their results. Discuss any conflicting findings or perspectives. Theme 3: Socioeconomic Factors Review literature focusing on socioeconomic impacts. Analyze how these factors interact with environmental changes. V. Critical Analysis Strengths and Weaknesses: Evaluate the strengths and limitations of the reviewed studies. Discuss the reliability and validity of the methodologies used. Methodological Critique: Assess the methodologies for potential biases and gaps. VI. Discussion and Synthesis Integration of Findings: Synthesize the findings from the literature into a cohesive narrative. Highlight common themes, trends, and gaps. Research Gaps: Identify areas where further research is needed. Suggest potential future research directions. VII. Conclusion Summary of Main Findings: Summarize the key insights and conclusions drawn from the literature review. Importance of the Topic: Reiterate the significance of the research topic. Implications for Future Research: Outline the implications of the findings for future research. VIII. References Citation List: Provide a complete list of all sources cited in the literature review. Follow a specific citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). IX. Appendices (if applicable) Supplementary Material: Include tables, charts, or detailed methodological information that supports the review but is too extensive for the main text.

Thematic Literature Review Outline Example

I. Introduction Background Information: Provide context and background on the research topic. Explain the importance of the topic in the current research landscape. Purpose of the Review: State the main objectives of the literature review. Clarify the research questions or hypotheses guiding the review. Scope of the Review: Define the scope, including time frame, types of studies, and key themes. Explain any limitations or boundaries set for the review. II. Search Strategy Databases and Sources: List the databases and other sources used to find relevant literature. Keywords and Search Terms: Detail the specific keywords and search terms employed. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Describe the criteria for including or excluding studies. III. Thematic Review of Literature Theme 1: Impact of Rising Temperatures Summary of Key Studies: Summarize the findings of major studies related to rising temperatures. Example: “Smith et al. (2020) found that increasing temperatures have led to a 5% decline in crop yields globally.” Comparison of Research Approaches: Compare different methodologies and approaches used in the studies. Example: “While Jones (2018) used a longitudinal study, Brown (2019) employed a cross-sectional analysis.” Theme 2: Changing Precipitation Patterns Summary of Key Studies: Highlight significant studies and their results. Example: “Lee and Wang (2021) reported that altered precipitation patterns have increased the frequency of droughts.” Discussion of Conflicting Findings: Discuss any contradictory findings or differing perspectives. Example: “Contrary to Lee and Wang, Garcia (2020) found minimal impact of precipitation changes on crop health.” Theme 3: Socioeconomic Factors Summary of Key Studies: Review literature focusing on the socioeconomic impacts of climate change. Example: “Davis (2017) highlighted the disproportionate effects on small-scale farmers.” Analysis of Interactions: Analyze how socioeconomic factors interact with environmental changes. Example: “Economic instability exacerbates the vulnerability to climate impacts (Green, 2018).” IV. Critical Analysis Strengths and Weaknesses: Evaluate the strengths and limitations of the reviewed studies. Example: “Many studies provide robust data but often lack consideration of regional variability.” Methodological Critique: Assess the methodologies for potential biases and gaps. Example: “There is a notable reliance on regional data, limiting the generalizability of findings.” V. Discussion and Synthesis Integration of Findings: Synthesize the findings from the literature into a cohesive narrative. Example: “The review indicates a clear trend of climate change negatively impacting agriculture, though the extent varies regionally.” Identification of Gaps: Identify areas where further research is needed. Example: “There is a gap in research on adaptive farming practices and their effectiveness.” VI. Conclusion Summary of Main Findings: Summarize the key insights and conclusions drawn from the literature review. Example: “Overall, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are significantly affecting agricultural productivity.” Importance of the Topic: Reiterate the significance of the research topic. Example: “Understanding these impacts is crucial for developing effective adaptation strategies.” Implications for Future Research: Outline the implications of the findings for future research. Example: “Future research should focus on adaptive measures to mitigate the adverse effects on agriculture.” VII. References Citation List: Provide a complete list of all sources cited in the literature review. Example: Smith, J. et al. (2020). Impact of Rising Temperatures on Global Crop Yields . Journal of Environmental Studies, 45(3), 234-250. Lee, S. & Wang, H. (2021). Precipitation Patterns and Drought Frequency . Climate Research Journal, 29(2), 98-115. VIII. Appendices (if applicable) Supplementary Material: Include tables, charts, or detailed methodological information that supports the review but is too extensive for the main text. Example: “Appendix A includes a table of regional crop yield changes from 2000 to 2020.”

Literature Review Outline Example in APA Format

1. Title Page Title of the Review Author’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Name and Number Instructor’s Name Due Date 2. Abstract Summary of the Literature Review Brief overview of the main points Research question or thesis Key findings Implications 3. Introduction Introduction to the Topic General introduction to the subject area Importance of the topic Purpose of the Review Specific objectives of the literature review Research Questions or Hypotheses Main research question(s) or hypotheses guiding the review Organization of the Review Brief outline of the structure of the literature review 4. Theoretical Framework Relevant Theories and Models Description of key theories and models relevant to the topic Application of Theories Explanation of how these theories are applied to the research problem 5. Review of the Literature Historical Context Background and historical development of the research topic Current Research Summary of recent studies and their findings Methodologies Used Overview of research methods used in the studies Themes and Patterns Common themes and patterns identified in the literature Contradictions and Gaps Conflicting findings and gaps in the literature 6. Critical Analysis Evaluation of Key Studies Critical analysis of the most influential studies Strengths and limitations of these studies Comparison of Different Approaches Comparative analysis of different perspectives and methodologies 7. Synthesis of Findings Integration of Theories and Results How the findings integrate with the theoretical framework Overall Trends Summary of the major trends in the literature Gaps in the Research Identification of gaps and areas for further research 8. Conclusion Summary of Main Findings Recap of the most significant findings from the review Implications for Future Research Suggestions for future research directions Practical Applications Implications for practice or policy 9. References Complete Citation of Sources Proper APA format for all sources cited in the literature review 10. Appendices (if necessary) Additional Material Any supplementary material such as tables, figures, or questionnaires

Literature Review Outline Templates & Samples in PDF

1. literature review template.

3. Literature Review Outline Template

6. Preliminary Outline of Literature Review

7. Literature Review Outline Example

8. Printable Literature Review Outline

Types of Literature Review

A literature review is an essential part of academic research, providing a comprehensive summary of previous studies on a particular topic. There are various types of literature reviews, each serving a different purpose and following a unique structure. Here, we explore the main types:

1. Narrative Review

A narrative review, also known as a traditional or descriptive review, provides a comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature on a specific topic. It focuses on summarizing and interpreting the findings rather than conducting a systematic analysis.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic review follows a rigorous and predefined methodology to collect, analyze, and synthesize all relevant studies on a particular research question. It aims to minimize bias and provide reliable findings.

3. Meta-Analysis

A meta-analysis is a subset of systematic reviews that statistically combines the results of multiple studies to arrive at a single conclusion. It provides a higher level of evidence by increasing the sample size and improving the precision of the results.

4. Scoping Review

A scoping review aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic, identify key concepts, theories, and sources, and clarify research gaps. It is often used to determine the scope of future research.

5. Critical Review

A critical review evaluates the quality and validity of the existing literature, often questioning the methodology and findings. It provides a critical assessment and aims to present a deeper understanding of the topic.

6. Theoretical Review

A theoretical review focuses on analyzing and synthesizing theories related to a specific topic. It aims to understand how theories have evolved over time and how they can be applied to current research.

7. Integrative Review

An integrative review synthesizes research on a topic in a more holistic manner, combining perspectives from both qualitative and quantitative studies. It aims to generate new frameworks and perspectives.

8. Annotated Bibliography

An annotated bibliography provides a summary and evaluation of each source in a list of references. It includes a brief description of the content, relevance, and quality of each source.

9. Rapid Review

A rapid review streamlines the systematic review process to provide evidence in a timely manner. It is often used in healthcare and policy-making to inform decisions quickly.

10. Umbrella Review

An umbrella review, or overview of reviews, synthesizes the findings of multiple systematic reviews on a particular topic. It provides a high-level summary and identifies broader patterns and trends.

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review is a critical component of academic research, serving multiple important purposes. It provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a topic, helps identify research gaps, and sets the context for new research. Here are the key purposes of a literature review:

1. Summarizing Existing Research

A literature review summarizes and synthesizes the findings of previous studies related to a specific topic. This helps researchers understand what is already known and what remains to be explored.

2. Identifying Research Gaps

By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in the current knowledge. This allows them to pinpoint areas where further investigation is needed and justify the need for their research.

3. Providing Context and Background

A literature review sets the context for new research by providing background information. It helps readers understand the broader landscape of the topic and how the current study fits into it.

4. Establishing the Theoretical Framework

Literature reviews often involve discussing various theories and models relevant to the topic. This helps establish a theoretical framework for the research, guiding the study’s design and methodology.

5. Demonstrating Researcher Knowledge

Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates that the researcher is knowledgeable about the field. It shows that they are aware of the key studies, debates, and trends in their area of research.

6. Justifying Research Questions and Methodology

A literature review helps justify the research questions and methodology of a study. By showing how previous studies were conducted and what their limitations were, researchers can argue for their chosen approach.

7. Avoiding Duplication

Reviewing existing literature ensures that researchers do not duplicate previous studies unnecessarily. It helps them build on existing work rather than repeating it.

8. Highlighting Key Findings and Trends

A literature review highlights significant findings and trends in the research area. This helps researchers understand the development of the field and identify influential studies and seminal works.

9. Informing Practice and Policy

In applied fields, literature reviews can inform practice and policy by summarizing evidence on what works and what doesn’t. This helps practitioners and policymakers make evidence-based decisions.

10. Facilitating a Comprehensive Understanding

Overall, a literature review facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the topic. It integrates various perspectives, findings, and approaches, providing a well-rounded view of the research area.

Components of a Literature Review

A well-structured literature review is essential for providing a clear and comprehensive overview of existing research on a particular topic. The following components are typically included in a literature review:

1. Introduction

The introduction sets the stage for the literature review. It provides background information on the topic, explains the review’s purpose, and outlines its scope.

Example: “Over the past decade, research on climate change’s impact on agriculture has proliferated. This literature review aims to synthesize these studies, focusing on the effects of rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns on crop yields.”

2. Search Strategy

The search strategy describes how the literature was identified. This includes the databases and search engines used, search terms and keywords, and any inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Example: “The literature search was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR. Keywords included ‘climate change,’ ‘agriculture,’ ‘crop yields,’ and ‘precipitation patterns.’ Studies published between 2000 and 2023 were included.”

3. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework presents the theories and models relevant to the research topic. This section provides a foundation for understanding the studies reviewed.

Example: “This review utilizes the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework to analyze the impact of climate change on agricultural communities, focusing on how environmental changes affect economic stability and food security.”

4. Review of Literature

The core of the literature review, this section summarizes and synthesizes the findings of the selected studies. It is often organized thematically, chronologically, or methodologically.

Example: “Studies from the early 2000s focused on temperature changes, while recent research has shifted to examining precipitation patterns. Common findings include a general decline in crop yields, with significant regional variations.”

5. Critical Analysis

A critical analysis evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing research. This involves assessing the methodology, data, and conclusions of the studies reviewed.

Example: “Many studies used longitudinal data to track changes over time, but few incorporated socioeconomic factors. Additionally, the reliance on regional data limits the generalizability of some findings.”

6. Discussion and Synthesis

The discussion and synthesis section integrates the findings from the literature review, highlighting common themes, trends, and gaps. It connects the reviewed studies to the current research question.

Example: “The literature consistently shows that rising temperatures negatively affect crop yields. However, there is a gap in understanding the role of adaptive farming practices, suggesting a need for further research in this area.”

7. Conclusion

The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the literature review. It reiterates the importance of the research topic and outlines the implications for future research.

Example: “In summary, climate change poses a significant threat to agricultural productivity. Future research should focus on adaptive strategies to mitigate these effects and ensure food security.”

8. References

The references section lists all the sources cited in the literature review. It should follow a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago.

• Smith, J. (2021). Climate Change and Crop Yields . Journal of Environmental Science, 12(3), 45-60.
• Brown, A., & Jones, B. (2019). Precipitation Patterns and Agriculture . Climate Research, 8(2), 34-48.

9. Appendices (if applicable)

Appendices may include supplementary material that is relevant to the literature review but would disrupt the flow of the main text. This could include tables, charts, or detailed methodological information.

Example: “Appendix A includes a table of regional crop yield changes from 2000 to 2020. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the data collection methods used in the reviewed studies.”

How to Write a Literature Review

Writing a literature review involves several steps to ensure that you provide a comprehensive, critical, and coherent summary of existing research on a specific topic. Here is a step-by-step guide to help you write an effective literature review:

1. Define Your Topic and Scope

• Identify your research question or thesis.
• Decide on the scope (broad topic or specific aspect, time frame, types of studies).

2. Conduct a Comprehensive Literature Search

• Identify key sources (use academic databases like PubMed, Google Scholar, JSTOR).
• Use relevant keywords to search for literature.
• Select relevant studies by reviewing abstracts.

3. Organize the Literature

• Group studies by themes (methodology, findings, theoretical perspective).
• Create an outline to structure your review.

4. Summarize and Synthesize the Literature

• Summarize key findings for each study.
• Synthesize information by comparing and contrasting studies.

5. Write the Literature Review

• Introduce the topic.
• Explain the purpose of the review.
• Outline the scope.
• Discuss literature thematically or chronologically.
• Present summaries and syntheses.
• Highlight patterns, contradictions, and gaps.
• Evaluate methodologies and findings.
• Discuss strengths and weaknesses of studies.
• Summarize main findings.
• Reiterate the importance of the topic.

6. Cite Your Sources

• Use a consistent citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago).

7. Review and Revise

• Proofread for grammatical errors and clarity.
• Revise for coherence and logical flow.

How do I start a literature review?

Begin by defining your research question and scope, then conduct a comprehensive search for relevant literature using academic databases.

What is the purpose of a theoretical framework?

It provides a foundation for understanding the literature and guides the analysis of existing studies.

How should I organize the literature review?

Organize it thematically, chronologically, or methodologically, depending on what best suits your research question.

How do I choose which studies to include?

Use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on relevance, publication date, and quality of the studies.

What is the difference between a thematic and chronological organization?

Thematic organization groups studies by topics or themes, while chronological organization arranges them by the date of publication.

How do I critically analyze the literature?

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study, assess methodologies, and discuss biases or gaps.

What should be included in the introduction?

Provide background information, state the purpose of the review, and outline its scope.

How can I synthesize findings from different studies?

Integrate the results to highlight common themes, trends, and gaps, providing a cohesive narrative.

Why are references important in a literature review?

References provide evidence for your review, ensure academic integrity, and allow readers to locate the original sources.

What role do appendices play in a literature review?

Appendices include supplementary material like tables or detailed methodologies that support the review but are too extensive for the main text.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

How do I Write a Literature Review?: #5 Writing the Review

• Step #1: Choosing a Topic
• Step #2: Finding Information
• Step #3: Evaluating Content
• Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• #5 Writing the Review
• Citing Your Sources

WRITING THE REVIEW 

You've done the research and now you're ready to put your findings down on paper. When preparing to write your review, first consider how will you organize your review.

The actual review generally has 5 components:

Abstract  -  An abstract is a summary of your literature review. It is made up of the following parts:

• A contextual sentence about your motivation behind your research topic
• Your thesis statement
• A descriptive statement about the types of literature used in the review
• Summarize your findings
• Conclusion(s) based upon your findings

Introduction :   Like a typical research paper introduction, provide the reader with a quick idea of the topic of the literature review:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern. This provides the reader with context for reviewing the literature.
• Identify related trends in what has already been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish your reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope)  - 

Body :  The body of a literature review contains your discussion of sources and can be organized in 3 ways-

• Chronological -  by publication or by trend
• Thematic -  organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time
• Methodical -  the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the "methods" of the literature's researcher or writer that you are reviewing

You may also want to include a section on "questions for further research" and discuss what questions the review has sparked about the topic/field or offer suggestions for future studies/examinations that build on your current findings.

Conclusion :  In the conclusion, you should:

Conclude your paper by providing your reader with some perspective on the relationship between your literature review's specific topic and how it's related to it's parent discipline, scientific endeavor, or profession.

Bibliography :   Since a literature review is composed of pieces of research, it is very important that your correctly cite the literature you are reviewing, both in the reviews body as well as in a bibliography/works cited. To learn more about different citation styles, visit the " Citing Your Sources " tab.

• Writing a Literature Review: Wesleyan University
• Literature Review: Edith Cowan University
• << Previous: Step #4: Synthesizing Content
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.eastern.edu/literature_reviews

About the Library

• Collection Development
• Circulation Policies
• Mission Statement
• Staff Directory

Using the Library

• A to Z Journal List
• Library Catalog
• Research Guides

Interlibrary Services

• Research Help

Warner Memorial Library

• Literature review example analysis
• Information and services
• Student support
• Study skills and learning advice
• Study skills and learning advice overview
• Assignment writing
• How to write a literature review

This example shows how a literature review from a PhD thesis can be analysed for its structure, purpose and content.

Three sections of the thesis are analysed to show the:

• relationship between the introduction and the literature review
• structure and purpose of dedicated literature review chapters
• inclusion of literature review in other chapters of the thesis.

Access the thesis

Co-witnesses and the effects of discussion on eyewitness memory by Helen M Paterson

Overview of thesis (introduction)

This introductory section is less than two pages long.

The first paragraph:

• states the overall objective of the thesis
• defines the introduced term
• provides broad motivation for interest in the area
• introduces the sections of the thesis that will address the overall objective.

The other paragraphs describe the content and purpose of each section of the thesis.

Literature review

The literature review is made of up of two chapters.

Chapter 1: Literature review of relevant research

The overall goals of this chapter are to firstly establish the significance of the general field of study, and then identify a place where a new contribution could be made.

The bulk of the chapter critically evaluates the methodologies used in this field to identify the appropriate approach for investigating the research questions.

Chapter 2: Theoretical explanations of memory conformity

Chapter 5, Study 3: Co-Witness Contamination

This chapter has the following structure:

• Introduction
• Discussion.

The introduction introduces the particular study to be reported on, and includes a three-and-a-half page literature review.

The literature review in this chapter:

• links back to the relevant general findings of the earlier literature review chapters
• briefly reviews the broad motivation for this study
• identifies that two previously used methodologies in this field will be compared to resolve questions about the findings of previous studies which had only used a single methodology
• uses previous literature to generate specific hypotheses to test
• reviews additional literature to provide a justification for a second objective to be investigated in the study reported on in this chapter.

Learning Advisers

Our advisers can help undergraduate and postgraduate students in all programs clarify ideas from workshops, help you develop skills and give feedback on assignments.

How a Learning Adviser can help

Literature Review Introduction Example

T he literature review is an article that critically analyzes previously published works on a subject.

Thus, it is a review, not a report. The “Introduction” is crucial to writing. It should clarify the topic and prepare readers for the content. 

The beginning of a literature review sets the setting for reviewing the literature on your topic. This article explains how to write a literature review introduction and provides examples.

Table of Contents

Tips for writing an Introduction for a literature review

A well-crafted introduction for a literature review identifies the tone of your article and helps the reader realize the context and aims of your review.

The introduction should be informative and engaging enough to guide the reader through the complex landscape of existing research.

Let’s get familiar with important tips for writing a literature review introduction:

·         Start with a hook

begin with an engaging opening sentence that captures the reader’s attention on the article’s Topic.

You can use a thought-provoking question, a surprising fact, or a brief story in the literature review introduction. The goal is to make your introduction persuasive and relevant to your research.

After the starting sentence, which we call a hook, you need to provide some background information about the general subject area or field of study.

Explain why the Topic is important right now and relevant, and highlight any gaps or issues that your literature review will address.

·         Define the scope

Clearly define the scope of your literature review in the introduction part. Explain the specific aspects of the Topic or the research questions, which helps the reader understand what to expect and the boundaries of your review.

·         Give a brief & organized Literature.

You need to give a brief overview of how you’ve organized the literature review in the introduction. Reference the key themes, categories, or methods you will be using to categorize and analyze the reviewed sources.

·         Smoothly shift to the Main Body.

To end the literature review’s introduction more conveniently, you can summarize the key points that you will discuss in the subsequent sections and present an outline of the review’s structure. Or just simply state that you will explore the existing Literature in the next part.

·         Be Clear & Concise

To have the best intro, keep the literature review introduction concise and focused. Stay away from unnecessary jargon or overly complex language. The primary aim is to write a clear and engaging opening for the literature review.

·         Read, revise, and edit. Then do it again.

Finally, it is vital to revise and edit your introduction to confirm its clarity, coherence, and smooth flow of ideas. It should align with the overall tone and structure of your paper.

If you are still confused by all the tips, let’s make this clearer with some examples:

Literature review Introduction examples

It is better to explore some of the great examples in the literature review introductions and gain some ideas about how to start writing our own.

Look at the introduction below:

1.      The field of [Your Research Topic] has witnessed significant development over the past several decades. As researchers have delved into this subject, they have generated a vast body of Literature. This literature review aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the key themes, concepts, and findings within [the article’s Topic].

2.      [Your Research Topic] is of particular interest due to its relevance and importance in [Explain the significance of the article’s Topic]. As society grapples with [Relevant issues or challenges], understanding the nuances of [Your Research Topic] is crucial for [Potential applications or solutions].

3.      This review is organized into several sections to offer a comprehensive overview of the existing Literature. First, we will explore the historical context and the evolution of [the article’s Topic]. We will then examine the main theories and frameworks that have shaped the field.

4.      The objective of this literature review is not only to provide a synthesis of current knowledge but also to identify areas where further research is needed. By offering an understanding of [Your Research Topic], this review aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse in the field and provide valuable insights for future investigations.

Read More: AI for Writing Scientific Papers

Final speech

As you embark on your writing process, consider the introduction as an opportunity to make a lasting first impression, setting the tone for the insightful knowledge and discovery that your literature review promises to be.

If you have any other points that will help other researchers write an introduction for a literature review, please mention them in the comments below.

The introduction sets the tone for the article and prepares readers for the content. It clarifies the topic and aims of the review, ensuring a strong start to the literature analysis.

The hook should be an engaging opening sentence that captures the reader’s attention. It can be a thought-provoking question, a surprising fact, or a brief story relevant to the research topic.

The introduction should start with a hook, provide background information, define the scope, give a brief overview of the literature, smoothly transition to the main body, and be clear and concise in presenting the key points.

Can We Use AI for Writing Scientific Papers?

Can you use “we” in a research paper, related articles.

How To Mention Corresponding Author in Paper?

What Is Article Number in Journal?

What Is Affiliation in Research Paper?

Independent researcher affiliation

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

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

Literature review on gender diversity in top management teams of companies and its relationship with firm performance and audit quality

• Original Article
• Published: 19 June 2024

Cite this article

• Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges 1 ,
• Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo 1 &
• Jonas Oliveira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-1062 2  

10 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper aims to review the literature on gender diversity on top management teams and its impact on firm’s performance and audit quality. Over the period of 1997–2023 a total of 125 published articles were identified. Main findings reveal that literature on gender diversity continues to be contradictory, inconsistent and inconclusive regarding its impacts on firm’s performance and audit quality, highlighting the need to intensify research on this field to validate empirically those relationships. The literature review informs researchers on other audiences about the main characteristics of the literature on gender diversity and identifies several research gaps in the area.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The effects of boardroom gender diversity on corporate performance: empirical evidence from a sample of European listed companies

Do Gender Quotas Lead to Gender Equality?

Gender diversity in boardroom and its impact on firm performance.

Abdullah, S.N., and K.N.I.K. Ismail. 2016. Women directors, family ownership and earnings management in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting 24 (4): 525–550.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, R.B. 2016. Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow. The Leadership Quaterly 27 (3): 371–386.

Adams, R., and D. Ferreira. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2): 291–309.

Adusei, M. 2019. Board gender diversity and the technical efficiency of microfinance institutions: Does size matter? International Review of Economics and Finance 64: 393–411.

Ahern, K.R., and A.K. Dittmar. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quartely Journal of Economics 127 (1): 137–197.

Ali, M., Y.L. Ng, and C.T. Kulik. 2014. Board age and gender diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions. Journal of Business Ethics 125 (3): 497–514.

Alvarado, N.R., P.D. Fuentes, and J. Laffarga. 2017. Does board gender diversity influence financial performance? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 141 (2): 337–350.

Alves, S. 2023a. Gender diversity on corporate boards and earnings management: Evidence for European Union listed firms. Cogent Business & Management 10 (1): 2193138.

Alves, S. 2023b. Do female directors affect accounting conservatism in European Union. Cogent Business & Management 10 (2): 2219088.

Ameen, E.C., D.M. Guffey, and J.J. McMillan. 1996. Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (5): 591–597.

Anh, L.H.T., and N.V. Khuong. 2022. Gender diversity and earnings management behaviours in an emerging market: A comparison between regression analysis and FSQCA. Cogent Business & Management 9 (1): 2101243.

Antle, R., E. Gordon, G. Narayanamoorthy, and L. Zhou. 2006. The joint determination of audit fees, nonaudit fees, and abnormal accruals. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 27 (3): 235–266.

Arun, T.G., Y.E. Almahrog, and Z.A. Aribi. 2015. Female directors and earnings management: evidence from UK companies. International Review of Financial Analysis 39: 137–146.

Ashbaugh, H., R. LaFond, and B.W. Mayhew. 2003. Do non-audit services compromise auditor independence? Further Evidence. Accounting Review 78 (3): 611–639.

Baghdadi, G.A., Md. Safiullah, and M.L.M. Heyden. 2023. Do gender diverse boards enhance managerial ability? Journal of Corporate Finance 79: 102364.

Bantel, K. 1993. Strategic clarity in banking: Role of top management-team demography. Psychological Reports 73 (3 Suppl.): 1187–1203.

Barua, A., L.F. Davidson, D.V. Rama, and S. Thiruvadi. 2010. CFO gender and accruals quality. Accounting Horizons 24 (1): 25–39.

Bebchuk, L.A., and M.S. Weisbach. 2010. The state of corporate governance research. Review of Financial Studies 23 (3): 939–961.

Becker, G. 1964. Human capital. A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bennouri, M., T. Chtioui, H. Nagati, and M. Nekhili. 2018. Female board directorship and firm performance: What really matters? Journal of Banking and Finance 88: 267–291.

Bernardi, R.A., and D.F. Arnold. 1997. An examination of moral development within public accounting by gender, staff level, and firm. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (4): 653–668.

Bernile, G., V. Bhagwat, and S. Yonker. 2018. Board diversity, firm risk, and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics 127 (3): 588–612.

Böhren, O., and R. Ström. 2010. Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the board room. Journal of Business Finance e Accounting 37 (9–10): 1281–1308.

Borghesi, R., K. Chang, and J. Mehran. 2016. Simultaneous board and CEO diversity: Does it increase firm value? Applied Economics Letters 23 (1): 23–26.

Brannon, L. (2017). Gender: psychological perspectives . Seventh Edition, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York and London

Bruckmümller, S., and N. Branscombe. 2010. The glass-cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology 49 (3): 433–451.

Bui, A.T., C.V. Nguyen, T.P. Pham, and D.T. Phung. 2019. Female leadership and borrowing constraints: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Review of Financial Analysis 81: 101332.

Buniami, S., N.H. Johari, N.R.A. Radham, and F.H.A. Rauf. 2012. Board diversity and discretionary accruals of the top 100 Malaysia corporate governance (MCG) index company. African Journal of Business Management 6 (29): 8496–8503.

Google Scholar  

Burgess, Z., and P. Tharenou. 2002. Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics 37 (1): 39–49.

Burke, R. 2000. Company Size, board size and the numbers of women corporate directors. In Women on Corporate Boards of Directors , ed. R. Burke and M. Mattis, 157–167. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cabrera-Fernández, A., R. Martínez-Jiménez, and M. Hernández-Ortiz. 2016. Participação das mulheres nos conselhos de administração: Uma revisão da literatura. Revista Internacional De Género e Empreendedorismo 8 (1): 69–89.

Cadinu, M., A. Maass, A. Rosabianca, and J. Kiesner. 2005. Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychologial Science 16 (7): 572–578.

Cahan, S.F., and J. Sun. 2015. The effect of audit experience on audit fees and audit quality. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 30 (1): 78–100.

Campbell, K., and A. Mínguez-Vera. 2008. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3): 435–451.

Campbell, K., and A. Mínguez-Vera. 2010. Female board appointments and firm valuation: Short and long term effects. Journal of Management & Governance 14 (1): 37–59.

Canil, J., S. Karpavicius, and C. Yu. 2019. Are shareholders gender neutral? Evidence from say to pay. Journal of Corporate Finance 58: 169–186.

Caramanis, C., and C. Lennox. 2008. Audit effort and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 45 (1): 116–138.

Carmo, C., S. Alves, and B. Quaresma. 2022. Women on boards in Portuguese listed companies: Does gender diversity influence financial performance. Sustainability 14 (10): 6186.

Carter, D.A., B.J. Simkins, and G.W. Simpson. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review 38 (1): 33–53.

Carter, D.A., B.J. Simkins, F. D’Souza, and W.G. Simpson. 2007. The diversity of corporate boards committees and financial performance. SSRN 20: 1–30.

Chappel, L., and J.E. Humphrey. 2014. Does board gender diversity have a financial impact? Evidence using stock portfolio performance. Journal of Business Ethics 122 (4): 709–723.

Charles, M., and K. Bradley. 2009. Indulging our gendered selves ? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology 114 (4): 924–976.

Chen, H., J. Chen, G. Lobo, and Y. Wang. 2011. Effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital: Evidence from China. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (3): 892–925.

Chen, J., W.S. Leung, and M. Goergen. 2017. The impact of board gender composition on dividend payouts. Journal of Corporate Finance 43: 86–105.

Chen, C.W., N.K. Sutton, B. Yi, and Q. Zheng. 2023. The connection between gender diversity and firm performance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Review of Financial Analysis 89: 102763.

Chia, R., J. Moore, K. Lam, C.J. Chuang, and B.S. Cheng. 1994. Cultural differences in gender role attitudes between Chinese and American students. Sex Roles 31 (1–2): 23–30.

Chiang, H.T., and S.L. Lin. 2012. Auditor’s industry specialization and disclosure quality of IAS No. 39-Related Accounts. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking 2 (2): 59–98.

Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, nonaudit services, and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 78 (4): 931–955.

Conyon, M.J., and L. He. 2017. Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Research 79: 198–211.

Cullinan, C.P., L. Mahoney, and P. Roush. 2019. Directors & corporate social responsibility: Joint consideration of director gender and the director’s role. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 39 (2): 100–123.

Cumming, D., T.Y. Leung, and O. Rui. 2015. Gender diversity and securities fraud. Academy of Management Journal 58 (5): 1572–1593.

Damak, T.S. 2018. Gender diverse board and earnings management: Evidence from French listed companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9 (3): 289–312.

Dechow, P., R. Sloan, and A. Sweeney. 1996. Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (1): 1–36.

Dechow, P., W. Ge, C. Larson, and R. Sloan. 2010. Predicting material accounting misstatements. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (1): 17–82.

Dezso, C.L., and D.G. Ross. 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal 33 (9): 1072–1089.

Doldor, E., S. Vinnicombe, M. Gaughan, and R. Sealy. 2012. Gender diversity on boards: the appointment processand the role of executive search firms. Equality and Human rights Comission Research Report Series, International Centre for Women Leaders, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield Univerisity.

Dunn, K., and B. Mayhew. 2004. Audit firm industry specialization and client disclosure quality. Review of Accounting Studies 9 (1): 35–58.

Duong, L., and J. Evans. 2016. Gender differences in compensation and earning management: evidence from Australian CFOs. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 40 (Part A): 17–35.

Dwyer, S., O.C. Richard, and K. Chadwick. 2003. Gender diversity in management and firm performance: The influence of growth orientation and organizational culture. Journal of Business Research 56 (12): 1009–1019.

Eagly, A.H., and L.L. Carli. 2015. Women and the labyrinth of leadership. In Contemporary Issues in Leadership , ed. W.E. Rosenbach, R.L. Taylor, and M.A. Youndt. New York: Routledge.

Earley, P.C., and E. Mosalowski. 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal 43 (1): 26–49.

Eckel, C.C., and S.C. Fullbrunn. 2015. Thar she blows? Gender, competition, and bubbles in experimental asset markets. American Econonomic Review 105 (2): 906–920.

Erhardt, N.L., J.D. Werbel, and C.B. Shrader. 2003. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 11 (2): 102–111.

Ettredge, M., E.E. Fuerherm, and C. Li. 2014. Fee pressure and audit quality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (4): 247–263.

Faccio, M., M.T. Marchica, and R. Mura. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance 39: 193–209.

Fama, F., and M. Jensen. 1983. Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 288–307.

Fan, Y., Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, and Y. Zhou. 2019. Women on boards and bank earnings management: From zero to hero. Journal of Banking and Finance 107: 1–20.

Farag, H., and C. Mallin. 2017. Board diversity and financial fragility: Evidence from European banks. International Review of Financial Analysis 49: 98–112.

Farrel, K.A., and P.L. Hersch. 2005. Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (1–2): 85–106.

Francis, J. 2011. A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (2): 125–152.

Francis, J.R., and B. Ke. 2006. Disclosure of fees paid to auditors and the market valuation of earnings surprises. Review of Accounting Studies 11 (4): 495–523.

Francis, J.R., and M.D. Yu. 2009. Big4 Office size and Audit Quality. Accounting Review 84 (5): 1521–1552.

Francis, J.R., I. Khurana, and R. Pereira. 2005. Disclosure incentives and effects on cost of capital around the World. The Accounting Review 80 (4): 1125–1162.

Francis, B., I. Hasan, Q. Wu, and M. Yan. 2014. Are female CFOs less tax aggressive? Evidence from tax aggressiveness. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 36 (2): 171–202.

Francis, B., I. Hasan, J.C. Park, and Q. Wu. 2015. Gender differences in financial reporting decisión making: Evidence from accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research 32 (3): 1285–1318.

Francis, J.R. (2023). What exactly do we mean by audit quality? Accounting in Europe , in press.

Gallego-Álvarez, I., I. García-Sánchez, and L. Rodríguez-Dominguez. 2010. The influence of gender diversity on corporate performance. Spanish Accounting Review 13 (1): 53–88.

García-Sánchez, I.M., J. Martínez-Ferrero, and E. García-Meca. 2017. Gender diversity, financial expertise and its effects on accounting quality. Management Decision 55 (2): 347–382.

Gavious, I., E. Segev, and R. Yosef. 2012. Female directors and earnings management in high-technology firms. Pacific Accounting Review 24 (1): 4–32.

Girardone, C., S. Kokas, and G. Wood. 2021. Diversity and women in finance: Challenges and future perspectives. Journal of Corporate Finance 71: 101906.

Gonçalves, T., C. Gaio, and T. Santos. 2019. Women on the board: Do they manage earnings? Empirical evidence from European listed firms. Revista Brasileira De Gestao De Negocios 21 (3): 582–597.

Green, C.P., and S. Homroy. 2018. Female directors, board committees and firm performance. European Economic Review 102: 19–38.

Gul, F.A., S.Y.K. Fung, and B. Jaggi. 2009. Earnings quality: Some evidence on the role of auditor tenure and auditors’ industry expertise. Journal of Accounting and Economics 47 (3): 265–287.

Gul, F., B. Srinidhi, and A. Ng. 2011. Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting Economics 51 (3): 314–338.

Gul, F.A., B. Srinidhi, and J. Tsui, (2008). Board diversity and the demand for higher audit effort, SSRN Working Paper.

Gull, A.A., M. Nekhili, H. Nagati, and T. Chtioui. 2018. Beyond gender diversity: How specific attributes of female directors affect earnings management. British Accounting Review 50 (3): 255–274.

Hambrick, D.C., and A. Pettigrew. 2001. Upper echelons: Donald Hambrick on executives and strategy. Academy of Management Perspectives 15 (3): 36–47.

Hambrick, D., T. Cho, and M. Chen. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firm’s competitive moves. Administrative Science Quaterly 41 (4): 659–685.

Harakeh, M., W. El-Gammal, and G. Matar. 2019. Female directors, earnings management, and CEO incentive compensation: UK evidence. Research in International Business and Finance 50: 153–170.

Hardies, K., and R. Khalifa. 2018. Gender is not “a dummy variable”: Discussion of current gender research in accounting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 15 (3): 385–407.

Hardies, K., D. Breesch, and J. Branson. 2011. Male and female auditors’ overconfidence. Managerial Auditing Journal 27 (1): 105–118.

Hardies, K., D. Breesch, and J. Branson. 2015. The female audit fee premium. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34 (4): 171–195.

Harjoto, M., I. Indrarini Laksmana, and R. Lee. 2015. The impact of demographic characteristics of CEOs and directors on audit fees and audit delay. Managerial Auditing Journal 30 (8/9): 963–997.

Harris, O., J.B. Karl, and E. Lawrence. 2019. CEO compensation and earnings management: Does gender really matters? Journal of Business Research 98 (January): 1–14.

Haslam, S.A., M.K. Ryan, C. Kulich, G. Trojanowski, and C. Atkins. 2010. Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of Management 21 (2): 484–497.

He, J., and Z. Huang. 2011. Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance. Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal 54 (6): 1119–1139.

Hillman, A., and T. Dalziel. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review 28 (3): 383–396.

Hillman, A., A. Cannella Jr., and R. Paetzhold. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaption of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies 37 (2): 235–255.

Hillman, A.J., C. Shropshire, and A.A. Cannella. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal 50 (4): 941–952.

Ho, S.M., A. Li, K. Tam, and F. Zhang. 2015. CEO gender, ethical leadership, and accounting conservatism. Journal of Business Ethics 127 (2): 351–370.

Hoang, T.C., and I.S. Abeysekerae Ma. 2018. Board diversity and corporate social disclosure: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Business Ethics 151 (4): 833–852.

Hoang, T.C., T.C. Hoang, I. Abeysekera, and S. Ma. 2017. The effect of board diversity on earnings quality: An empirical study of listed firms in Vietnam. Australian Accounting Review 27 (2): 146–163.

Hoitash, R., A. Markelevich, and C.A. Barragato. 2007. Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial Auditing Journal 22 (8): 761–786.

Hrazdil, K., D.A. Simunic, S. Spector, and N. Suwanyangyuan. 2023. Top executive gender diversity and financial reporting quality. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 19 (2): 100363.

Huang, J., and D.J. Kisgen. 2013. Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives over- confident relative to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics 108 (3): 822–839.

Huang, T.C., H. Huang, and C. Lee. 2014. Corporate executive’s gender and audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal 29 (6): 527–547.

Isidro, H., and M. Sobral. 2015. The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance. Journal of Business Ethics 132 (1): 1–19.

Ittonen, K., and E. Peni. 2012. Auditor’s gender and audit fees. International Journal of Auditing 16 (1): 1–18.

Ittonen, K., J. Miettinen, and S. Vähämaa. 2010. Does female representation on audit committees affect audit fees? Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting 49 (3/4): 113–139.

Ittonen, K., E. Vähämaa, and S. Vähämaa. 2013. Female auditors and accruals quality. Accounting Horizons 27 (2): 205–228.

Jensen, M.C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure on internal control systems. Journal of Finance 48 (3): 831–880.

Jensen, M., and W. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

Joecks, J., K. Pull, and K. Vetter. 2013. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: Whct exactly constitutes a “critical mass”? Journal of Business Ethics 118 (1): 61–72.

Johnson, S.G., K. Schnatterly, and A.D. Hill. 2013. Board composition beyond inde- pendence social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management 39 (1): 232–262.

Jurkus, A.F., J.C. Park, and L.S. Woodard. 2011. Women in top management and agency costs. Journal of Business Research 64 (2): 180–186.

Kanter, R. 1977. Men and women of the corporation . New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan, S., K. Pany, J. Samuels, and J. Zhang. 2009. An examinationof the association between gender and reporting intentions for fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 87 (1): 15–30.

Kent, R.L., and S.E. Moss. 1994. Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal 37 (5): 1335–1360.

Khan, W.A., and J.P. Vieito. 2013. CEO gender and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Business 67: 55–66.

Khaw, K.L., J. Liao, D. Tripe, and U. Wongchoti. 2016. Gender diversity, State control, and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 39: 141–158.

Khlif, H., and I. Achek. 2017. Gender in accounting research: A review. Managerial Auditing Journal 32 (6): 627–655.

Knight, D., C.L. Pearce, K.G. Smith, J.D. Olian, H.P. Sims, K.A. Smith, and P. Flood. 1999. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal 20 (5): 445–465.

Kolev, G.I. 2012. Underperformance by female CEOs: A more powerful test. Economic Letters 117 (2): 436–440.

Konrad, A.M., V. Kramer, and S. Erkut. 2008. Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics 37 (2): 145–164.

Kouaib, S.P., and A. Almulhim. 2019. Earnings manipulations and boards diversity: The moderating role of audit. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 30 (2): 100356.

Kreitz, P.A. 2008. Best practices for managing organizational diversity. Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (2): 101–120.

Krishnan, H.A., and D. Park. 2005. A few good women - on top management teams. Journal of Business Research 58 (12): 1712–1720.

Krishnan, G.V., and L.M. Parsons. 2008. Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics 78 (1/2): 65–76.

Kwon, S.Y., Y. Lim, and R. Simnett. 2014. The effect of mandatory audit firm rotation on audit quality and audit fees: empirical evidence from the Korean audit market. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 33 (4): 167–195.

Kyaw, K., M. Olugbode, and B. Petracci. 2015. Does gender diverse board mean less earnings management? Finance Research Letters 14: 135–141.

Lakhal, F., A. Aguiar, N. Lakhal, and A. Malek. 2015. Do women on boards and in top management reduce earnings management? Evidence in France. Journal of Applied Business Research 31 (3): 1107–1118.

Lam, K.C., P.B. McGuiness, and J.P. Vieito. 2013. CEO gender, executive compensation and firm performance in Chinese-listed enterprises. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 21 (1): 1136–1159.

Lara, J.M.G., B.G. Osma, A. Mora, and M. Scapin. 2017. The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality. Journal of Corporate Finance 45: 651–668.

Lara, J.M.G., J. Penalva, and M. Scapin. 2022. Financial reporting quality effects of imposing (gender) quotas on boards of directors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 41 (2): 106921.

Lawrence, E.R., and M. Raithatha. 2023. Gender bias, board diversity, and firm value: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Corporate Finance 78: 102349.

Lawrence, M., M. Minutti-Meza, and P. Zhang. 2011. Can Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? The Accounting Review 86 (1): 259–286.

Lee, I.H., and M.R. Marvel. 2014. Revisiting the entrepreneur gender-performance relationship: A firm perspective. Small Business Economics 42: 769–786.

Lenard, M.J., B. Yu, E.A. York, and S. Wu. 2014. Impact of female directorship on firm risk. Managerial Finance 40 (8): 787–803.

Levi, M., K. Li, and F. Zhang. 2014. Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance 28: 185–200.

Li, Y., and Y. Zeng. 2019. The impact of top executive gender on asset prices: Evidence from stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance 58: 528–550.

Li, J., R. Falls, and J. Lin. 2005. The relation between earnings management and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research 13 (1): 1–11.

Li, X., E.T. Than, R. Ahmed, M. Ishaque, and T.L.D. Huynh. 2023. Gender diversity of boards and executives on real earnings management in the bull or bear period: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Finance & Economics 28 (3): 2753–2771.

Lin, J., and M. Hwang. 2010. Audit quality, corporate governance, and earnings management: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Auditing 14 (1): 57–77.

Liu, Y., Z. Wei, and F. Xie. 2014. Do women directors improve firm performance in China? Journal of Corporate Finance 28: 169–184.

Liu, Y., Z. Wei, and F. Xie. 2016. CFO gender and earnings management: Evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 46 (4): 881–905.

Lobo, G., and Y. Zhao. 2013. Relation between audit effort and financial report misstatements: Evidence from quarterly and annual restatements re-statements. The Accounting Review 88 (4): 1–37.

Low, D.C.M., H. Roberts, and R.H. Whiting. 2015. Board diversity and firm performance: empirical evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea. Malasya and Singapore. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 35 (Part A): 381–401.

Lückerath-Rovers, M. 2013. Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of Management and Governance 17: 491–509.

Luo, J.H., Y. Xiang, and Z. Huang. 2017. Female directors and real activities manipulation: Evidence from China. China Journal of Accounting Research 10 (2): 141–166.

Mahadeo, J.D., T. Soobaroyen, and V.O. Hanuman. 2012. Board composition and dinancial performance: Unconvering the effects of diversity in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics 105 (3): 375–388.

Mansi, S.A., W.F. Maxwell, and D.P. Miller. 2004. Does auditor quality and tenure matter to investors? Evidence from the bond market. Journal of Accounting Research 42 (4): 755–793.

Matsa, D., and A. Miller. 2011. Chipping away at the glass ceiling: Gender spillovers in corporate leadership. American Econonomic Review 101 (3): 635–639.

Matsa, D.A., and A.R. Miller. 2013. A female style in corporate leadship? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5 (3): 136–169.

Maznevski, M.L. 1994. Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations 47 (5): 531–552.

Miller, T., and C.M. Triana. 2009. Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies 46 (5): 755–786.

Milliken, F.J., and I.L. Martins. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Journal 21 (2): 402–433.

Mnif, Y., and I. Cherif. 2020. Female board directorship and earnings management. Pacific Accounting Review 33 (1): 114–141.

Montenegro, T., and F. Bras. 2015. Audit quality: Does gender composition of audit firms matter? Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting 44 (3): 264–297.

Moscovici, S., and C. Faucheux. 1972. Social influence, conformity bias and the study of active minorities. In Advances in experimental social psychology , ed. L. Berkowitz, 149–202. New York: Academic Press.

Myers, J.N., L.A. Myers, and T.C. Omer. 2003. Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation? The Accounting Review 78 (3): 779–799.

Na, K., and J. Hong. 2017. CEO gender and earnings management. Journal of Applied Business Research 33 (2): 297–308.

Nadeem, M., T. Suleman, and A. Ahmed. 2019. Women on boards, firm risk and the profitability nexus: Does gender diversity moderate the risk and return relationship? International Review of Economics and Finance 64: 427–442.

Neidermeyer, P., T. Tuten, and A. Neidermeyer. 2003. Gender differences in auditors’ attitudes towards lowballing: Implications for future practice. Women in Management Review 18 (8): 406–413.

Nemeth, C. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review 93 (1): 23–32.

Nguyen, T., S. Locke, and K. Reddy. 2015. Does boardroom gender diversity matter? Evidence from a transitional economy. International Review of Financial Analysis 37: 184–202.

Nguyen, T.H.H., C.G. Ntim, and J.K. Malagila. 2020. Women on corporate boards and corporate financial and non-financial performance: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis 71: 101554.

Nielsen, S., and M. Huse. 2010. The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review 18 (2): 136–148.

Niskanen, J., J. Karjalainen, M. Niskanen, and J. Karjalainen. 2011. Auditor gender and corporate earnings management behavior in private Finnish firms. Managerial Auditing Journal 26 (9): 778–793.

Nissim, D. (2022). Earnings quality. SSRN, March 1.

O’Brien, L.T., and C.S. Crandall. 2003. Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psycholology Bulletin 29 (6): 782–789.

Orazalin, N. 2020. Board gender diversity, corporate governance and earnings management: Evidence from an emerging market. Gender in Management: An International Journal 35 (1): 37–60.

Panzer, L., and S. Müller. 2015. Earnings quality and gender diversity on German supervisory boards: An empirical analysis. Problems and Perspectives in Management 13 (4): 9–18.

Parker, J., M. Dao, H. Huang, and Y. Yan. 2015. Disclosing material weakness in internal controls: Does the gender of audit committee members matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 24 (3/4): 407–420.

Peni, E. 2014. CEO and Chairperson characteristics and firm performance. Journal of Management e Governance 18 (1): 185–205.

Peni, E., and S. e Vahamaa. 2010. Female executives and earnings management. Managerial Finance 36 (7): 629–645.

Perryman, A.A., G.D. Fernando, and A. Tripathy. 2016. Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research 69 (2): 579–586.

Pfeffer, J., and G. Salacik. 1978. The external control o organizations: A resource dependence perspective . New York: Harper e Row.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations . Marshfield (MA), Pitman.

Post, C., and K. Byron. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta analysis. Academy of Management Journal 58 (5): 1546–1571.

Price, C.R. 2012. Gender, competition, and managerial decisions. Management Sciences 58 (1): 114–122.

Raddant, M., and H. Takashashi. 2022. Interdependenciesof female board member appointments. International Review of Financial Analysis 81: 102080.

Rao, K., and C. Tilt. 2016. Board diversity and CSR reporting: An Australian study. Meditari Accountancy Research 24 (2): 182–210.

Reddy, S., and A.M. Jadhav. 2019. Gender diversity in boardrooms – a literature review. Cogent Economics & Finance 7 (1): 1644703.

Reichelt, K.J., and D. Wang. 2010. National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research 48 (3): 647–686.

Ridgeway, C.L. 2001. Sex, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues 57 (4): 637–655.

Rietz, A.D., and M. Henrekson. 2000. Testing the female underperformance hypothesis. Small Business Economics 14: 1–10.

Roberson, L., and C.T. Kulik. 2007. Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (2): 24–40.

Rose, C. 2007. Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (2): 404–413.

Ryan, M.K., and S.A. Haslam. 2005. The glass-cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management 16 (2): 81–90.

Schwartz-Ziv, M. 2017. Gender and board activeness: The role of a critical mass. Journal of Financial Quantitative Analysis 52 (2): 751–780.

Schwartz-Ziv, M. (2013). Does the gender of directors matter? SSRN, May 2.

Shaukat, A., Y. Qiu, and G. Trojanowski. 2016. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 135 (3): 569–585.

Shrader, C.B., V.B. Blackburn, and P. Iles. 1997. Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues 9 (3): 355–372.

Sial, M.S., X.V. Vo, L. Al-Haddad, and T.N. Trang. 2019. Impact of female director son the board and foreign institutional investors and eranings manipulation of Chinese listed companies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 11 (3): 288–300.

Siciliano, J. 1996. The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (12): 1313–1321.

Simons, T., and L. Pelled. 1999. Understanding executive diversity: More than meets the eye. Human Resource Planning 22 (2): 49–51.

Singh, V., S. Terjesen, and S. Vinnicombe. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ. European Management Journal 26 (1): 48–58.

Smith, N., V. Smith, and M. Venter. 2006. Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2.500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55 (7): 569–593.

Srinidhi, B., F.A. Gul, and J. Tsui. 2011. Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (5): 1610–1644.

Steele, C.M., and J. Aronson. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholology 69 (5): 797–811.

Sun, R., and G. Zou. 2021. Political connection, CEO gender, and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance 71: 101918.

Sun, J., G. Liu, and G. Lan. 2011. Does female directorship on independent audit committees constrain earnings management? Journal of Business Ethics 99 (3): 369–382.

Tanford, S., and S. Penrod. 1984. Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin 95 (2): 189–225.

Teodósio, J., E. Vieira, and M. Madaleno. 2021. Gender diversity and corporate risk-taking: A literature review. Managerial Finance 47 (7): 1038–1073.

Teodósio, J., E. Vieira, and M. Madaleno. 2022. Gender diversity and financial risk: a bibliometric analysis. In Handbook of Research on New Challenges and Global Outlooks in Financial Risk Management , ed. M. Madaleno, E. Vieira, and N. Barbuta-Misu. IGI Global.

Terjesen, S., R. Sealy, and V. Singh. 2009. Women director son corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review 17 (3): 320–337.

Terjesen, S., E.B. Couto, and P.M. Francisco. 2016. Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity. Journal of Management and Governance 20 (3): 447–483.

Thiruvadi, S., and H. Huang. 2011. Audit committee gender differences and earnings management. Gender in Management: An International Journal 26 (7): 483–498.

Torchia, M., A. Calabrò, and M. Huse. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics 102 (2): 299–317.

Treichler, C. (1995). Diversity of board members and organizational performance: An integrative prespective. Corporate Governance: An International Review 3 (4): 189–200.

Vahamaa, E. 2017. Female executives and corporate governance. Managerial Finance 43 (10): 1056–1072.

Vieira, E., M. Madaleno, and J. Lobão. 2022. Gender diversity in leadership: A bibliometric analysis and future research directions. International Journal of Financial Studies 10 (3): 53.

Waweru, N.M., and N.P. Prot. 2018. Corporate governance compliance and accrual earnings management in Eastern Africa: Evidence from Kenya and Tanzania. Managerial Auditing Journal 33 (2): 171–191.

Westphal, J., and L. Milton. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (2): 366–398.

Wilson, N., and A. Altanlar. 2011. The survival of newly incorporated companies and the impact of founding director characteristics . Credit Management Research Centre: University of Leeds - Division of Accounting and Finance.

Book   Google Scholar  

Xu, X., W. Li, Y. Li, and X. Liu. 2019. Female CFOs and corporate cash holdings: Precautionary motive or agency motive. International Review of Economics and Finance 63: 434–454.

Ye, K., R. Zhang, and Z. Rezaee. 2010. Does top executive gender diversity affects earnings quality? A large sample analysis of Chinese listed firms. Advances in Accounting 26 (1): 47–54.

Ye, D., J. Deng, Y. Liu, S.H. Szewczyk, and X. Chen. 2019. Does board gender diversity increase dividend payouts? Analysis of global evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance 58: 1–26.

Zalata, A.M., V. Tauringana, and I. Tingbani. 2018. Audit committee financial expertise, gender, and earnings management: does gender of the financial expert matter? International Review of Financial Analysis 55 (March 2017): 170–183.

Zalata, A.M., C.G. Ntim, G.E. Aboud, and E. Gyapong. 2019a. Female CEOs and core earnings quality: New evidence on the ethics versus risk-aversion puzzle. Journal of Business Ethics 160 (2): 515–534.

Zalata, A.M., C.G. Ntim, T. Choudhry, A. Hassanein, and H. Elzahar. 2019b. Female directors and managerial opportunism: Monitoring versus advisory female directors. Leadership Quaterly 30 (5): 101309.

Zalata, A.M., C.G. Ntim, M.H. Alsohagy, and J. Malagila. 2022. Gender diversity and earnings management: The case of female directors with financial background. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 58 (1): 101–136.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Higher Institute of Accountancy and Administration, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges & Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo

Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, (ISCTE-IUL), Avenida das Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal

Jonas Oliveira

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges: Conceptualization; methodology; writing – original draft preparation. Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo: Supervision, writing-reviewing and editing. Jonas Oliveira: Writing-reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Oliveira .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, declaration of generative ai in scientific writing:.

Statement: During the preparation of this work the authors did use any generative AI in scientific writing.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Borges, M.F.R., Azevedo, G.M.d.C. & Oliveira, J. Literature review on gender diversity in top management teams of companies and its relationship with firm performance and audit quality. Int J Discl Gov (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00248-1

Download citation

Received : 19 January 2024

Accepted : 21 May 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00248-1

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

• Gender diversity
• Performance
• Audit quality

JEL classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 24 June 2024

Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review

• Nathan T. M. Huneke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-6707 1 , 2 ,
• Jay Amin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3792-0428 1 , 2 ,
• David S. Baldwin 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Alessio Bellato 4 , 5 ,
• Valerie Brandt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-2659 5 , 6 ,
• Samuel R. Chamberlain 1 , 2 ,
• Christoph U. Correll   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-5646 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ,
• Luis Eudave 11 ,
• Matthew Garner 1 , 5 , 12 ,
• Corentin J. Gosling 5 , 13 , 14 ,
• Catherine M. Hill 1 , 15 ,
• Ruihua Hou 1 ,
• Oliver D. Howes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2928-1972 16 , 17 , 18 ,
• Konstantinos Ioannidis 1 , 2 ,
• Ole Köhler-Forsberg 19 , 20 ,
• Lucia Marzulli 21 ,
• Claire Reed   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1385-4729 5 ,
• Julia M. A. Sinclair 1 ,
• Satneet Singh 2 ,
• Marco Solmi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-7233 5 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25   na1 &
• Samuele Cortese   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5877-8075 1 , 5 , 26 , 27 , 28   na1  

Molecular Psychiatry ( 2024 ) Cite this article

284 Accesses

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Drug discovery
• Neuroscience
• Psychiatric disorders

There is a growing literature exploring the placebo response within specific mental disorders, but no overarching quantitative synthesis of this research has analyzed evidence across mental disorders. We carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) for mental disorders. We explored whether placebo effect size differs across distinct disorders, and the correlates of increased placebo effects. Based on a pre-registered protocol, we searched Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge up to 23.10.2022 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses reporting placebo effect sizes in psychopharmacological or neurostimulation RCTs. Twenty meta-analyses, summarising 1,691 RCTs involving 261,730 patients, were included. Placebo effect size varied, and was large in alcohol use disorder ( g  = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]), depression ( g  = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), restless legs syndrome ( g  = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), and generalized anxiety disorder ( d  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]). Placebo effect size was small-to-medium in obsessive-compulsive disorder ( d  = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), primary insomnia ( g  = 0.35, 95% CI [0.28, 0.42]), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (standardized mean change = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]). Correlates of larger placebo response in multiple mental disorders included later publication year (opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, more trial sites, larger sample size, increased baseline severity, and larger active treatment effect size. Most (18 of 20) meta-analyses were judged ‘low’ quality as per AMSTAR-2. Placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. Future research should explore the sources of this variation. We identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses of placebo response in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania.

Similar content being viewed by others

Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A transdiagnostic meta-analysis of acute augmentations to psychological therapy

Treatment resistance in psychiatry: state of the art and new directions

Introduction.

A placebo is an ‘inactive’ substance or ‘sham’ technique that is used as a control for assessing the efficacy of an active treatment [ 1 ]. However, study participants in a placebo control group may experience considerable symptom improvements - a ‘placebo response’ [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Statistical artifacts or non-specific effects account for some of the placebo response. For example, many individuals seek treatment and are enrolled in clinical trials while their symptoms are at their worst. Their symptoms will gradually return to their usual severity (‘regression to the mean’), giving the appearance of a placebo response [ 4 ]. Further, it has been suggested that the placebo response is exacerbated due to unreliable ratings as well as baseline symptom severity inflation if raters are aware of severity criteria for entry to a trial [ 5 , 6 ]. Other potential sources of apparent placebo responses include sampling biases caused by the withdrawal of the least improved patients in the placebo arm, non-specific beneficial effects resulting from interactions with staff delivering the trial, environmental effects due to inpatient care during placebo-controlled trials, or other unaccounted for factors, such as dietary or exercise changes during the trial [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Nonetheless, there is evidence that placebo administration results in ‘true’ - or non-artefactual - placebo effects, that is, identifiable changes in biological systems [ 1 , 10 , 11 ]. For example, placebo administration is capable of causing immunosuppression [ 12 , 13 ], placebo effects in Parkinson’s disease are driven by striatal dopamine release [ 10 , 14 ], and placebo analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioid release [ 15 , 16 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence that placebo effects in depressive and anxiety disorders are correlated with altered activity in the ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, and the default mode network [ 17 ]. The placebo effect size can be increased through the use of verbal suggestions and conditioning procedures, thus suggesting the underlying role of psychological mechanisms including learning and expectations [ 11 , 18 ].

Across age groups, treatment modalities, and diverse mental disorders, biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) do reduce symptoms [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], but only a subgroup of patients experience a clinically significant symptom response or enter remission [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Furthermore, current medications may also have unfavourable side effects [ 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Given the high prevalence of mental disorders and their significant socioeconomic burden [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], there is a need to develop more effective and safer psychopharmacologic and neurostimulation treatments. However, in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), the magnitude of the placebo response may be considerable, which can affect the interpretation of their results [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. For example, in antipsychotic trials over the past 40 years, placebo response has increased while medication response has remained consistent [ 38 , 39 ]. Consequently, the trial’s ability to statistically differentiate between an active medication and a placebo is diminished [ 40 ]. Indeed, large placebo response rates have been implicated in hindering psychotropic drug development [ 41 , 42 ]. The increased placebo response can also affect larger data synthesis approaches, such as network meta-analysis, in which assumptions about placebo responses (e.g. stability over time) might affect the validity of results [ 43 ].

Improved understanding of participant, trial, and mental disorder-related factors that contribute to placebo response might allow better clinical trial design to separate active treatment from placebo effects. There is a growing body of research, including individual studies and systematic reviews/meta-analyses, examining the placebo response within specific mental disorders [ 35 ]. However, to date, no overarching synthesis of this literature, to detect any similarities or differences across mental disorders, has been published. We therefore carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses to address this need. We aimed to assess the placebo effect size in RCTs for a range of mental disorders, whether the effect size differs across distinct mental disorders, and identify any correlates of increased placebo effect size or response rate.

The protocol for this systematic umbrella review was pre-registered on the open science framework ( https://osf.io/fxvn4/ ) and published [ 44 ]. Deviations from this protocol, and additions to it, were: eight authors were involved in record screening rather than two; we reported effect sizes pooled across age groups and analyses comparing placebo effect sizes between age groups; and we included a meta-analysis that incorporated trials of dietary supplements as well as medications in autism. For the rationale behind these decisions, see eMethods.

Eight authors (NH, AB, VB, LE, OKF, LM, CR, SS) carried out the systematic review and data extraction independently in pairs. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus or through arbitration by a third reviewer (NH or SCo). We searched, without date or language restrictions, up to 23.10.2022, Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE + EMBASE Classic, and Web of Knowledge for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of RCTs of biological treatments (psychopharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) compared with a placebo or sham treatment in individuals with mental disorders diagnosed according to standardized criteria. The full search strategy is included in eMethods. We also sought systematic reviews of RCTs conducted in patients with sleep-wake disorders, since these disorders are included in the DSM-5 and their core symptoms overlap with those of mental disorders [ 45 ]. We retained systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses that reported within-group changes in symptoms in the placebo arm.

Next, to prevent duplication of data, a matrix containing all eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses for each category of mental disorder was created. Where there were multiple eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses for the same disorder and treatment, we preferentially included meta-analyses, and if multiple eligible meta-analyses remained, then we included the one containing the largest number of studies for the same disorder and treatment, in line with recent umbrella reviews [ 46 , 47 ].

Data were extracted by at least two among six reviewers (AB, VB, LE, OKF, CR, SS) independently in pairs via a piloted form. All extracted data were further checked by a third reviewer (NH). See eMethods for a list of extracted data.

Our primary outcome was the pre-post effect size of the placebo/sham related to the condition-specific primary symptom change for each mental disorder. Secondary outcomes included any other reported clinical outcomes in eligible reviews. We report effect sizes calculated within-group from baseline and post-treatment means by meta-analysis authors, including Cohen’s d and Hedges’ g for repeated measures, which account for both mean difference and correlation between paired observations; and standardized mean change, where the average change score is divided by standard deviation of the change scores. We interpreted the effect size in line with the suggestion by Cohen [ 48 ], i.e. small (~0.2), medium (~0.5), or large (~0.8).

In addition, we extracted data regarding potential correlates of increased placebo effect size or response rate (as defined and assessed by the authors of each meta-analysis) in each mental disorder identified through correlation analyses or meta-regression. Where available, results from multivariate analyses were preferred.

The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed by at least two among six reviewers (AB, VB, LE, OKF, NH, CR) independently and in pairs using the AMSTAR-2 tool, a critical appraisal tool that enables reproducible assessments of the conduct of systematic reviews [ 49 ]. The methodological quality of each included review was rated as high, moderate, low, or critically low.

Our initial search identified 6,108 records. After screening titles and abstracts, we obtained and assessed 115 full-text reports (see eResults for a list of articles excluded following full-text assessment, with reasons). Of these, 20 were deemed eligible, and all were systematic reviews with meta-analysis (Fig.  1 ). In total, the 20 included meta-analyses synthesized data from 1,691 RCTs (median 55) involving 261,730 patients (median 5,365). These meta-analyses were published between 2007 and 2022 and involved individuals with the following mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD; n  = 6) [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], anxiety disorders ( n  = 4) [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], schizophrenia spectrum disorders ( n  = 3) [ 38 , 59 , 60 ], alcohol use disorder (AUD; n  = 1) [ 61 ], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n  = 1) [ 62 ], autism spectrum disorders ( n  = 1) [ 63 ], bipolar depression ( n  = 1) [ 64 ], intellectual disability ( n  = 1) [ 65 ], obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; n  = 1) [ 66 ], primary insomnia ( n  = 1) [ 67 ], and restless legs syndrome (RLS; n  = 1) [ 68 ].

Twenty meta-analyses were included.

The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses according to AMSTAR-2 ratings was high in two meta-analyses (ADHD and autism), low in four meta-analyses, and critically low in the remaining 14 meta-analyses (Table  1 ). The most common sources of bias that led to downgrading on the AMSTAR-2 were: no list of excluded full-text articles with reasons ( k  = 14), no explicit statement that the protocol was pre-registered ( k  = 14), and no assessment of the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results ( k  = 13). The full reasoning behind our AMSTAR-2 ratings is included in eResults.

Our first objective was to determine placebo effect sizes across mental conditions. Data regarding within-group placebo efficacy were reported in sixteen of the included meta-analyses [ 38 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. Placebo effect sizes for the primary outcomes ranged from 0.23 to 1.85, with a median of 0.64 (Fig.  2 ). Median heterogeneity across meta-analyses was I 2  = 72%, suggesting a generally high percentage of heterogeneity due to true variation across studies.

Dots represent placebo group effect size while triangles represent active effect size. CI confidence interval, MDD major depressive disorder, GAD generalized anxiety disorder, SAD social anxiety disorder, OCD obsessive-compulsive disorder, g Hedges’ g, d Cohen’s d, SMC standardized mean change, NR not reported.

A detailed description of each meta-analysis included for this objective is included in eResults. Here, we report a summary of these results in order of the greatest number of RCT’s and meta-analyses included per disorder. In MDD, a large within-group placebo effect was observed ( g  = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), although active medication had an even larger effect size ( g  = 1.49, 95% CI [1.44, 1.53]) [ 50 ]. Similarly, in children and adolescents with MDD, placebo effect size was large ( g  = 1.57, 95% CI [1.36, 1.78]), as was serotonergic medication effect size ( g  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.70, 2.00]) [ 55 ]. In treatment-resistant MDD, the within-group placebo effect size was smaller than in non-treatment-resistant MDD ( g  = 0.89, 95% CI [0.81, 0.98]) [ 52 ]. In neuromodulation trials for MDD, the effect size of sham was g  = 0.80 (95% CI [0.65, 0.95]) [ 53 ]. In this meta-analysis, the effect size was larger for non-treatment-resistant ( g  = 1.28, 95% CI [0.47, 2.97]) compared to treatment-resistant participants (g = 0.50 95% CI [0.03, 0.99]) [ 53 ]. In adults with anxiety disorders, placebo effect sizes varied across disorders, with a medium effect size in panic disorder ( d  = 0.57, 95% CI [0.50, 0.64]) [ 56 ] and large effect sizes in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) ( d  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]) and social anxiety disorder (SAD) ( d  = 0.94, 95% CI [0.77, 1.12]) [ 57 ]. Other meta-analyses in children and adolescents and older adults pooled RCTs across anxiety disorders, and found large placebo effect sizes ( g  = 1.03, 95% CI [0.84, 1.21] and d  = 1.06, 95% CI [0.71, 1.42], respectively) [ 55 , 58 ]. In ADHD, placebo effect size was medium-to-large for clinician-rated outcomes (SMC = 0.75, 95% CI [0.67, 0.83]) [ 62 ]. There was additionally a significant negative relationship between placebo effect size and drug-placebo difference (−0.56, p  < 0.01) for self-rated outcomes [ 62 ]. In schizophrenia spectrum disorders, placebo effect size was small-to-medium in antipsychotic RCTs (SMC = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]) [ 38 ] and medium in RCTs focusing specifically on negative symptoms ( d  = 0.64, 95% CI [0.46, 0.83]) [ 60 ]. Placebo effect size in RLS was large when measured via rating scales ( g  = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), but small ( g  = 0.02 to 0.24) in RCTs using objective outcomes [ 68 ]. In autism, placebo effect sizes were small (SMC ranged 0.23 to 0.36) [ 63 ]. Similarly, placebo effect size was small in OCD ( d  = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), although larger in children and adolescents ( d  = 0.45, 95% CI [0.35, 0.56]) compared with adults ( d  = 0.27, 95% CI [0.15, 0.38]) [ 66 ]. Placebo effect size was large in AUD ( g  = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]) [ 61 ], small in primary insomnia ( g ranged 0.25 to 0.43) [ 67 ], and medium in intellectual disability related to genetic causes ( g  = 0.47, 95% CI [0.18, 0.76]) [ 65 ].

Our second objective was to examine the correlates of increased placebo response. We included 14 meta-analyses that reported correlates of placebo effect size or response rate through correlation analysis or meta-regression [ 38 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 68 ]. The key correlates extracted from these studies are summarized in Table  2 .

Several variables were consistently identified across meta-analyses. Increased number of trial sites was a positive correlate of increased placebo response in MDD [ 51 , 54 ], schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 59 ], and autism spectrum disorders [ 63 ]. Similarly, increased sample size was positively associated with placebo effect size in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 59 ], OCD [ 66 ], and panic disorder [ 56 ]. Later publication or study year was associated with greater placebo response in anxiety disorders [ 56 , 57 ], schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 ], AUD [ 61 ], and OCD [ 66 ] but not in MDD [ 51 ], and with reduced placebo response in ADHD [ 62 ]. Younger age was associated with increased placebo responses in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 , 59 ] and OCD [ 66 ]. Increased baseline illness severity was associated with increased placebo response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 ], ADHD [ 62 ], and AUD [ 61 ]. Increased trial or follow-up duration was positively associated with increased placebo response in MDD [ 51 ], but negatively associated with placebo response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 , 60 ] and OCD [ 66 ]. Finally, the effect size of active treatment was positively associated with increased placebo response in neurostimulation trials for MDD [ 53 ], bipolar depression [ 64 ], autistic spectrum disorders [ 63 ], and ADHD [ 62 ].

There were also some variables associated with increased placebo response in single disorders only. Flexible dosing, rather than fixed dosing, was associated with increased placebo response in MDD [ 51 ]. Increased illness duration was associated with reduced placebo response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 ]. In RCTs for negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a higher number of active treatment arms was associated with increased placebo response [ 60 ]. A number of treatment administrations was a positive correlate of increased placebo response in patients with AUD [ 61 ]. A low risk of bias in selective reporting was associated with increased placebo response in ADHD [ 62 ]. Finally, a low risk of bias in allocation concealment was associated with increased placebo response in autism [ 63 ].

To our knowledge, this is the first overarching synthesis of the literature exploring the placebo response in RCTs of biological treatments across a broad range of mental disorders. We found that placebo responses were present and detectable across mental disorders. Further, the placebo effect size across these disorders varied between small and large (see Fig.  3 ). Additionally, several variables appeared to be associated with increased placebo effect size or response rate across a number of disorders, while others were reported for individual disorders only.

CI confidence interval, MDD major depressive disorder, GAD generalized anxiety disorder, SAD social anxiety disorder, OCD obsessive-compulsive disorder, g Hedges’ g, d Cohen’s d, SMC standardized mean change.

Our umbrella review distinguishes itself from a recent publication on placebo mechanisms across medical conditions [ 69 ]. Only four systematic reviews of research in mental disorders were included in that recent review [ 69 ], none of which were eligible for inclusion in our umbrella review, as we focus specifically on RCTs in mental disorders. Thus, our current umbrella review synthesizes different literature and is complementary [ 69 ].

We found substantial variation in placebo effect sizes across mental disorders. In GAD, SAD, MDD, AUD, and RLS (for subjective outcomes), placebo effects were large (>0.9), while they were small (approximately 0.3) in OCD, primary insomnia, autism, RLS (for objective outcomes), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. It is noteworthy that placebo effect size/response rate correlated with active treatment effect size/response rate in many disorders (MDD, bipolar depression, ADHD, and autism). Nonetheless, where reported, active treatment was always superior. This possibly suggests an underlying ‘treatment responsiveness’ of these disorders that can vary in size. Perhaps, the natural history of a disorder is an important factor in ‘responsiveness’, i.e., disorders in which there is greater natural fluctuation in severity will show larger placebo (and active treatment) effect sizes. Supporting this hypothesis, increased trial duration predicted a larger placebo effect size in MDD, a disorder in which the natural course includes improvement [ 31 , 51 , 70 ]. Conversely, in schizophrenia spectrum disorders where improvement (particularly of negative symptoms) is less likely [ 71 ], increased trial and illness duration predicted a smaller placebo effect size [ 38 , 60 ]. However, previous meta-analyses suggest that natural improvement, for example, measured via waiting list control, does not fully account for the placebo effect in depression and anxiety disorders [ 72 , 73 ]. Statistical artifact, therefore, does not seem to fully explain the variation in effect size.

Non-specific treatment mechanisms are likely an additional source of the observed placebo effect. For example, those with treatment-resistant illness might have reduced expectations regarding treatment. This assumption is supported by the subgroup analysis reported by Razza and colleagues showing sham neuromodulation efficacy reduced as the number of previous failed antidepressant trials increased [ 53 ]. Another factor to consider is the outcome measure chosen. For example, the placebo effect size in panic disorder was smaller when calculated with objective or self-report measures compared with clinician-rated measures [ 56 ]. A similar finding was reported in ADHD trials [ 62 ]. Why placebo effect sizes would differ with clinician-rated versus self-rated scales is unclear. This might result from ‘demand characteristics’ (i.e., cues that suggest to a patient how they ‘should’ respond), or unblinding of the rater, or a combination of the two [ 74 , 75 ].

Several correlates of increased placebo response were reported in included meta-analyses. These included a larger sample size, more study sites, a later publication year (but with an opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, and increased baseline illness severity. This might reflect changes in clinical trial methods over time, the potential for increased ‘noise’ in the data with larger samples or more study sites, and, more speculatively, variables associated with increased volatility in symptoms [ 39 , 51 , 76 ]. A more extensive discussion regarding the potential reasons these variables might correlate with, or predict, placebo response is included in the eDiscussion. Although some correlates of increased placebo response were identified, perhaps more pertinently, it is unknown whether these also predict the separation between active treatment and placebo in most mental disorders. Three included meta-analyses did show that as placebo response increases, the likelihood of drug-placebo separation decreases [ 38 , 62 , 64 ]. This suggests correlates of placebo effect size are also correlates of trial success or failure, but this hypothesis needs explicit testing. In addition, few of the meta-analyses we included explored whether correlates of placebo response differed from correlates of active treatment response. For example, in clinical trials for gambling disorder, response to active treatment was predicted by weeks spent in the trial and by baseline severity, while response to placebo was predicted by baseline depressive and anxiety symptoms [ 77 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence that industry sponsorship is a specific correlate of reduced drug-placebo separation in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 78 ]. The largest meta-analysis that we included (conducted by Scott et al. [ 50 ]) did not explore correlates of increased placebo response through meta-regression analysis; rather, it was designed specifically to assess the impact of the use of placebo run-in periods in antidepressant trials. The authors found that use of a placebo run-in was associated with reduced placebo response. However, this effect did not enhance sensitivity to detect medication efficacy versus control groups, as trials with placebo run-in periods were also associated with a reduced medication response. Similar effects of placebo run-in were seen in univariate (but not multivariable) models in ADHD, where placebo run-in reduced placebo effect size in youth, but did not affect drug vs placebo difference [ 62 ]. Further work should be undertaken to ascertain whether trial-level correlates (including the use of placebo run-in) differentially explain active treatment or placebo response and whether controlling for these can improve drug-placebo separation.

Our results should be considered in the light of several possible limitations. First, as in any umbrella review, we were limited by the quality of the meta-analyses we included. Our AMSTAR-2 ratings suggest that confidence in the conclusions of most included meta-analyses should be critically low or low. Indeed, several meta-analyses did not assess for publication bias or for bias in included RCTs. This is relevant, as the risk of bias in selective reporting was highlighted as potentially being associated with placebo effect size in ADHD [ 62 ], and might therefore be relevant in other mental disorders. Second, our results are potentially vulnerable to biases or unmeasured confounders present in the included meta-analyses. Third, we attempted to prevent overlap and duplication of information by including only the meta-analyses with the most information. This might, however, have resulted in some data not being included in our synthesis. Fourth, an exploration of the potential clinical relevance of the placebo effect sizes reported here was outside the scope of the current review but should be considered an important question for future research. Finally, the meta-analyses we included encompassed RCTs with different levels of blinding (double-blind, single-blind). Although the majority of trials were likely double-blind, it is possible that different levels of blinding could have influenced placebo effect sizes through effects on expectations. Future analyses of placebo effects and their correlates should either focus on double-blind trials or compare results across levels of blinding. Related to this, the included meta-analyses pooled phase 2 and phase 3 trials (the latter of which will usually follow positive phase 2 trials), which might result in different expectation biases. Therefore, placebo effects should be compared between phase 2 and phase 3 trials in the future.

In this umbrella review, we found placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. The sources of this variation remain unknown and require further study. Some variables were correlates of increased placebo response across mental disorders, including larger sample size, higher number of study sites, later publication year (opposite for ADHD), younger age, and increased baseline illness severity. There was also evidence that clinician-rated outcomes were associated with larger placebo effect sizes than self-rated or objective outcomes. We additionally identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews identified in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania. In relation to these disorders, some analyses have been published but they have not been included in systematic reviews/meta-analyses (e.g. analyses of individual patient data pooled across RCTs in acute mania [ 79 ] or gambling disorder [ 77 , 80 ]) and therefore were not eligible for inclusion here. We also focused on placebo response in RCTs of pharmacotherapies and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders. We did not include placebo effects in psychosocial interventions, but such an analysis would also be valuable. Future studies should address these gaps in the literature and furthermore should compare findings in placebo arms with active treatment arms, both regarding treatment effect size and its correlates. Gaining additional insights into the placebo response may improve our ability to separate active treatment effects from placebo effects, thus paving the way for potentially effective new treatments for mental disorders.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/fxvn4/ .

Evers AWM, Colloca L, Blease C, Annoni M, Atlas LY, Benedetti F, et al. Implications of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice: Expert Consensus. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87:204–10.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McQueen D, Cohen S, John-Smith PS, Rampes H. Rethinking placebo in psychiatry: the range of placebo effects. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2013;19:162–70.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc. 1955;159:1602–6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Harris I. When the placebo effect is not an effect. Acta Orthop. 2021;92:501–2.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Landin R, DeBrota DJ, DeVries TA, Potter WZ, Demitrack MA. The impact of Restrictive Entry Criterion during the placebo lead-in period. Biometrics. 2000;56:271–8.

Jones BDM, Razza LB, Weissman CR, Karbi J, Vine T, Mulsant LS, et al. Magnitude of the Placebo response across treatment modalities used for treatment-resistant depression in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2125531.

Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. The nature and power of the placebo effect. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:331–5.

Ashar YK, Chang LJ, Wager TD. Brain mechanisms of the Placebo effect: an affective appraisal account. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017;13:73–98.

Ernst E, Resch KL. Concept of true and perceived placebo effects. BMJ. 1995;311:551–3.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De La Fuente-Fernandez R. Expectation and Dopamine release: mechanism of the Placebo effect in Parkinson’s disease. Science. 2001;293:1164–6.

Benedetti F, Carlino E, Pollo A. How Placebos change the patient’s brain. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36:339–54.

Goebel MU, Trebst AE, Steiner J, Xie YF, Exton MS, Frede S, et al. Behavioral conditioning of immunosuppression is possible in humans. FASEB J. 2002;16:1869–73.

Albring A, Wendt L, Benson S, Witzke O, Kribben A, Engler H, et al. Placebo effects on the immune response in humans: the role of learning and expectation. PloS One. 2012;7:e49477.

Lidstone SC, Schulzer M, Dinelle K, Mak E, Sossi V, Ruth TJ, et al. Effects of expectation on placebo-induced Dopamine release in Parkinson disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67:857–65.

Amanzio M, Benedetti F. Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation-activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems. J Neurosci. 1999;19:484–94.

Amanzio M, Pollo A, Maggi G, Benedetti F. Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids. Pain. 2001;90:205–15.

Huneke NTM, Aslan IH, Fagan H, Phillips N, Tanna R, Cortese S, et al. Functional neuroimaging correlates of placebo response in patients with depressive or anxiety disorders: A systematic review. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;25:433–47.

Vase L, Riley JL, Price DD. A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia. Pain. 2002;99:443–52.

Solmi M, Croatto G, Piva G, Rosson S, Fusar-Poli P, Rubio JM, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in schizophrenia: systematic overview and quality appraisal of the meta-analytic evidence. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28:354–68.

Monteleone AM, Pellegrino F, Croatto G, Carfagno M, Hilbert A, Treasure J, et al. Treatment of eating disorders: A systematic meta-review of meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;142:104857.

Rosson S, de Filippis R, Croatto G, Collantoni E, Pallottino S, Guinart D, et al. Brain stimulation and other biological non-pharmacological interventions in mental disorders: An umbrella review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;139:104743.

Correll CU, Cortese S, Croatto G, Monaco F, Krinitski D, Arrondo G, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychosocial, and brain stimulation interventions in children and adolescents with mental disorders: an umbrella review. World Psychiatry. 2021;20:244–75.

Gaynes BN, Warden D, Trivedi MH, Wisniewski SR, Fava M, Rush AJ. What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60:1439–45.

Stone MB, Yaseen ZS, Miller BJ, Richardville K, Kalaria SN, Kirsch I. Response to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration: individual participant data analysis. BMJ. 2022;378:e067606.

Hendriks SM, Spijker J, Licht CMM, Hardeveld F, de Graaf R, Batelaan NM, et al. Long-term disability in anxiety disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:248.

Dragioti E, Solmi M, Favaro A, Fusar-Poli P, Dazzan P, Thompson T, et al. Association of antidepressant use with adverse health outcomes: a systematic umbrella review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76:1241–55.

Croatto G, Vancampfort D, Miola A, Olivola M, Fiedorowicz JG, Firth J, et al. The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28:369–90.

Papola D, Ostuzzi G, Gastaldon C, Morgano GP, Dragioti E, Carvalho AF, et al. Antipsychotic use and risk of life-threatening medical events: umbrella review of observational studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019;140:227–43.

Linden M. How to define, find and classify side effects in psychotherapy: from unwanted events to adverse treatment reactions. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2013;20:286–96.

Reynolds GP, Kirk SL. Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drug treatment – pharmacological mechanisms. Pharmacol Ther. 2010;125:169–79.

Cuijpers P, Karyotaki E, Weitz E, Andersson G, Hollon SD, van Straten A. The effects of psychotherapies for major depression in adults on remission, recovery and improvement: A meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2014;159:118–26.

Bloom DE, Cafiero E, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom LR, Fathima S, et al. The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. PGDA Work Pap. (2012).

Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396:1204–22.

Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet. 2013;382:1575–86.

Huneke NTM, van der Wee N, Garner M, Baldwin DS. Why we need more research into the placebo response in psychiatry. Psychol Med. 2020;50:2317–23.

Huneke NTM. Is superiority to placebo the most appropriate measure of efficacy in trials of novel psychotropic medications? Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;62:7–9.

Khan A, Brown WA. Antidepressants versus placebo in major depression: An overview. World Psychiatry. 2015;14:294–300.

Agid O, Siu CO, Potkin SG, Kapur S, Watsky E, Vanderburg D, et al. Meta-regression analysis of placebo response in antipsychotic trials, 1970–2010. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170:1335–44.

Leucht S, Leucht C, Huhn M, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Helfer B, et al. Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174:927–42.

Enck P, Bingel U, Schedlowski M, Rief W. The placebo response in medicine: minimize, maximize or personalize? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:191–204.

Correll CU, Solmi M, Cortese S, Fava M, Højlund M, Kraemer HC, et al. The future of psychopharmacology: a critical appraisal of ongoing phase 2/3 trials, and of some current trends aiming to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents. World Psychiatry. 2023;22:48–74.

Stahl SM, Greenberg GD. Placebo response rate is ruining drug development in psychiatry: why is this happening and what can we do about it? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019;139:105–7.

Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Furukawa TA, Papakonstantinou T, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. When does the placebo effect have an impact on network meta-analysis results? BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112197 .

Huneke NTM, Amin J, Baldwin DS, Chamberlain SR, Correll CU, Garner M, et al. Placebo effects in mental health disorders: protocol for an umbrella review. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e073946.

Gauld C, Lopez R, Morin CM, Maquet J, Mcgonigal A, Geoffroy P-A, et al. Why do sleep disorders belong to mental disorder classifications? A network analysis of the “Sleep-Wake Disorders” section of the DSM-5. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;142:153–9.

Köhler-Forsberg O, Stiglbauer V, Brasanac J, Chae WR, Wagener F, Zimbalski K, et al. Efficacy and safety of antidepressants in patients with comorbid depression and medical diseases: an umbrella systematic review and meta-Analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2983 .

Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med. 2022;1:e000071.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; (1988).

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Scott AJ, Sharpe L, Quinn V, Colagiuri B. Association of Single-blind Placebo Run-in Periods With the Placebo Response in Randomized Clinical Trials of Antidepressants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79:42.

Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Atkinson LZ, Leucht S, Ogawa Y, Takeshima N, et al. Placebo response rates in antidepressant trials: a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled studies. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:1059–66.

Scott F, Hampsey E, Gnanapragasam S, Carter B, Marwood L, Taylor RW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmentation and combination treatments for early-stage treatment-resistant depression. J Psychopharmacol. 2023;37:268–78.

Razza LB, Moffa AH, Moreno ML, Carvalho AF, Padberg F, Fregni F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on placebo response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression trials. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2018;81:105–13.

Meister R, Abbas M, Antel J, Peters T, Pan Y, Bingel U, et al. Placebo response rates and potential modifiers in double-blind randomized controlled trials of second and newer generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;29:253–73.

Locher C, Koechlin H, Zion SR, Werner C, Pine DS, Kirsch I, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake inhibitors, and placebo for common psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama Psychiatry. 2017;74:1011–20.

Ahmadzad-Asl M, Davoudi F, Mohamadi S, Hadi F, Nejadghaderi SA, Mirbehbahani SH, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the placebo effect in panic disorder: Implications for research and clinical practice. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2022;56:1130–41.

Bandelow B, Reitt M, Röver C, Michaelis S, Görlich Y, Wedekind D. Efficacy of treatments for anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015;30:183–92.

Pinquart M, Duberstein PR. Treatment of anxiety disorders in older adults: a meta-analytic comparison of behavioral and pharmacological interventions. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;15:639–51.

Leucht S, Chaimani A, Leucht C, Huhn M, Mavridis D, Helfer B, et al. 60 years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: Meta-regression of predictors of placebo response. Schizophr Res. 2018;201:315–23.

Czobor P, Kakuszi B, Bitter I. Placebo response in trials of negative symptoms in Schizophrenia: A critical reassessment of the evidence. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48:1228–40.

Del Re AC, Maisel N, Blodgett J, Wilbourne P, Finney J. Placebo group improvement in trials of pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorders: a multivariate meta-analysis examining change over time. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013;33:649.

Faraone SV, Newcorn JH, Cipriani A, Brandeis D, Kaiser A, Hohmann S, et al. Placebo and nocebo responses in randomised, controlled trials of medications for ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:212–9.

Siafis S, Çıray O, Schneider-Thoma J, Bighelli I, Krause M, Rodolico A, et al. Placebo response in pharmacological and dietary supplement trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Mol Autism. 2020;11:66.

Iovieno N, Nierenberg AA, Parkin SR, Hyung Kim DJ, Walker RS, Fava M, et al. Relationship between placebo response rate and clinical trial outcome in bipolar depression. J Psychiatr Res. 2016;74:38–44.

Curie A, Yang K, Kirsch I, Gollub RL, des Portes V, Kaptchuk TJ, et al. Placebo responses in genetically determined intellectual disability: a meta-analysis. PloS One. 2015;10:e0133316.

Mohamadi S, Ahmadzad-Asl M, Nejadghaderi SA, Jabbarinejad R, Mirbehbahani SH, Sinyor M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the placebo effect and its correlates in obsessive compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2023;68:479–94.

Winkler A, Rief W. Effect of placebo conditions on polysomnographic parameters in primary insomnia: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2015;38:925–31.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Silva MA, Duarte GS, Camara R, Rodrigues FB, Fernandes RM, Abreu D, et al. Placebo and nocebo responses in restless legs syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2017;88:2216–24.

Frisaldi E, Shaibani A, Benedetti F, Pagnini F. Placebo and nocebo effects and mechanisms associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e077243.

Cuijpers P, Stringaris A, Wolpert M. Treatment outcomes for depression: challenges and opportunities. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7:925–7.

Bromet EJ, Fennig S. Epidemiology and natural history of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;46:871–81.

Rutherford BR, Mori S, Sneed JR, Pimontel MA, Roose SP. Contribution of spontaneous improvement to placebo response in depression: A meta-analytic review. J Psychiatr Res. 2012;46:697–702.

Fernández-López R, Riquelme-Gallego B, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Influence of placebo effect in mental disorders research: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2022;52:e13762.

Goodwin GM, Croal M, Marwood L, Malievskaia E. Unblinding and demand characteristics in the treatment of depression. J Affect Disord. 2023;328:1–5.

Coles NA, Gaertner L, Frohlich B, Larsen JT, Basnight-Brown DM. Fact or artifact? Demand characteristics and participants’ beliefs can moderate, but do not fully account for, the effects of facial feedback on emotional experience. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2023;124:287–310.

Weimer K, Colloca L, Enck P. Placebo eff ects in psychiatry: mediators and moderators. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2:246–57.

Huneke NTM, Chamberlain SR, Baldwin DS, Grant JE. Diverse predictors of treatment response to active medication and placebo in gambling disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;144:96–101.

Leucht S, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Leucht C, Huhn M, Helfer B, et al. Disconnection of drug-response and placebo-response in acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials on schizophrenia? Meta-regression analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44:1955–66.

Welten CCM, Koeter MWJ, Wohlfarth T, Storosum JG, van den Brink W, Gispen-de Wied CC, et al. Placebo response in antipsychotic trials of patients with acute mania. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;25:1018–26.

Grant JE, Chamberlain SR. The placebo effect and its clinical associations in gambling disorder. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2017;29:167.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Nathan TM Huneke is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Author contributors

NTMH, JA, DSB, SRC, CUC, MG, CMH, RH, ODH, JMAS, MS, and SCo conceptualized the study. NTMH, AB, VB, LE, CJG, OKF, LM, CR, SS, and SCo contributed to data collection, data curation, or data analysis. NTMH, MS, and SCo wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors had access to the raw data. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and had final responsibility for the decision to submit it for publication.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Marco Solmi, Samuele Cortese.

Authors and Affiliations

Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Nathan T. M. Huneke, Jay Amin, David S. Baldwin, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Matthew Garner, Catherine M. Hill, Ruihua Hou, Konstantinos Ioannidis, Julia M. A. Sinclair & Samuele Cortese

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

Nathan T. M. Huneke, Jay Amin, David S. Baldwin, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Konstantinos Ioannidis & Satneet Singh

University Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

David S. Baldwin

School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Malaysia

Alessio Bellato

Centre for Innovation in Mental Health, School of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Alessio Bellato, Valerie Brandt, Matthew Garner, Corentin J. Gosling, Claire Reed, Marco Solmi & Samuele Cortese

Clinic of Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany

Valerie Brandt

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Christoph U. Correll

Department of Psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY, USA

Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA

Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA

Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Luis Eudave

School of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Matthew Garner

Université Paris Nanterre, DysCo Lab, F-92000, Nanterre, France

Corentin J. Gosling

Université de Paris, Laboratoire de Psychopathologie et Processus de Santé, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France

Department of Sleep Medicine, Southampton Children’s Hospital, Southampton, UK

Catherine M. Hill

Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

Oliver D. Howes

H Lundbeck A/s, Iveco House, Watford, UK

Institute of Clinical Sciences (ICS), Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Ole Köhler-Forsberg

Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital–Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark

Department of Translational Biomedicine and Neuroscience (DIBRAIN), University of Studies of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

Lucia Marzulli

Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Marco Solmi

Department of Mental Health, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) Clinical Epidemiology Program, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK

Samuele Cortese

DiMePRe-J-Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine-Jonic Area, University “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone, New York University Child Study Center, New York, NY, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan T. M. Huneke .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

DSB is President of the British Association for Psychopharmacology, Editor of the Human Psychopharmacology journal (for which he receives an editor’s honorarium), and has received royalties from UpToDate. CMH has acted on an expert advisory board for Neurim Pharmaceuticals. ODH is a part-time employee and stockholder of Lundbeck A/s. He has received investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participated in advisory/speaker meetings organized by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Jansenn, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Recordati, Roche and Viatris/Mylan. ODH has a patent for the use of dopaminergic imaging. All other authors declare no competing interests. MS has received honoraria/has been a consultant for Angelini, Lundbeck, and Otsuka. SCo has received honoraria from non-profit associations (BAP, ACAMH, CADDRA) for educational activities and an honorarium from Medice. KI has received honoraria from Elsevier for editorial work. SRC receives honoraria from Elsevier for associate editor roles at comprehensive psychiatry and NBR journals. CUC has been a consultant and/or advisor to or has received honoraria from: AbbVie, Acadia, Adock Ingram, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Darnitsa, Denovo, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Jamjoom Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Karuna, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Neurelis, Newron, Noven, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Sage, Seqirus, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Pharma America, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Tolmar, Vertex, and Viatris. He provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka. He served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Compass Pathways, Denovo, Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He received royalties from UpToDate and is also a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, Kuleon Biosciences, LB Pharma, Mindpax, and Quantic.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

41380_2024_2638_moesm1_esm.docx.

PLACEBO EFFECTS IN RANDOMIZED TRIALS OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AND NEUROSTIMULATION INTERVENTIONS FOR MENTAL DISORDERS: AN UMBRELLA REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Huneke, N.T.M., Amin, J., Baldwin, D.S. et al. Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review. Mol Psychiatry (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02638-x

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2024

Revised : 17 June 2024

Accepted : 19 June 2024

Published : 24 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02638-x

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Spring 2025 Semester

Undergraduate courses.

Composition courses that offer many sections (ENGL 101, 201, 277 and 379) are not listed on this schedule unless they are tailored to specific thematic content or particularly appropriate for specific programs and majors.

• 100-200 level

ENGL 201.ST2 Composition II: The Mind/Body Connection

Dr. sharon smith.

In this online section of English 201, students will use research and writing to learn more about problems that are important to them and articulate ways to address those problems. The course will focus specifically on issues related to the body, the mind, and the relationship between them. The topics we will discuss during the course will include the correlation between social media and body image; the psychological effects of self-objectification; and the unique mental and physical challenges faced by college students today, including food insecurity and stress.

English 201 S06 and S11: Composition II with an emphasis in Environmental Writing

S06: MWF at 10–10:50 a.m. in Yeager Hall Addition 231

S11: MWF at 12–12:50 p.m. in Crothers Engineering Hall 217

Gwen Horsley

English 201 will help students develop skills to write effectively for other university courses, careers, and themselves. This course will provide opportunities to further develop research skills, to write vividly, and to share their own stories and ideas. Specifically, in this class, students will (1) focus on the relationships between world environments, land, animals and humankind; (2) read various essays by environmental, conservational, and regional authors; and (3) produce student writings. Students will improve their writing skills by reading essays and applying techniques they witness in others’ work and those learned in class. This class is also a course in logical and creative thought. Students will write about humankind’s place in the world and our influence on the land and animals, places that hold special meaning to them or have influenced their lives, and stories of their own families and their places and passions in the world. Students will practice writing in an informed and persuasive manner, in language that engages and enlivens readers by using vivid verbs and avoiding unnecessary passives, nominalizations, and expletive constructions.

Students will prepare writing assignments based on readings and discussions of essays included in Literature and the Environment and other sources. They will use The St. Martin’s Handbook to review grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and usage as needed.

Required Text: Literature and the Environment: A Reader On Nature and Culture. 2nd ed., edited by Lorraine Anderson, Scott Slovic, and John P. O’Grady.

LING 203.S01 English Grammar

TuTh 12:30-1:45 p.m.

Dr. Nathan Serfling

The South Dakota State University 2023-2024 Undergraduate Catalog describes LING 203 as consisting of “[i]nstruction in the theory and practice of traditional grammar including the study of parts of speech, parsing, and practical problems in usage.”

“Grammar” is a mercurial term, though. Typically, we think of it to mean “correct” sentence structure, and, indeed, that is one of its meanings. But Merriam-Webster reminds us “grammar” also refers to “the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique,” taking it beyond the confines of syntactic structures. Grammar also evolves in practice through application (and social, historical, economic changes, among others). Furthermore, grammar evolves as a concept as scholars and educators in the various fields of English studies debate the definition and nature of grammar, including how well its explicit instruction improves students’ writing. In this course, we will use the differing sensibilities, definitions, and fluctuations regarding grammar to guide our work. We will examine the parts of speech, address syntactic structures and functions, and parse and diagram sentences. We will also explore definitions of and debates about grammar. All of this will occur in units about the rules and structures of grammar; the application of grammar rhetorically and stylistically; and the debates surrounding various aspects of grammar, including, but not limited to, its instruction.

ENGL 210 Introduction to Literature

Jodi andrews.

Readings in fiction, drama and poetry to acquaint students with literature and aesthetic form. Prerequisites: ENGL 101. Notes: Course meets SGR #4 or IGR #3.

ENGL 222 British Literature II

TuTh 9:30-10:45 a.m.

This course serves as a chronological survey of the second half of British literature. Students will read a variety of texts from the Romantic period, the Victorian period, and the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, placing these texts within their historical and literary contexts and identifying the major characteristics of the literary periods and movements that produced them.

ENGL 240.ST1 Juvenile Literature

Randi l. anderson.

A survey of the history of literature written for children and adolescents, and a consideration of the various types of juvenile literature.

ENGL 240.ST1 Juvenile Literature: 5-12 Grade

In English 240 students will develop the skills to interpret and evaluate various genres of literature for juvenile readers. This particular section will focus on various works of literature at approximately the 5th-12th grade level.

Readings for this course include works such as Night, Brown Girl Dreaming, All American Boys, Esperanza Rising, Anne Frank’s Diary: A Graphic Adaptation, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, The Giver, The Hobbit, Little Women, and Lord of the Flies . These readings will be paired with chapters from Reading Children’s Literature: A Critical Introduction to help develop understanding of various genres, themes, and concepts that are both related to juvenile literature, and also present in our readings.

In addition to exploring various genres of writing (poetry, non-fiction, fantasy, historical, non-fiction, graphic novels, etc.) this course will also allow students to engage in a discussion of larger themes present in these works such as censorship, race, rebellion and dissent, power and oppression, gender, knowledge, and the power of language and the written word. Students’ understanding of these works and concepts will be developed through readings, discussion posts, quizzes and exams.

ENGL 240.ST2 Juvenile Literature Elementary-5th Grade

April myrick.

A survey of the history of literature written for children and adolescents, and a consideration of the various genres of juvenile literature. Text selection will focus on the themes of imagination and breaking boundaries.

ENGL 242.S01 American Literature II

TuTh 11 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

Dr. Paul Baggett

This course surveys a range of U.S. literatures from about 1865 to the present, writings that treat the end of slavery and the development of a segregated America, increasingly urbanized and industrialized U.S. landscapes, waves of immigration, and the fulfilled promise of “America” as imperial nation. The class will explore the diversity of identities represented during that time, and the problems/potentials writers imagined in response to the century’s changes—especially literature’s critical power in a time of nation-building. Required texts for the course are The Norton Anthology of American Literature: 1865 to the Present and Toni Morrison’s A Mercy.

WMST 247.S01: Introduction to Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies

As an introduction to Women, Gender and Sexuality studies, this course considers the experiences of women and provides an overview of the history of feminist thought and activism, particularly within the United States. Students will also consider the concepts of gender and sexuality more broadly to encompass a diversity of gender identifications and sexualities and will explore the degree to which mainstream feminism has—and has not—accommodated this diversity. The course will focus in particular on the ways in which gender and sexuality intersect with race, class, ethnicity, and disability. Topics and concepts covered will include: movements for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights; gender, sexuality and the body; intersectionality; rape culture; domestic and gender violence; reproductive rights; Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW); and more.

ENGL 283.S01 Introduction to Creative Writing

MWF 1-1:50 p.m.

Prof. Steven Wingate

Students will explore the various forms of creative writing (fiction, nonfiction and poetry) not one at a time in a survey format—as if there were decisive walls of separation between then—but as intensely related genres that share much of their creative DNA. Through close reading and work on personal texts, students will address the decisions that writers in any genre must face on voice, rhetorical position, relationship to audience, etc. Students will produce and revise portfolios of original creative work developed from prompts and research. This course fulfills the same SGR #2 requirements ENGL 201; note that the course will involve creative research projects. Successful completion of ENGL 101 (including by test or dual credit) is a prerequisite.

English 284: Introduction to Criticism

This course introduces students to selected traditions of literary and cultural theory and to some of the key issues that animate discussion among literary scholars today. These include questions about the production of cultural value, about ideology and hegemony, about the patriarchal and colonial bases of Western culture, and about the status of the cultural object, of the cultural critic, and of cultural theory itself.

To address these and other questions, we will survey the history of literary theory and criticism (a history spanning 2500 years) by focusing upon a number of key periods and -isms: Greek and Roman Classicism, The Middle Ages and Renaissance, The Enlightenment, Romanticism, Realism, Formalism, Historicism, Political Criticism (Marxism, Post-Colonialism, Feminism, et al.), and Psychological Criticism. We also will “test” various theories we discuss by examining how well they account for and help us to understand various works of poetry and fiction.

• 300-400 level

ENGL 330.S01 Shakespeare

TuTh 8-9:15 a.m.

Dr. Michael S. Nagy

This course will focus on William Shakespeare’s poetic and dramatic works and on the cultural and social contexts in which he wrote them. In this way, we will gain a greater appreciation of the fact that literature does not exist in a vacuum, for it both reflects and influences contemporary and subsequent cultures. Text: The Riverside Shakespeare: Complete Works. Ed. Evans, G. Blakemore and J. J. M. Tobin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

ENGL 363 Science Fiction

MWF 11-11:50 a.m.

This course explores one of the most significant literary genres of the past century in fiction and in film. We will focus in particular on the relationship between science fiction works and technological and social developments, with considerable attention paid to the role of artificial intelligence in the human imagination. Why does science fiction seem to predict the future? What do readers and writers of the genre hope to find in it? Through readings and viewings of original work, as well as selected criticism in the field, we will address these and other questions. Our reading and viewing selections will include such artists as Ursula K. LeGuin, Octavia Butler, Stanley Kubrick and Phillip K. Dick. Students will also have ample opportunity to introduce the rest of the class to their own favorite science fiction works.

ENGL 383.S01 Creative Writing I

MWF 2-2:50 p.m.

Amber Jensen

Creative Writing I encourages students to strengthen poetry, creative nonfiction, and/or fiction writing skills through sustained focus on creative projects throughout the course (for example, collections of shorter works focused on a particular form/style/theme, longer prose pieces, hybrid works, etc.). Students will engage in small- and large-group writing workshops as well as individual conferences with the instructor throughout the course to develop a portfolio of creative work. The class allows students to explore multiple genres through the processes of writing and revising their own creative texts and through writing workshop, emphasizing the application of craft concepts across genre, but also allows students to choose one genre of emphasis, which they will explore through analysis of self-select texts, which they will use to deepen their understanding of the genre and to contextualize their own creative work.

ENGL 475.S01 Creative Nonfiction

Mondays 3-5:50 p.m.

In this course, students will explore the expansive and exciting genre of creative nonfiction, including a variety of forms such as personal essay, braided essay, flash nonfiction, hermit crab essays, profiles and more. Through rhetorical reading, discussion, and workshop, students will engage published works, their own writing process, and peer work as they expand their understanding of the possibilities presented in this genre and the craft elements that can be used to shape readers’ experience of a text. Students will compile a portfolio of polished work that demonstrates their engagement with course concepts and the writing process.

ENGL 485.S01 Writing Center Tutoring

MW 8:30-9:45 a.m.

Since their beginnings in the 1920s and 30s, writing centers have come to serve numerous functions: as hubs for writing across the curriculum initiatives, sites to develop and deliver workshops, and resource centers for faculty as well as students, among other functions. But the primary function of writing centers has necessarily and rightfully remained the tutoring of student writers. This course will immerse you in that function in two parts. During the first four weeks, you will explore writing center praxis—that is, the dialogic interplay of theory and practice related to writing center work. This part of the course will orient you to writing center history, key theoretical tenets and practical aspects of writing center tutoring. Once we have developed and practiced this foundation, you will begin work in the writing center as a tutor, responsible for assisting a wide variety of student clients with numerous writing tasks. Through this work, you will learn to actively engage with student clients in the revision of a text, respond to different student needs and abilities, work with a variety of writing tasks and rhetorical situations and develop a richer sense of writing as a complex and negotiated social process.

ENGL 492.S01 The Vietnam War in Literature and Film

Tuesdays 3-5:50 p.m.

Dr. Jason McEntee

In 1975, the United States officially included its involvement in the Vietnam War, thus marking 2025 as the 50th anniversary of the conclusion (in name only) of one of the most chaotic, confusing, and complex periods in American history. In this course, we will consider how literature and film attempt to chronicle the Vietnam War and, perhaps more important, its aftermath. I have designed this course for those looking to extend their understanding of literature and film to include the ideas of art, experience, commercial products, and cultural documents. Learning how to interpret literature and movies remains the highest priority of the course, including, for movies, the study of such things as genre, mise-en-scene (camera movement, lighting, etc.), editing, sound and so forth.

We will read Dispatches , A Rumor of War , The Things They Carried , A Piece of My Heart , and Bloods , among others. Some of the movies that we will screen are: Apocalypse Now (the original version), Full Metal Jacket , Platoon , Coming Home , Born on the Fourth of July , Dead Presidents , and Hearts and Minds . Because we must do so, we will also look at some of the more fascinatingly outrageous yet culturally significant fantasies about the war, such as The Green Berets and Rambo: First Blood, Part II .

ENGL 492.S02 Classical Mythology

TuTh 3:30-4:45 p.m.

Drs. Michael S. Nagy and Graham Wrightson

Modern society’s fascination with mythology manifests itself in the continued success of novels, films and television programs about mythological or quasi-mythological characters such as Hercules, the Fisher King, and Gandalf the Grey, all of whom are celebrated for their perseverance or their daring deeds in the face of adversity. This preoccupation with mythological figures necessarily extends back to the cultures which first propagated these myths in early folk tales and poems about such figures as Oðin, King Arthur, Rhiannon, Gilgamesh, and Odysseus, to name just a few. English 492, a reading-intensive course cross-listed with History 492, primarily aims to expose students to the rich tradition of mythological literature written in languages as varied as French, Gaelic, Welsh, Old Icelandic, Greek, and Sumerian; to explore the historical, social, political, religious, and literary contexts in which these works flourished (if indeed they did); and to grapple with the deceptively simple question of what makes these myths continue to resonate with modern audiences. Likely topics and themes of this course will include: Theories of myth; Mythological Beginnings: Creation myths and the fall of man; Male and Female Gods in Myth; Foundation myths; Nature Myths; The Heroic Personality; the mythological portrayal of (evil/disruptive) women in myth; and Monsters in myth.

Likely Texts:

• Dalley, Stephanie, trans. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Oxford World’s Classics, 2009
• Faulkes, Anthony, trans. Edda. Everyman, 1995
• Gregory, Lady Augusta. Cuchulain of Muirthemne: The Story of the Men of the Red Branch of Ulster. Forgotten Books, 2007
• Jones, Gwyn, Thomas Jones, and Mair Jones. The Mabinogion. Everyman Paperback Classics, 1993
• Larrington, Carolyne, trans. The Poetic Edda . Oxford World’s Classics, 2009
• Matarasso, Pauline M., trans. The Quest of the Holy Grail. Penguin Classics, 1969
• Apollodorus, Hesiod’s Theogony
• Hesiod’s Works and Days
• Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Homeric Hymns
• Virgil’s Aeneid
• Iliad, Odyssey
• Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica
• Ovid’s Heroides
• Greek tragedies: Orestaia, Oedipus trilogy, Trojan Women, Medea, Hippoolytus, Frogs, Seneca's Thyestes, Dyskolos, Amphitryon
• Clash of the Titans, Hercules, Jason and the Argonauts, Troy (and recent miniseries), Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

ENGL 492.ST1 Science Writing

Erica summerfield.

This course aims to teach the fundamentals of effective scientific writing and presentation. The course examines opportunities for covering science, the skills required to produce clear and understandable text about technical subjects, and important ethical and practical constraints that govern the reporting of scientific information. Students will learn to present technical and scientific issues to various audiences. Particular emphasis will be placed on conveying the significance of research, outlining the aims, and discussing the results for scientific papers and grant proposals. Students will learn to write effectively, concisely, and clearly while preparing a media post, fact sheet, and scientific manuscript or grant.

Graduate Courses

Engl 575.s01 creative nonfiction.

In this course, students will explore the expansive and exciting genre of creative nonfiction, including a variety of forms such as personal essay, braided essay, flash nonfiction, hermit crab essays, profiles, and more. Through rhetorical reading, discussion, and workshop, students will engage published works, their own writing process, and peer work as they expand their understanding of the possibilities presented in this genre and the craft elements that can be used to shape readers’ experience of a text. Students will compile a portfolio of polished work that demonstrates their engagement with course concepts and the writing process.

ENGL 592.S01: The Vietnam War in Literature and Film

Engl 704.s01 introduction to graduate studies.

Thursdays 3-5:50 p.m.

Introduction to Graduate Studies is required of all first-year graduate students. The primary purpose of this course is to introduce students to modern and contemporary literary theory and its applications. Students will write short response papers and will engage at least one theoretical approach in their own fifteen- to twenty-page scholarly research project. In addition, this course will further introduce students to the M.A. program in English at South Dakota State University and provide insight into issues related to the profession of English studies.

ENGL 792.ST1 Grant Writing

This online course will familiarize students with the language, rhetorical situation, and components of writing grant proposals. Students will explore various funding sources, learn to read an RFP, and develop an understanding of different professional contexts and the rhetorical and structural elements that suit those distinct contexts. Students will write a sample proposal throughout the course and offer feedback to their peers, who may be writing in different contexts, which will enhance their understanding of the varied applications of course content. Through their work in the course, students will gain confidence in their ability to find, apply for, and receive grant funding to support their communities and organizations.