stages in literature review process

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

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

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

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

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

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

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review
• Finding Articles
• Try A Citation Manager
• Avoiding Plagiarism

Selecting a Research Topic 

The first step in the process involves exploring and selecting a topic. You may revise the topic/scope of your research as you learn more from the literature. Be sure to select a topic that you are willing to work with for a considerable amount of time.

When thinking about a topic, it is important to consider the following: 

Does the topic interest you?

Working on something that doesn’t excite you will make the process tedious. The research content should reflect your passion for research so it is essential to research in your area of interest rather than choosing a topic that interests someone else. While developing your research topic, broaden your thinking and creativity to determine what works best for you. Consider an area of high importance to your profession, or identify a gap in the research. It may take some time to narrow down on a topic and get started, but it’s worth the effort.

Is the Topic Relevant?

Be sure your subject meets the assignment/research requirements. When in doubt, review the guidelines and seek clarification from your professor. 

What is the Scope and Purpose?

Sometimes your chosen topic may be too broad. To find direction, try limiting the scope and purpose of the research by identifying the concepts you wish to explore. Once this is accomplished, you can fine-tune your topic by experimenting with keyword searches our  A-Z Databases  until you are satisfied with your retrieval results.

Are there Enough Resources to Support Your Research? 

If the topic is too narrow, you may not be able to provide the depth of results needed. When selecting a topic make sure you have adequate material to help with the research. Explore a variety of resources: journals, books, and online information. 

Adapted from https://jgateplus.com/home/2018/10/11/the-dos-of-choosing-a-research-topic-part-1/

Why use keywords to search? 

• Library databases work differently than Google. Library databases work best when you search for concepts and keywords.
• For your research, you will want to brainstorm keywords related to your research question. These keywords can lead you to relevant sources that you can use to start your research project.
• Identify those terms relevant to your research and add 2-3 in the search box. 

Now its time to decide whether or not to incorporate what you have found into your literature review.  E valuate  your resources to make sure they contain information that is authoritative, reliable, relevant and the most useful in supporting your research.

Remember to be:

• Objective : keep an open mind
• Unbiased : Consider all viewpoints, and include all sides of an argument,  even ones that don't support your own

Criteria for Evaluating Research Publications

Significance and Contribution to the Field

• What is the author’s aim?

• To what extent has this aim been achieved?

• What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (theory, data and/or practical application)

• What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?

• What is missing/not stated?

• Is this a problem?

Methodology or Approach (Formal, research-based texts)

• What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc…)

• How objective/biased is the approach?

• Are the results valid and reliable?

• What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?

Argument and Use of Evidence

• Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?

• What claims are made?

• Is the argument consistent?

• What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?

• How valid and reliable is the evidence?

• How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?

• What conclusions are drawn?

• Are these conclusions justified?

Writing Style and Text Structure

• Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non- academic)

• What is the organizing principle of the text?

• Could it be better organized?

Prepared by Pam Mort, Lyn Hallion and Tracey Lee Downey, The Learning Centre © April 2005 The University of New South Wales. 

Analysis: the Starting Point for Further Analysis & Inquiry

After evaluating your retrieved sources you will be ready to explore both what has been  found  and what is  missing . Analysis involves breaking the study into parts,  understanding  each part, assessing the  strength  of evidence, and drawing  conclusions  about its relationship to your topic. 

Read through the information sources you have selected and try to analyze, understand and critique what you read.  Critically  review each source's methods, procedures, data validity/reliability, and other themes of interest.  Consider  how each source approaches your topic in addition to their collective points of  intersection  and  separation .  Offer an appraisal of past and current thinking, ideas, policies, and practices, identify gaps within the research, and place your current work and research within this wider discussion by considering how your research supports, contradicts, or departs from other scholars’ research and offer recommendations for future research.

Top 10 Tips for Analyzing the Research

• Define key terms
• Note key statistics 
• Determine emphasis, strengths & weaknesses
• Critique research methodologies used in the studies
• Distinguish between author opinion and actual results
• Identify major trends, patterns, categories, relationships, and inconsistencies
• Recognize specific aspects in the study that relate to your topic
• Disclose any gaps in the literature
• Stay focused on your topic
• Excluding landmark studies, use current, up-to-date sources

Prepared by the fine librarians at California State University Sacramento. 

Synthesis vs Summary

Your literature review should not simply be a summary of the articles, books, and other scholarly writings you find on your topic. It should synthesize the various ideas from your sources with your own observations to create a map of the scholarly conversation taking place about your research topics along with gaps or areas for further research.

Bringing together your review results is called synthesis. Synthesis relies heavily on pattern recognition and relationships or similarities between different phenomena. Recognizing these patterns and relatedness helps you make  creative connections  between previously unrelated research and identify any gaps.

As you read, you'll encounter various ideas, disagreements, methods, and perspectives which can be hard to organize in a meaningful way.  A  synthesis matrix  also known as a Literature Review Matrix is an effective and efficient method to organize your literature by recording the main points of each source and documenting how sources relate to each other. If you know how to make an Excel spreadsheet, you can create your own synthesis matrix, or use one of the templates below. 

Because a literature review is NOT a summary of these different sources, it can be very difficult to keep your research organized. It is especially difficult to organize the information in a way that makes the writing process simpler. One way that seems particularly helpful in organizing literature reviews is the synthesis matrix. Click on the link below for a short tutorial and synthesis matrix spreadsheet.

• Literature Review and Synthesis
• Lit Review Synthesis Matrix
• Synthesis Matrix Example

A literature review must include a thesis statement, which is your perception of the information found in the literature. 

A literature review: 

• Demonstrates your thorough  investigation  of and acquaintance with sources related to your topic
• Is not a simple listing, but a  critical discussion
• Must  compare  and  contrast  opinions
• Must  relate  your study to previous studies
• Must show  gaps  in research
• Can  focus  on a research question or a thesis
• Includes a  compilation  of the primary questions and subject areas involved
• Identifies  sources

https://custom-writing.org/blog/best-literature-review

Organizing Your Literature Review

The structure of the review is divided into three main parts—an introduction, body, and the conclusion.

Introduction

Discuss what is already known about your topic and what readers need to know in order to understand your literature review. 

• Scope, Method, Framework: ​ Explain your selection criteria and similarities between your sources. Be sure to mention any consistent methods, theoretical frameworks, or approaches.  
• Research Question or Problem Statement:  State the problem you are addressing and why it is important. Try to write your research question as a statement. 
• Thesis : Address the connections between your sources, current state of knowledge in the field, and consistent approaches to your topic. 
• Format:  Describe your literature review’s organization and adhere to it throughout.   

​ Body 

The discussion of your research and its importance to the literature should be presented in a logical structure.

• Chronological: Structure your discussion by the literature’s publication date moving from the oldest to the newest research. Discuss how your research relates to the literature and highlight any breakthroughs and any gaps in the research.
• Historical: Similar to the chronological structure, the historical structure allows for a discussion of concepts or themes and how they have evolved over time.
• Thematic: Identify and discuss the different themes present within the research. Make sure that you relate the themes to each other and to your research.
• Methodological: This type of structure is used to discuss not so much what is found but how. For example, an methodological approach could provide an analysis of research approaches, data collection or and analysis techniques.

Provide a concise summary of your review and provide suggestions for future research.

Writing for Your Audience 

Writing within your discipline means learning:

• the  specialized vocabulary  your discipline uses
• the rhetorical conventions and  discourse  of your discipline
• the research  methodologies  which are employed

Learn how to write in your discipline by  familiarizing  yourself with the journals and trade publications professionals, researchers, and scholars use. 

Use our Databases by Title  to access:

• The best journals
• The most widely circulated trade publications
• The additional ways professionals and researchers communicate, such as conferences, newsletters, or symposiums.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Finding Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://niagara.libguides.com/litreview

The Research Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Evaluate Sources
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography

Literature Review

• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• How to Read Research Article
• ChatGPT and the Research Process

Academic Success Center

Academic Success Center Contact the Academic Success Center for tutoring hours for writing.

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 1:35 PM
• URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/research/process

How to Write a Literature Review

• What Is a Literature Review
• What Is the Literature

Writing the Review

Why Are You Writing This?

There are two primary points to remember as you are writing your literature review:

• Stand-alone review: provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question
• Research proposal: explicate the current issues and questions concerning a topic to demonstrate how your proposed research will contribute to the field
• Research report: provide the context to which your work is a contribution.
• Write as you read, and revise as you read more. Rather than wait until you have read everything you are planning to review, start writing as soon as you start reading. You will need to reorganize and revise it all later, but writing a summary of an article when you read it helps you to think more carefully about the article. Having drafts and annotations to work with will also make writing the full review easier since you will not have to rely completely on your memory or have to keep thumbing back through all the articles. Your draft does not need to be in finished, or even presentable, form. The first draft is for you, so you can tell yourself what you are thinking. Later you can rewrite it for others to tell them what you think.

General Steps for Writing a Literature Review

Here is a general outline of steps to write a thematically organized literature review. Remember, though, that there are many ways to approach a literature review, depending on its purpose.

• Stage one: annotated bibliography. As you read articles, books, etc, on your topic, write a brief critical synopsis of each. After going through your reading list, you will have an abstract or annotation of each source you read. Later annotations are likely to include more references to other works since you will have your previous readings to compare, but at this point the important goal is to get accurate critical summaries of each individual work.
• Stage two: thematic organization. Find common themes in the works you read, and organize the works into categories. Typically, each work you include in your review can fit into one category or sub-theme of your main theme, but sometimes a work can fit in more than one. (If each work you read can fit into all the categories you list, you probably need to rethink your organization.) Write some brief paragraphs outlining your categories, how in general the works in each category relate to each other, and how the categories relate to each other and to your overall theme.
• Stage three: more reading. Based on the knowledge you have gained in your reading, you should have a better understanding of the topic and of the literature related to it. Perhaps you have discovered specific researchers who are important to the field, or research methodologies you were not aware of. Look for more literature by those authors, on those methodologies, etc. Also, you may be able to set aside some less relevant areas or articles which you pursued initially. Integrate the new readings into your literature review draft. Reorganize themes and read more as appropriate.
• Stage four: write individual sections. For each thematic section,  use your draft annotations (it is a good idea to reread the articles and revise annotations, especially the ones you read initially) to write a section which discusses the articles relevant to that theme. Focus your writing on the theme of that section, showing how the articles relate to each other and to the theme, rather than focusing your writing on each individual article. Use the articles as evidence to support your critique of the theme rather than using the theme as an angle to discuss each article individually.
• Stage five: integrate sections. Now that you have the thematic sections, tie them together with an introduction, conclusion, and some additions and revisions in the sections to show how they relate to each other and to your overall theme.

Specific Points to Include

More specifically, here are some points to address when writing about specific works you are reviewing. In dealing with a paper or an argument or theory, you need to assess it (clearly understand and state the claim) and analyze it (evaluate its reliability, usefulness, validity). Look for the following points as you assess and analyze papers, arguments, etc. You do not need to state them all explicitly, but keep them in mind as you write your review:

• Be specific and be succinct. Briefly state specific findings listed in an article, specific methodologies used in a study, or other important points. Literature reviews are not the place for long quotes or in-depth analysis of each point.
• Be selective. You are trying to boil down a lot of information into a small space. Mention just the most important points (i.e. those most relevant to the review's focus) in each work you review.
• Is it a current article? How old is it? Have its claims, evidence, or arguments been superceded by more recent work? If it is not current, is it important for historical background?
• What specific claims are made? Are they stated clearly?
• What evidence, and what type (experimental, statistical, anecdotal, etc) is offered? Is the evidence relevant? sufficient?
• What arguments are given? What assumptions are made, and are they warranted?
• What is the source of the evidence or other information? The author's own experiments, surveys, etc? Historical records? Government documents? How reliable are the sources?
• Does the author take into account contrary or conflicting evidence and arguments? How does the author address disagreements with other researchers?
• What specific conclusions are drawn? Are they warranted by the evidence?
• How does this article, argument, theory, etc, relate to other work?

These, however, are just the points that should be addressed when writing about a specific work. It is not an outline of how to organize your writing. Your overall theme and categories within that theme should organize your writing, and the above points should be integrated into that organization. That is, rather than write something like:

     Smith (2019) claims that blah, and provides evidence x to support it, and says it is probably because of blip. But Smith seems to have neglected factor b.      Jones (2021) showed that blah by doing y, which, Jones claims, means it is likely because of blot. But that methodology does not exclude other possibilities.      Johnson (2022) hypothesizes blah might be because of some other cause.

list the themes and then say how each article relates to that theme. For example:

     Researchers agree that blah (Smith 2019, Jones 2021, Johnson 2022), but they do not agree on why. Smith claims it is probably due to blip, but Jones, by doing y, tries to show it is likely because of blot. Jones' methodology, however, does not exclude other possibilities. Johnson hypothesizes ...

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

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

• "Literature review" defined
• Research Communication Graphic
• Literature Review Steps
• Search techniques
• Finding Additional "Items
• Evaluating information
• Citing Styles
• Ethical Use of Information
• Research Databases This link opens in a new window
• Get Full Text
• Reading a Scholarly Article
• Author Rights
• Selecting a publisher

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

When seeking information for a literature review or for any purpose, it helps to understand information-seeking as a process that you can follow. 5 Each of the six (6) steps has its own section in this web page with more detail. Do (and re-do) the following six steps:

1. Define your topic. The first step is defining your task -- choosing a topic and noting the questions you have about the topic. This will provide a focus that guides your strategy in step II and will provide potential words to use in searches in step III.

2. Develop a strategy. Strategy involves figuring out where the information might be and identifying the best tools for finding those types of sources. The strategy section identifies specific types of research databases to use for specific purposes.

3. Locate the information . In this step, you implement the strategy developed in II in order to actually locate specific articles, books, technical reports, etc.

4. Use and Evaluate the information. Having located relevant and useful material, in step IV you read and analyze the items to determine whether they have value for your project and credibility as sources.

5. Synthesize. In step V, you will make sense of what you've learned and demonstrate your knowledge. You will thoroughly understand, organize and integrate the information --become knowledgeable-- so that you are able to use your own words to support and explain your research project and its relationship to existing research by others.

6. Evaluate your work. At every step along the way, you should evaluate your work. However, this final step is a last check to make sure your work is complete and of high quality.

Continue below to begin working through the process.

5. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information Problem-Solving: the Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

1. Define your topic.

I. Define your topic

A.  Many students have difficulty selecting a topic. You want to find a topic you find interesting and will enjoy learning more about.

B.   Students often select a topic that is too broad.  You may have a broad topic in mind initially and will need to narrow it.

1. To help narrow a broad topic :

a. Brainstorm.  

1). Try this technique for brainstorming to narrow your focus.   

a) Step 1.  Write down your broad topic.

b) Step 2. Write down a "specific kind" or "specific aspect" of the topic you identified in step 1.  

c) Step 3. Write down an aspect  --such as an attribute or behavior-- of the "specific kind" you identified in step 2.  

d) Step 4.  Continue to add  levels of specificity as needed to get to a focus that is manageable. However, you may want to begin researching the literature before narrowing further to give yourself the opportunity to explore what others are doing and how that might impact the direction that you take for your own research.                     

2) Three examples of using the narrowing technique. These examples start with very, very broad topics, so the topic at step 3 or 4 in these examples would be used for a preliminary search in the literature in order to identify a more specific focus.  Greater specificity than level 3 or 4 will ultimately be necessary for developing a specific research question. And we may discover in our preliminary research that we need to alter the direction that we originally were taking.

a) Example 1.      

             Step 1. information security

                      Step  2. protocols

                              Step 3.  handshake protocol

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on the handshake protocol.

b) Example 2.  

            Step 1. information security

                     Step 2. single sign-on authentication

                              Step 3.  analyzing

                                       Step 4. methods

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on methods for analyzing the security of single sign-on authentication

c) Example 3.  The diagram below is an example using the broad topic of "software" to show two potential ways to begin to narrow the topic. 

C. Once you have completed the brainstorming process and your topic is more focused, you can do preliminary research to help you identify a specific research question . 

1) Examine overview sources such as subject-specific encyclopedias and textbooks that are likely to break down your specific topic into sub-topics and to highlight core issues that could serve as possible research questions. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find these encyclopedias]

2). Search the broad topic in a research database that includes scholarly journals and professional magazines (to find technical and scholarly articles) and scan recent article titles for ideas. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find trade and scholarly journal articles]

D. Once you have identified a research question or questions, ask yourself what you need to know to answer the questions. For example,

1. What new knowledge do I need to gain?

2. What has already been answered by prior research of other scholars?

E.  Use the answers to the questions in C. to identify what words  to use to describe the topic when you are doing searches.

1. Identify key words

a.  For example , if you are investigating "security audits in banking", key terms to combine in your searches would be: security, audits, banking.

2.  Create a list of alternative ways of referring to a key word or phrase

a.For example , "information assurance" may be referred to in various ways such as: "information assurance," "information security," and "computer security."

b. Use these alternatives when doing searches.

3. As you are searching, pay attention to how others are writing about the topic and add new words or phrases to your searches if appropriate.

2. Develop a strategy.

II. Develop a strategy for finding the information. 

A. Start by considering what types of source might contain the information you need .  Do you need a dictionary for definitions? a directory for an address? the history of a concept or technique that might be in a book or specialized encyclopedia? today's tech news in an online tech magazine or newspaper?  current research in a journal article? background information that might be in a specialized encyclopedia? data or statistics from a specific organization or website?  Note that you will typically have online access to these source types.

B. This section provides a description of some of the common types of information needed for research.  

1. For technical and business analysis , look for articles in technical and trade magazines . These articles are written by information technology professionals to help other IT professionals do their jobs better. Content might include news on new developments in hardware or software, techniques, tools, and practical advice. Technical journals are also likely to have product ads relevant to information technology workers and to have job ads. Examples iof technical magazines include Network Computing and IEEE Spectrum .

2. To read original research studies , look for articles in scholarly journals and conference proceedings . They will provide articles written by  information technology professionals who are reporting original research; that is, research that has been done by the authors and is being reported for the first time. The audience for original research articles is other information technology scholars and professionals. Examples of scholarly journals include Journal of Applied Security Research , Journal of Management Information Systems , IEEE Transactions on Computers , and ACM Transactions on Information and System Security .

3. For original research being reported to funding agencies , look for technical reports on agency websites. Technical reports are researcher reports to funding agencies about progress on or completion of research funded by the agency.

4. For in-depth, comprehensive information on a topic , look for book-length volumes . All chapters in the book might be written by the same author(s) or might be a collection of separate papers written by different authors.

5. To learn about an unfamiliar topic , use textbooks ,  specialized encyclopedias and handbooks to get get overviews of topics, history/background, and key issues explained.

6. For instructions for hardware, software, networking, etc., look for manuals  that provide step-by-step instructions.

7. For technical details about inventions (devices, instruments, machines), look for patent documents .

C.   NOTE -  In order to search for and find original research studies,  it will help if you  understand  how information is produced, packaged  and  communicated  within your profession. This is explained in the tab  "Research Communication: Graphic."

3. Locate the information.

III. Locate the information

A. Use search tools designed to find the sources you want.  Types of sources were described in section II. above. 

Always feel free to Ask a librarian for assistance when you have questions about where and how locate the information you need.

B. Evaluate the search results (no matter where you find the information)

1. Evaluate the items you find using at least these 5 criteria:

a. accuracy -- is the information reliable and error free?

1) Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?

2) Is there adequate documentation: bibliography, footnotes, credits?

3) Are the conclusions justified by the information presented?

b. authority -- is the source of the information reputable?

1) How did you find the source of information: an index to edited/peer-reviewed material, in a bibliography from a published article, etc.?

2) What type of source is it: sensationalistic, popular, scholarly?

c. objectivity -- does the information show bias?

1) What is the purpose of the information: to inform, persuade, explain, sway opinion, advertise?

2) Does the source show political or cultural biases?

d. currency -- is the information current? does it cover the time period you need?

e. coverage -- does it provide the evidence or information you need?

2. Is the search producing the material you need? -- the right content? the right quality? right time period? right geographical location? etc. If not, are you using

a. the right sources?

b. the right tools to get to the sources?

c. are you using the right words to describe the topic?

3. Have you discovered additional terms that should be searched? If so, search those terms.

4. Have you discovered additional questions you need to answer? If so, return to section A above to begin to answer new questions.

4. Use and evaluate the information.

IV. Use the information.

A. Read, hear or view the source

1. Evaluate: Does the material answer your question(s)? -- right content? If not, return to B.

2. Evaluate: Is the material appropriate? -- right quality? If not, return to B.

B. Extract the information from the source : copy/download information, take notes, record citation, keep track of items using a citation manager.

1. Note taking (these steps will help you when you begin to write your thesis and/or document your project.):

a. Write the keywords you use in your searches to avoid duplicating previous searches if you return to search a research database again. Keeping track of keywords used will also save you time if your search is interrupted or you need return and do the search again for some other reason. It will help you remember which search terms worked successfully in which databases

b. Write the citations or record the information needed to cite each article/document you plan to read and use, or make sure that any saved a copy of the article includes all the information needed to cite it. Some article pdf files may not include all of the information needed to cite, and it's a waste of your valuable time to have to go back to search and find the items again in order to be able to cite them. Using citation management software such as EndNote will help keep track of citations and help create bibliographies for your research papers.

c. Write a summary of each article you read and/or why you want to use it.

5. Synthesize.

V. Synthesize.

A. Organize and integrate information from multiple sources

B. Present the information (create report, speech, etc. that communicates)

C. Cite material using the style required by your professor or by the venue (conference, publication, etc.). For help with citation styles, see  Guide to Citing Sources .  A link to the citing guide is also available in the "Get Help" section on the left side of the Library home page

6. Evaluate your work.

VI. Evaluate the paper, speech, or whatever you are using to communicate your research.

A. Is it effective?

B. Does it meet the requirements?

C. Ask another student or colleague to provide constructive criticism of your paper/project.

• << Previous: Research Communication Graphic
• Next: Search techniques >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:27 PM
• URL: https://library.dsu.edu/graduate-research

• Process: Literature Reviews
• Literature Review
• Managing Sources

Ask a Librarian

Does your assignment or publication require that you write a literature review? This guide is intended to help you understand what a literature is, why it is worth doing, and some quick tips composing one.

Understanding Literature Reviews

What is a literature review  .

Typically, a literature review is a written discussion that examines publications about  a particular subject area or topic. Depending on disciplines, publications, or authors a literature review may be: 

A summary of sources An organized presentation of sources A synthesis or interpretation of sources An evaluative analysis of sources

A Literature Review may be part of a process or a product. It may be:

A part of your research process A part of your final research publication An independent publication

Why do a literature review?

The Literature Review will place your research in context. It will help you and your readers:  

Locate patterns, relationships, connections, agreements, disagreements, & gaps in understanding Identify methodological and theoretical foundations Identify landmark and exemplary works Situate your voice in a broader conversation with other writers, thinkers, and scholars

The Literature Review will aid your research process. It will help you to:

Establish your knowledge Understand what has been said Define your questions Establish a relevant methodology Refine your voice Situate your voice in the conversation

What does a literature review look like?

The Literature Review structure and organization may include sections such as:  

An introduction or overview A body or organizational sub-divisions A conclusion or an explanation of significance

The body of a literature review may be organized in several ways, including:

Chronologically: organized by date of publication Methodologically: organized by type of research method used Thematically: organized by concept, trend, or theme Ideologically: organized by belief, ideology, or school of thought

• Find a focus
• Find models
• Review your target publication
• Track citations
• Read critically
• Manage your citations
• Ask friends, faculty, and librarians

Additional Sources

• Reviewing the literature. Project Planner.
• Literature Review: By UNC Writing Center
• PhD on Track
• CU Graduate Students Thesis & Dissertation Guidance
• CU Honors Thesis Guidance

• Next: Managing Sources >>
• University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
• Research Guides
• Research Strategies
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/strategies/litreview
• © Regents of the University of Colorado

• Franklin University |
• Help & Support |
• Locations & Maps |

• | Research Guides

To access Safari eBooks,

• Select not listed in the Select Your Institution drop down menu.
• Enter your Franklin email address and click Go
• click "Already a user? Click here" link
• Enter your Franklin email and the password you used to create your Safari account.

Continue Close

Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Framing the Literature Review

Literature Review Process

• Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance  -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
• Objectivity  -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness  -- which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
• Value  -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

Development of the Literature Review

Four stages:.

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study and the research questions or hypotheses to follow.
• Places the problem into a particular context  that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provides the framework for reporting the results  and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.
• Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored.
• Evaluation of resources  -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic.
• Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review:

Sources and expectations.  if your assignment is not very specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions:.

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

Find Models.   When reviewing the current literature, examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have organized their literature reviews. Read not only for information, but also to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research review.

Narrow the topic.  the narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources., consider whether your sources are current and applicable.  s ome disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. this is very common in the sciences where research conducted only two years ago could be obsolete. however, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed because what is important is how perspectives have changed over the years or within a certain time period. try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. you can also use this method to consider what is consider by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not., follow the bread crumb trail.  the bibliography or reference section of sources you read are excellent entry points for further exploration. you might find resourced listed in a bibliography that points you in the direction you wish to take your own research., ways to organize your literature review, chronologically:  .

If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published or the time period they cover.

By Publication:  

Order your sources chronologically by publication date, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.

Conceptual Categories:

The literature review is organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it will still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The only difference here between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most.

Methodological:  

A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher.  A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Sections of Your Literature Review:  

Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy.

Here are examples of other sections you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History : the chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : the criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.
• Standards : the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Writing Your Literature Review

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

Use Evidence:

A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be Selective:  

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

Use Quotes Sparingly:  

Some short quotes are okay if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute your own summary and interpretation of the literature.

Summarize and Synthesize:  

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep Your Own Voice:  

While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording.

Use Caution When Paraphrasing:  

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Mistakes to Avoid & Additional Help >>
• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 2:44 PM
• URL: https://guides.franklin.edu/LITREVIEW

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. decide on the scope of your review., 3. select the databases you will use to conduct your searches., 4. conduct your searches and find the literature. keep track of your searches, 5. review the literature..

• 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 Literature Reviews

Disclaimer!!

Conducting a literature review is usually recursive, meaning that somewhere along the way, you'll find yourself repeating steps out-of-order.

That is actually a good sign.  

Reviewing the research should lead to more research questions and those questions will likely lead you to either revise your initial research question or go back and find more literature related to a more specific aspect of your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.  Remember to include comprehensive databases such as WorldCat and Dissertations & Theses, if you need to.

Where to find databases:

• Find Databases by Subject UWF Databases categorized by discipline
• Find Databases via Research Guides Librarians create research guides for all of the disciplines on campus! Take advantage of their expertise and see what discipline-specific search strategies they recommend!
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• Learn How to Use the Library
• Providers & Employees
• Research Help
• All Research Guides

Conducting Literature Reviews

• About Literature Reviews

Process Overview

Step 1: the research question, step 2: search the literature, step 3: manage results, step 4: synthesize information, step 5: write the review.

• Additional Resources
• APA Style (7th ed.) This link opens in a new window

Like research, writing a literature review is an iterative process. Here is a very broad example of the process:

• Frame the research question and determine the scope of the literature review
• Search relevant bodies of literature
• Manage and organize search results
• Synthesize the literature
• Write an assessment of the literature

The initial steps should already be familiar to you, as they parallel steps of the research process you have used before.

Research questions, like topics, must be specific and focused so that you can 1) search for materials to address the question, and 2) write a literature review that is manageable in scope and purpose.

Developing a research question is the next logical step after selecting and then narrowing a topic. It is important to have a research question because it focuses your next step in the literature review process: searching. As Booth (2008) explains in  The Craft of Research : "If a writer asks no specific  question  worth asking, he can offer no specific  answer  worth supporting. And without an answer to support, he cannot select from all the data he  could  find on a topic to just those relevant to his answer" (p. 41).

Once you have selected and narrowed your topic, ask yourself questions about the topic's:

• History (Is is part of a large context? What is its own internal history? How has it changed over time?)
• Structure and composition (Is it part of a larger system/structure? How do its parts fit together?)
• Categorization (Can you compare/contrast it with similar topics? Does it belong to a group of similar kinds?)

You can also:

• Turn positive questions into negative ones by focusing on "nots" (why didn't this happen? why isn't this significant in context?) or by contrasting differences
• Ask "what if" speculative questions (what if your topic disappeared? Was put in a different context?)
• Ask questions suggested by your initial background research, such as those that build on agreement (Author X made a persuasive point...) or reflect disagreement (Author Y's conclusion doesn't account for this contextual element...)

You may find that you need to reframe or revise your question as you continue through the literature process. That's ok! Remember, the literature review process is iterative.

For more detailed information on forming and evaluating research questions, see these books available to order through ILL from OhioLINK.

• OhioLINK Library Catalog This link opens in a new window Catalog of books and other materials held in Ohio college and university libraries.

More Resources

• The Research Process Get help with selecting and narrowing a topic.

General guidance on where to search for sources:

• Where to Find Sources

Subject-specific guidance on where to search for sources:

• Evidence-Based Practice by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 26, 2023 18 views this year
• Finding Legislation, Data, & Statistics by Mike Jundi Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 21 views this year
• Nursing Research by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 47 views this year
• RAD 112 - Introduction to Radiography by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 11 views this year
• RAD 246 - Radiographic Pathology by Mike Jundi Last Updated Mar 14, 2024 145 views this year
• Social Work Resources by Mike Jundi Last Updated Dec 5, 2023 15 views this year

How to search for sources by developing a search strategy:

• How to Search for Sources

General guidance on using catalogs and databases:

• Basic Library Tutorials by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 18, 2024 384 views this year

Research management involves collecting, organizing, and citing.

Research management is also based largely on personal preference. Do you have a system that works for you? Great! If you aren't used to research management and/or don't have an effective system in place, you have options.

• Do-it-yourself: maintain your resources on your computer's hard drive or on the cloud (Microsoft OneDrive, Google Drive, DropBox)
• Use a free research management software (Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote)

Regardless of what system you use, it is necessary to keep track of the these elements:

• The literature you found (Did you find full text in a PDF? Save it. Did you find a record in a database, but need to request the article? Save the permalink to the record.)
• The full APA citation for the literature
• An easy way to track results you've found in databases is to create folders

Finally, you will need a note-taking system that will help you record the key concepts from the literature when you read and synthesize it. If you already have one, great! If you struggle with note-taking, see the links below.

What is synthesis?

Synthesizing information is much the opposite of analyzing information. When you read an article or book, you have to pull out specific concepts from the larger document in order to understand it. This is analyzing.

When you synthesize information, you take specific concepts and consider them together to understand how they compare/contrast and how they relate to one another. In other terms, synthesis involves combining multiple elements to create a whole. In regard to literature reviews, the  elements  refer to the findings from the literature you've gathered. The  whole  then becomes your conclusion(s) about those findings.

How do I synthesize information?

Note: This stage in the literature review process is as iterative and personal as any other. These steps offer a guideline, but do what works for you best.

• This is where you really decide if you want to read specific materials
• If you have gathered a substantial amount of literature and reading all of it would prove overwhelming, read the abstracts to get a better idea of the content, then select the materials that would best support your review
• Describe and analyze the findings (What were the results? How did the authors get these results? What are the impacts? Etc.)
• Identify the key concepts
• Compare and contrast findings, concepts, conclusions, methods, etc.
• Evaluate the quality and significance of findings, concepts, conclusions, methods, etc.
• Interpret the findings, concepts, conclusions, methods, etc. in the context of your research question
• This is the step where your synthesis of the information will lead to logical conclusions about that information
• These conclusions should speak directly to your research question (i.e. your question should have an answer)

Visit the link below for helpful resources on note-taking: 

• Other Helpful Tips: Note-Taking & Proofreading

Writing style

You are expected to follow APA Style in your writing. Visit this guide for an introduction, tips, and tutorials:

• APA Style Resources (7th ed.) by Mike Jundi Last Updated Jan 13, 2023 228 views this year

The structure and flow of your literature review should be logical and should reflect the synthesis you have done.

A common pitfall for students is using an  author-driven structure , which might look something like this:

• Introduction
• Author 1 says x
• Author 2 says y
• Author ∞ says...

Why doesn't the author-driven structure work?

• Leans toward listing or summarizing information
• Doesn't illustrate synthesis of information (all of the findings are listed based on where they came from, not their meaning, impact, or significance)

What structures do work? The APA suggests three structures for literature reviews:

• Theme-based (group studies based on common themes or concepts present)
• Methodology-based (group studies based on the methodologies used)
• Chronological (group studies based on the historical developments in the field)

Theme-based structure 

The theme-based structure is applicable to most bodies of literature you might gather. It may look like this:

• Concept x from author 1
• Concept a from author 5
• Concept y from author 2
• Concepts…

Why does the them-based structure work better?

• It avoids listing information
• It clearly shows the synthesis that occurred
• It illustrates the connections between concepts and the significance of particular concepts
• << Previous: About Literature Reviews
• Next: Additional Resources >>
• Last Updated: Oct 13, 2022 3:08 PM
• URL: https://aultman.libguides.com/literaturereviews

Aultman Health Sciences Library

Aultman Education Center, C2-230, 2600 Sixth St SW, Canton, OH 44710  |  330-363-5000   |  [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS
• v.35(2); Jul-Dec 2014

Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

Shital amin poojary.

Department of Dermatology, K J Somaiya Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Jimish Deepak Bagadia

In an era of information overload, it is important to know how to obtain the required information and also to ensure that it is reliable information. Hence, it is essential to understand how to perform a systematic literature search. This article focuses on reliable literature sources and how to make optimum use of these in dermatology and venereology.

INTRODUCTION

A thorough review of literature is not only essential for selecting research topics, but also enables the right applicability of a research project. Most importantly, a good literature search is the cornerstone of practice of evidence based medicine. Today, everything is available at the click of a mouse or at the tip of the fingertips (or the stylus). Google is often the Go-To search website, the supposed answer to all questions in the universe. However, the deluge of information available comes with its own set of problems; how much of it is actually reliable information? How much are the search results that the search string threw up actually relevant? Did we actually find what we were looking for? Lack of a systematic approach can lead to a literature review ending up as a time-consuming and at times frustrating process. Hence, whether it is for research projects, theses/dissertations, case studies/reports or mere wish to obtain information; knowing where to look, and more importantly, how to look, is of prime importance today.

Literature search

Fink has defined research literature review as a “systematic, explicit and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners.”[ 1 ]

Review of research literature can be summarized into a seven step process: (i) Selecting research questions/purpose of the literature review (ii) Selecting your sources (iii) Choosing search terms (iv) Running your search (v) Applying practical screening criteria (vi) Applying methodological screening criteria/quality appraisal (vii) Synthesizing the results.[ 1 ]

This article will primarily concentrate on refining techniques of literature search.

Sources for literature search are enumerated in Table 1 .

Sources for literature search

PubMed is currently the most widely used among these as it contains over 23 million citations for biomedical literature and has been made available free by National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine. However, the availability of free full text articles depends on the sources. Use of options such as advanced search, medical subject headings (MeSH) terms, free full text, PubMed tutorials, and single citation matcher makes the database extremely user-friendly [ Figure 1 ]. It can also be accessed on the go through mobiles using “PubMed Mobile.” One can also create own account in NCBI to save searches and to use certain PubMed tools.

PubMed home page showing location of different tools which can be used for an efficient literature search

Tips for efficient use of PubMed search:[ 2 , 3 , 4 ]

Use of field and Boolean operators

When one searches using key words, all articles containing the words show up, many of which may not be related to the topic. Hence, the use of operators while searching makes the search more specific and less cumbersome. Operators are of two types: Field operators and Boolean operators, the latter enabling us to combine more than one concept, thereby making the search highly accurate. A few key operators that can be used in PubMed are shown in Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3 3 and illustrated in Figures ​ Figures2 2 and ​ and3 3 .

Field operators used in PubMed search

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

PubMed search results page showing articles on donovanosis using the field operator [TIAB]; it shows all articles which have the keyword “donovanosis” in either title or abstract of the article

PubMed search using Boolean operators ‘AND’, ‘NOT’; To search for articles on treatment of lepra reaction other than steroids, after clicking the option ‘Advanced search’ on the home page, one can build the search using ‘AND’ option for treatment and ‘NOT’ option for steroids to omit articles on steroid treatment in lepra reaction

Use of medical subject headings terms

These are very specific and standardized terms used by indexers to describe every article in PubMed and are added to the record of every article. A search using MeSH will show all articles about the topic (or keywords), but will not show articles only containing these keywords (these articles may be about an entirely different topic, but still may contain your keywords in another context in any part of the article). This will make your search more specific. Within the topic, specific subheadings can be added to the search builder to refine your search [ Figure 4 ]. For example, MeSH terms for treatment are therapy and therapeutics.

PubMed search using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms for management of gonorrhea. Click on MeSH database ( Figure 1 ) →In the MeSH search box type gonorrhea and click search. Under the MeSH term gonorrhea, there will be a list of subheadings; therapy, prevention and control, click the relevant check boxes and add to search builder →Click on search →All articles on therapy, prevention and control of gonorrhea will be displayed. Below the subheadings, there are two options: (1) Restrict to medical subject headings (MeSH) major topic and (2) do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. These can be used to further refine the search results so that only articles which are majorly about treatment of gonorrhea will be displayed

Two additional options can be used to further refine MeSH searches. These are located below the subheadings for a MeSH term: (1) Restrict to MeSH major topic; checking this box will retrieve articles which are majorly about the search term and are therefore, more focused and (2) Do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. This option will again give you more focused articles as it excludes the lower specific terms [ Figure 4 ].

Similar feature is available with Cochrane library (also called MeSH), EMBASE (known as EMTREE) and PsycINFO (Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms).

Saving your searches

Any search that one has performed can be saved by using the ‘Send to’ option and can be saved as a simple word file [ Figure 5 ]. Alternatively, the ‘Save Search’ button (just below the search box) can be used. However, it is essential to set up an NCBI account and log in to NCBI for this. One can even choose to have E-mail updates of new articles in the topic of interest.

Saving PubMed searches. A simple option is to click on the dropdown box next to ‘Send to’ option and then choose among the options. It can be saved as a text or word file by choosing ‘File’ option. Another option is the “Save search” option below the search box but this will require logging into your National Center for Biotechnology Information account. This however allows you to set up alerts for E-mail updates for new articles

Single citation matcher

This is another important tool that helps to find the genuine original source of a particular research work (when few details are known about the title/author/publication date/place/journal) and cite the reference in the most correct manner [ Figure 6 ].

Single citation matcher: Click on “Single citation matcher” on PubMed Home page. Type available details of the required reference in the boxes to get the required citation

Full text articles

In any search clicking on the link “free full text” (if present) gives you free access to the article. In some instances, though the published article may not be available free, the author manuscript may be available free of charge. Furthermore, PubMed Central articles are available free of charge.

Managing filters

Filters can be used to refine a search according to type of article required or subjects of research. One can specify the type of article required such as clinical trial, reviews, free full text; these options are available on a typical search results page. Further specialized filters are available under “manage filters:” e.g., articles confined to certain age groups (properties option), “Links” to other databases, article specific to particular journals, etc. However, one needs to have an NCBI account and log in to access this option [ Figure 7 ].

Managing filters. Simple filters are available on the ‘search results’ page. One can choose type of article, e.g., clinical trial, reviews etc. Further options are available in the “Manage filters” option, but this requires logging into National Center for Biotechnology Information account

The Cochrane library

Although reviews are available in PubMed, for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Cochrane library is a much better resource. The Cochrane library is a collection of full length systematic reviews, which can be accessed for free in India, thanks to Indian Council of Medical Research renewing the license up to 2016, benefitting users all over India. It is immensely helpful in finding detailed high quality research work done in a particular field/topic [ Figure 8 ].

Cochrane library is a useful resource for reliable, systematic reviews. One can choose the type of reviews required, including trials

An important tool that must be used while searching for research work is screening. Screening helps to improve the accuracy of search results. It is of two types: (1) Practical: To identify a broad range of potentially useful studies. Examples: Date of publication (last 5 years only; gives you most recent updates), participants or subjects (humans above 18 years), publication language (English only) (2) methodological: To identify best available studies (for example, excluding studies not involving control group or studies with only randomized control trials).

Selecting the right quality of literature is the key to successful research literature review. The quality can be estimated by what is known as “The Evidence Pyramid.” The level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools are depicted in Figure 9 . Systematic reviews obtained from Cochrane library constitute level 1 evidence.

Evidence pyramid: Depicting the level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools

Thus, a systematic literature review can help not only in setting up the basis of a good research with optimal use of available information, but also in practice of evidence-based medicine.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Literature Reviews: Getting Started: The 5 Steps

• Introduction
• Getting Started: The 5 Steps
• Searching for Literature
• Advanced Searching Tips This link opens in a new window
• Organising Your Research
• Writing the Literature Review
• Example Reviews & Useful Books
• Research Tools
• Library 101 This link opens in a new window

These are the steps which you should follow to complete your literature review. 

Evaluating sources

It is important to make sure that the sources you're using are good quality, academic-appropriate sources.  You need to read critically when searching for literature. 

Evaluate the sources for their credibility. How have they arrived at their conclusions? Are there any conflicting theories or findings? Is the publisher reputable? Reading at this critical level will help you decide whether a publication should or should not be included in your literature review.

Author credentials

Examine how the contributors are affiliated. Are the researchers connected to a university, a research lab or a pharmaceutical company? Are the authors considered credible in their field? Are they promoting special interests?

Relevance and scope

Make sure the publications you include in your literature review are relevant and within the scope of your topic, in terms of theoretical argument, research methodology, timeframe and currency.

Reliability

How well is the study designed? Do you see any room for improvement? Do similar studies come to the same conclusion? Have the authors explored the topic from different points of view, or do they rely on a more one-sided argument?

Click HERE to see our help guide on evaluating information you find online. 

Feedback Poll

We would love feedback if this page was useful to you! If you have additional questions please reach out to us and we can try our best to help.

Step 1: Decide on your research question

The very first step in a literature review is deciding what it is you will be researching. Your research question defines the entirety of your final piece of work, including the literature review. It should focus on something from the research field that needs to be explored, where there are gaps in the information. This will ensure that your contribution is valuable and that you are providing readers with a different angle or perspective on an issue or problem.

Remember, a literature review is not a collection of vaguely related studies, but instead it represents background and research developments related to your specific research question - analysed, interpreted, and synthesised by you.  

For this reason it is important to hit on the right research question. 

Ask yourself: 

• Is it too broad? Is it too narrow? For example, a research question like “why are social networking sites harmful?” is too broad; there will be too much information to write a concise literature review. Change it to “how are online users experiencing or addressing privacy issues on Twitter and Facebook?" and it is more specific. It gives you a niche within the research field to focus on and explore.
• Has it been used as a research question by someone else before?
• Have you discussed it with your lecturer? They can guide you if your question isn't quite right yet. 

Step 2: Decide how broad or narrow your scope will be

You need to decide how broadly or narrowly you are going to search for literature. This will depend on a few factors: what your research question or topic is, what your lecturer says, and how well written on the topic is. 

Remember, the goal is not to examine everything that's ever been written on  your topic. To avoid your search results being too numerous, you should narrow down your scope by thinking of the following factors:

• How many years should your search cover?
• How comprehensive should it be? Will it cover every facet of a topic or focus on one area?
• Are there criteria by which you can narrow down the topic? For example, by age, by gender, by location, by methodology (e.g qualitative or quantitative research, case studies), by theoretical framework, etc.?

Here are some examples of topics and searches that are too braod, and more narrow approaches you could take: 

You can also narrow the scope of your search by utilising advanced search techniques, and using filters to eliminate irrelevant search results. You can find more information on both of these  HERE

Step 3: Decide where you will search

It is important to select the right databases in which to conduct your search. Rather than searching generally across all the library databases, some of which may not have anything to do with your topic, it would be more efficient to go to databases which are more closely aligned with your topic.

You can see IADT Library's list of databases  here . 

Ask your lecturer which databases they think you should search.

For information on how to use our databases, click HERE .

Step 4: Conduct your search

Searching for the literature is one of the steps which can take the most time. Take your time to be thorough and methodical. One of the best things you can do is keep track of your searches. The software we recommend to do this is Zotero . Zotero is a tool which allows you to save sources and citations, including taking notes about them as you read them, which will save you lots of time down the road when you come to analysing these sources. You can read all about Zotero here .

Tips to finding relevant literature

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. An abstract is a comprehensive summary of what the article is about. This will save you time because you can quickly see if the article is relevant to you or not. 
• Document the searches you conduct in each database so that you can duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.  You can also use citation tracking to see who has used a piece of work in their own research and how they've built on this.
• Note what key words are used by authors, usually in their abstracts and search for those. Sometimes having the right vocabulary for the topic can help you find many more sources you might have missed otherwise.
• Ask your lecturer if you are missing any key works in the field.

What about searching Google? Googling your topic can bring up hundreds of thousands of hits, but rarely will the sources from a Google search be appropriate to use in an academic assignment like a literature review. For a literature review, the sources need to be academically authoritative - for example, academic books, journals, research reports, government publications. Using non-scholarly or non-authoritative sources in your literature review will likely result in a poor grade. 

Step 5: Review the literature

This step is the output that you will be graded on in the end. 

Here are some questions to help you analyse the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover or argue?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyse its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analysed by others?
• Has your topic been written about very rarely? If so, why do you think that is? What  has  been written that's close to the topic?

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

IADT LibGuides are licenced under a  Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License  (CC-BY-NC 4.0) 

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Searching for Literature >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 3:49 PM
• URL: https://iadt.libguides.com/litreview

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. 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.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

Doing a literature review: an 8-step process

Overview of my presentation in the Middlesex University PhD coursework - with embedded videos of the 8 steps

Anne-Wil Harzing - Mon 1 Jan 2024 09:31 (updated Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14)

Copyright 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing. All rights reserved. First version, 2 January 2024

Step 1: Information management strategies

Step 2: situating the literature review, step 3: sources of literature, step 4: keeping current, step 5: how much is enough, step 6: different types of papers.

• Step 7a: Seven criteria to evaluate coverage
• Step 7b: Twelve guidelines to evaluate references

Step 8: The literature review in your thesis

Your challenge is very different from what mine was during my PhD. I completed my PhD before the internet was available. So my challenge was to get access to information and find the time and money to do so. Oftentimes, this involved traveling to various libraries across the country.

Your challenge is to manage the wealth of information you have easy access to, but not to waste too much time on completely irrelevant information. This step provides you with some tips on how to approach this.

In this step, you learn why a literature review is important in no less than six of the nine stages of the research process. Before watching it, try and list the stages where you think it might be important.

In this step, we review the various sources you can use for literature reviews: books, journal articles, government and industry resources, working papers, and conference papers. I show you the relative merits of each of these.

Here I share my top tips on how to keep up to date with new publications. You can find more information about this here: How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload? .

Note that my tips focus on the "old-fashioned" tried-and-tested approaches. This process has now been facilitated by many dedicated tools, often using artificial intelligence. I can't say I like working with these as they do not facilitate the deep engagement that I think is needed for academic research, but they might well work for you.

The next step is deciding when to stop. How do you know you have "enough"? When can you stop? Well obviously, you never completely stop reviewing the literature, as it is important in so many stages of the review process (see step 2).

But in deciding when you can start writing up, I do suggest the use of a relevance tree in this video. I also show how you can use tables to effectively summarise literature. Further tips on how many references to use in writing up can be found here: How many references is enough?

In this step, I review three types of papers to look out for to maximise the effectiveness of your literature review: review papers, star papers, model papers.

Step 7a: 7 criteria to evaluate coverage

How do you evaluate whether all the literature you have collected is actually useful for your thesis or article?

In this step I go through seven criteria you can use to evaluate coverage of the collected literature: relevance, currency, reliability, audience, accuracy, scope, and objectivity.

Step 7b: 12 guidelines to evaluate references

If you are going to use the literature to reference arguments in your thesis, this step covers twelve guidelines you can use to evaluate other academics' referencing practices as well as to make sure you do this right. They are also described in detail in this blogpost: Are referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility?

My twelve guidelines are based on research in my own PhD, written up as a paper that turned out to be very hard to publish. If you are interested, you can read the full story here: How to publish an unusual paper? Referencing errors, scholarship & credibility .

This last step reveals what criteria are used to evaluate the literature review in your own thesis: synthesis, critical appraisal, and application to the research question. I also explain what your literature should not look like and why a good literature review helps you to get papers published.

Related blogposts

• Want to publish a literature review? Think of it as an empirical paper
• Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students
• How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload?
• Is a literature review publication a low-cost project?
• Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review
• How to conduct a longitudinal literature review?
• New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts
• A framework for your literature review article: where to find one?

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or supporting the Publish or Perish software .

Copyright © 2024 Anne-Wil Harzing . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Tue 2 Jan 2024 08:14

Anne-Wil Harzing's profile and contact details >>

• Deakin University

Literature review modules for health research

Literature review modules for health research: about, welcome to our health literature reviews hub .

Designed for higher degree research students and academic researchers, these modules develop your skills to complete specific types of literature reviews for health research.

Each module matches to a specific review step, building towards a complete process. Work through the modules at your own pace. When you complete a module you can return to this page to navigate to the next one. Alternatively, work through individual modules as you need.

Each module ends with an optional quiz to evidence your learning, with a digital certificate of achievement.

Be aware  this hub page presents module in a particular order. This provides researchers with a visual understanding of the parts that come together to form a literature review. In reality, when undertaking any type of literature review in health research, your engagement with different research steps can be sequential, simultaneous or non-linear.

Before you start the review process

These three modules provide you with information on three key areas that need to be understood before you commence the review process.

Review Types

Learn about the different reviews types  

Review Question

Create a review question with search frameworks  

Review Protocols

Get familiar with review protocols  

Doing the review

The modules exploring key areas that need to be addressing when you are undertaking any type of literature review are currently being developed.

In the meantime, you are encouraged to explore the Systematic and systematic-like review toolkit guide which provides useful information on the review process.

• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/literature-review-modules-hub

• DOI: 10.34190/ecrm.23.1.2298
• Corpus ID: 270801210

Applying a Systematic Literature Review Process in a Grounded Theory Investigation

• Sinéad O'Mahony
• Published in European Conference on… 26 June 2024
• European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies

Figures and Tables from this paper

23 References

Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature.

• Highly Influential

Designing the literature review for a strong contribution

Principal-designed structures that enhance middle leaders’ professional learning, supervisors as definers of a new middle-level managers’ leadership model: typology of four middle-level leadership prototypes in early childhood education, transforming middle leadership in education and training board post-primary schools in ireland., the research audit trail: methodological guidance for application in practice, understanding middle leadership: practices and policies, what literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations, scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation, educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

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

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

Inverted Classroom Teaching of Physiology in Basic Medical Education: Bibliometric Visual Analysis

Affiliations.

• 1 School of Basic Medicine and Public Health, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
• 2 Division of Life Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, HKSAR, China.
• 3 Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, United States.
• 4 School of Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
• PMID: 38940629
• DOI: 10.2196/52224

Background: Over the last decade, there has been growing interest in inverted classroom teaching (ICT) and its various forms within the education sector. Physiology is a core course that bridges basic and clinical medicine, and ICT in physiology has been sporadically practiced to different extents globally. However, students' and teachers' responses and feedback to ICT in physiology are diverse, and the effectiveness of a modified ICT model integrated into regular teaching practice in physiology courses is difficult to assess objectively and quantitatively.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the current status and development direction of ICT in physiology in basic medical education using bibliometric visual analysis of the related literature.

Methods: A bibliometric analysis of the ICT-related literature in physiology published between 2000 and 2023 was performed using CiteSpace, a bibliometric visualization tool, based on the Web of Science database. Moreover, an in-depth review was performed to summarize the application of ICT in physiology courses worldwide, along with identification of research hot spots and development trends.

Results: A total of 42 studies were included for this bibliometric analysis, with the year 2013 marking the commencement of the field. University staff and doctors working at affiliated hospitals represent the core authors of this field, with several research teams forming cooperative relationships and developing research networks. The development of ICT in physiology could be divided into several stages: the introduction stage (2013-2014), extensive practice stage (2015-2019), and modification and growth stage (2020-2023). Gopalan C is the author with the highest citation count of 5 cited publications and has published 14 relevant papers since 2016, with a significant surge from 2019 to 2022. Author collaboration is generally limited in this field, and most academic work has been conducted in independent teams, with minimal cross-team communication. Authors from the United States published the highest number of papers related to ICT in physiology (18 in total, accounting for over 43% of the total papers), and their intermediary centrality was 0.24, indicating strong connections both within the country and internationally. Chinese authors ranked second, publishing 8 papers in the field, although their intermediary centrality was only 0.02, suggesting limited international influence and lower overall research quality. The topics of ICT in physiology research have been multifaceted, covering active learning, autonomous learning, student performance, teaching effect, blended teaching, and others.

Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis and literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the history, development process, and future direction of the field of ICT in physiology. These findings can help to strengthen academic exchange and cooperation internationally, while promoting the diversification and effectiveness of ICT in physiology through building academic communities to jointly train emerging medical talents.

Keywords: academic; academic community; bibliometric; bibliometric analysis; bibliometric visual analysis; classroom-based; evolution trend; flipped classroom; flipped classroom teaching; frontier progress; hot topics; inverted classroom; medical education; physiology; scientific knowledge map; teaching method; visual analysis; visualization tool.

© Zonglin He, Botao Zhou, Haixiao Feng, Jian Bai, Yuechun Wang. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Bibliometric study of immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Li Z, Zhang Y, Zhang B, Guo R, He M, Liu ZL, Yang L, Wang H. Li Z, et al. Front Immunol. 2023 Aug 4;14:1210802. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1210802. eCollection 2023. Front Immunol. 2023. PMID: 37600802 Free PMC article. Review.
• The effects of flipped classrooms to improve learning outcomes in undergraduate health professional education: A systematic review. Naing C, Whittaker MA, Aung HH, Chellappan DK, Riegelman A. Naing C, et al. Campbell Syst Rev. 2023 Jul 7;19(3):e1339. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1339. eCollection 2023 Sep. Campbell Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37425620 Free PMC article. Review.
• School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review. Valdebenito S, Eisner M, Farrington DP, Ttofi MM, Sutherland A. Valdebenito S, et al. Campbell Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 9;14(1):i-216. doi: 10.4073/csr.2018.1. eCollection 2018. Campbell Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 37131379 Free PMC article.
• Knowledge domain, research hotspots and frontiers in physiology teaching reforms from 2012 to 2021: A bibliometric and knowledge-map analysis. Xu J, Sun S, Zhao Y, Ma Q. Xu J, et al. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Mar 20;10:1031713. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1031713. eCollection 2023. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023. PMID: 37020677 Free PMC article.
• Research Trends in the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Bibliometric and Network Visualization Study. Wu T, Duan Y, Zhang T, Tian W, Liu H, Deng Y. Wu T, et al. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2022 Aug 31;27(9):254. doi: 10.31083/j.fbl2709254. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2022. PMID: 36224012
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• JMIR Publications
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

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

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Betting Sites
• Online Casinos
• Wine Offers

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Dua Lipa review, Glastonbury 2024: More than mere pop spectacle

Though the performance is tightly drilled – even the confetti deployment seems studied – passion rings through in moments of cheeky theatricality, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

Sign up to Roisin O’Connor’s free weekly newsletter Now Hear This for the inside track on all things music

Get our now hear this email for free, thanks for signing up to the roisin o’connor’s email.

Dua Lipa saw it coming. The fireworks and flags and pulsing purple lights, the teenagers on tiptoes scowling at strange adults as they fling their arms in the air like money. When she was a girl, the 28-year-old born to Albanian-Kosovan parents, tells us midway into her debut Glastonbury headline show, she wrote it down – “I will headline Glastonbury” – manifesting the sleeper hits and critical acclaim and now routine awards and No 1s that made this moment inevitable.

“I was really specific,” she adds after a shy laugh. “I said I wanted to headline the Pyramid Stage on a Friday night, because then I knew I could party for the next two days.” Her voice cracks as she describes the magic – “the power” – of commanding this seemingly infinite crowd. “Little me would just be beside herself right now.”

The growing Dua Lipa empire – now encompassing an acting career, a book club, a burgeoning media platform and a podcast featuring giants of high and low culture – shows no signs of slowing, particularly now she has bought back the rights to her music catalogue. Yet behind the cultural dominance, Dua Lipa is as enigmatic as she is ubiquitous. Her arrestingly vague persona (along, perhaps, with her admirable support for geopolitical causes) has stopped her transcending bankable fame to become a true nation’s sweetheart.

Which may be just how she likes it. More than a straight pop spectacle, Lipa intersperses tonight’s set with nods to underground culture. As a martial drum solo opens the show, leather-clad dancers fling themselves across a pair of metal bridges, like a Swat team sent undercover into a Seventies New York meatpacking district. In a chain-lined leather dress of her own, Lipa zips to centre stage as if propelled by the roller-skates favoured on her last arena tour, barrelling into a party-starting “Training Season”.

Though the performance is tightly drilled – even the confetti deployment seems studied – passion rings through in moments of cheeky theatricality. Midway into the second verse, she flings back her head with revulsion at the inept exes she has made her muse.

It is no contradiction that many such boyfriends are no doubt in this field screaming along: the gospel of Dua holds that, while guys often suck, that is often fine, and kind of funny. Her mastery is in pairing these tales of woe and self-redemption with music that sounds like accidentally having the best night of your life at the worst club in your hometown.

Her celebration of alternative culture is most readily apparent on “One Kiss” – given a house breakdown worthy of Glastonbury’s wonderfully lurid queer nightlife haunt, NYC Downlow – and “Pretty Please”, revitalised with deliciously dirty funk swing and a breakdancing interlude that squeezes homages to her house, disco and rave roots into two breathtaking minutes of helter-shelter beat switches.

Between all this she finds time to introduce a comically low-key guest appearance: not one of her celeb buddies but an unassuming Kevin Parker – better known as the Australian psych-rock darling Tame Impala – who looks every bit the slacker boyfriend brought home to disappointed parents after their beloved daughter’s gap year. In honour of his contributions to her latest album, Radical Optimism , Parker mooches out in a T-shirt and jeans for an endearingly clumsy duet of his song “The Less I Know the Better”.

Aside from the electrifying opener, new album cuts such as “These Walls“ and “Falling Forever” feel like stodgy, almost defensive inclusions – even closer “Houdini” can’t help but feel anticlimactic after a sensational one-two of “Physical” and “Don’t Start Now”. I can believe, even hope, that Dua Lipa will endure to headline Glastonbury again, but it is harder to imagine these songs surviving as setlist musts.

“Guys, you’re making my dreams come true,” she declares during “Be the One”, a cliche that, despite the dips in momentum, makes clear that Lipa understood the assignment: Glastonbury is not just another show, just another festival – it is the moment we have been waiting for, all day, all year, perhaps all our lives. The best headline sets turn this into a reality, even among the sceptical. Dua Lipa does something almost as special: by bearing out her childhood premonition, she makes us witnesses to her own sweetest fantasy.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Want an ad-free experience?

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Discovering potential in non-cancer medications: a promising breakthrough for multiple myeloma patients.

Simple Summary

1. the significance of repurposing, 2. pharmacological repurposing strategies and tools, 3. medicines that could be repurposed to treat mm, 3.1. thalidomide, 3.2. statins, 3.3. celecoxib, 3.4. aspirin, 3.5. clarithromycin, 3.6. rapamycin, 3.7. valproic acid, 3.8. nelfinavir, 3.9. metformin, 3.10. bisphosphonates, 3.12. albendazole, 4. conclusions and future prospectives, 5. practice points.

• Although there have been numerous clinical trials conducted to evaluate different approaches for treating cancer, the 5-year survival rate for individuals with MM in the US remains at a modest 55%.
• Myeloma remains a challenging malignancy to treat due to the development of drug resistance, resulting in relapse for all patients.
• There is an ongoing demand for new medications. However, the process of finding a new treatment can often be quite time-consuming. Therefore, repurposing already approved non-cancer medication for MM can aid in the discovery of new effective drugs.
• The potential for repurposing approved drugs is promising, although a thorough analysis of these agents is necessary before they can be considered for clinical trials.

6. Research Agenda

• The potential of various non-anti-cancer drugs as an anti-myeloma treatment was discussed.
• Thalidomide stands out as an exemplary repurposed agent for treating MM.
• There is encouraging evidence that statins, rapamycin, clarithromycin, and leflunomide can inhibit MM.
• Extensive animal studies using the MM animal model, along with phase 1 clinical studies, are necessary to thoroughly investigate these agents as potential MM therapies.

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest.

• Yang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhong, Q.-Z.; Yang, Y.; Wu, T.; Chen, S.-Y.; Chen, B.; Song, Y.-W.; Fang, H.; Wang, S.-L.; et al. Disparities in mortality risk after diagnosis of hematological malignancies in 185 countries: A global data analysis. Cancer Lett. 2024 , 595 , 216793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ashburn, T.T.; Thor, K.B. Drug repositioning: Identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004 , 3 , 673–683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Scannell, J.W.; Blanckley, A.; Boldon, H.; Warrington, B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012 , 11 , 191–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Pammolli, F.; Magazzini, L.; Riccaboni, M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2011 , 10 , 428–438. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Waring, M.J.; Arrowsmith, J.; Leach, A.R.; Leeson, P.D.; Mandrell, S.; Owen, R.M.; Pairaudeau, G.; Pennie, W.D.; Pickett, S.D.; Wang, J.; et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015 , 14 , 475–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Beachy, S.H.; Johnson, S.G.; Olson, S.; Berger, A.C. Drug Repurposing and Repositioning: Workshop Summary ; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiMasi, J.A.; Grabowski, H.G.; Hansen, R.W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 2016 , 47 , 20–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Paul, S.M.; Mytelka, D.S.; Dunwiddie, C.T.; Persinger, C.C.; Munos, B.H.; Lindborg, S.R.; Schacht, A.L. How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010 , 9 , 203–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Papapetropoulos, A.; Szabo, C. Inventing new therapies without reinventing the wheel: The power of drug repurposing. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2018 , 175 , 165–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hernandez, J.J.; Pryszlak, M.; Smith, L.; Yanchus, C.; Kurji, N.; Shahani, V.M.; Molinski, S.V. Giving drugs a second chance: Overcoming regulatory and financial hurdles in repurposing approved drugs as cancer therapeutics. Front. Oncol. 2017 , 7 , 273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nosengo, N. Can you teach old drugs new tricks? Nature 2016 , 534 , 314–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ishida, J.; Konishi, M.; Ebner, N.; Springer, J. Repurposing of approved cardiovascular drugs. J. Transl. Med. 2016 , 14 , 269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cheng, F.; Lu, W.; Liu, C.; Fang, J.; Hou, Y.; Handy, D.E.; Wang, R.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Huang, J.; et al. A genome-wide positioning systems network algorithm for in silico drug repurposing. Nat. Commun. 2019 , 10 , 3476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rudrapal, M.; Khairnar, S.J.; Jadhav, A.G. Drug repurposing (DR): An emerging approach in drug discovery. In Drug Repurposing-Hypothesis, Molecular Aspects and Therapeutic Applications ; IntechOpe: London, UK, 2020; Volume 10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rajkumar, S.V.; Kumar, S. Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms. Blood Cancer J. 2020 , 10 , 94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dehghanifard, A.; Kaviani, S.; Abroun, S.; Mehdizadeh, M.; Saiedi, S.; Maali, A.; Ghaffari, S.; Azad, M. Various signaling pathways in multiple myeloma cells and effects of treatment on these pathways. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018 , 18 , 311–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Al-Odat, O.S.; von Suskil, M.; Chitren, R.J.; Elbezanti, W.O.; Srivastava, S.K.; Budak-Alpddogan, T.; Jonnalagadda, S.C.; Aggarwal, B.B.; Pandey, M. Mcl-1 inhibition: Managing malignancy in multiple myeloma. Front. Pharmacol. 2021 , 12 , 699629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hurle, M.R.; Yang, L.; Xie, Q.; Rajpal, D.K.; Sanseau, P.; Agarwal, P. Computational drug repositioning: From data to therapeutics. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2013 , 93 , 335–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Keiser, M.J.; Setola, V.; Irwin, J.J.; Laggner, C.; Abbas, A.I.; Hufeisen, S.J.; Jensen, N.H.; Kuijer, M.B.; Matos, R.C.; Tran, T.B.; et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 2009 , 462 , 175–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hieronymus, H.; Lamb, J.; Ross, K.N.; Peng, X.P.; Clement, C.; Rodina, A.; Nieto, M.; Du, J.; Stegmaier, K.; Raj, S.M.; et al. Gene expression signature-based chemical genomic prediction identifies a novel class of HSP90 pathway modulators. Cancer Cell 2006 , 10 , 321–330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cheng, F.; Desai, R.J.; Handy, D.E.; Wang, R.; Schneeweiss, S.; Barabási, A.L.; Loscalzo, J. Network-based approach to prediction and population-based validation of in silico drug repurposing. Nat. Commun. 2018 , 9 , 2691. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nam, Y.; Kim, M.; Chang, H.S.; Shin, H. Drug repurposing with network reinforcement. BMC Bioinform. 2019 , 20 , 383. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zickenrott, S.; Angarica, V.E.; Upadhyaya, B.B.; Del Sol, A. Prediction of disease–gene–drug relationships following a differential network analysis. Cell Death Dis. 2016 , 7 , e2040. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hu, G.; Agarwal, P. Human disease-drug network based on genomic expression profiles. PLoS ONE 2009 , 4 , e6536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Peyvandipour, A.; Saberian, N.; Shafi, A.; Donato, M.; Draghici, S. A novel computational approach for drug repurposing using systems biology. Bioinformatics 2018 , 34 , 2817–2825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Naylor, D.M.; Kauppi, D.; Schonfeld, J. Therapeutic drug repurposing, repositioning and rescue. Drug Discov. 2015 , 57 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatr-Aryamontri, A.; Breitkreutz, B.-J.; Heinicke, S.; Boucher, L.; Winter, A.; Stark, C.; Nixon, J.; Ramage, L.; Kolas, N.; O’Donnell, L.; et al. The BioGRID interaction database: 2013 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 , 41 , D816–D823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Szklarczyk, D.; Franceschini, A.; Wyder, S.; Forslund, K.; Heller, D.; Huerta-Cepas, J.; Simonovic, M.; Roth, A.; Santos, A.; Tsafou, K.P. STRING v10: Protein–protein interaction networks, integrated over the tree of life. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 , 43 , D447–D452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, J.Y.; Pandey, R.; Nguyen, T.M. HAPPI-2: A comprehensive and high-quality map of human annotated and predicted protein interactions. BMC Genom. 2017 , 18 , 182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kanehisa, M.; Furumichi, M.; Tanabe, M.; Sato, Y.; Morishima, K. KEGG: New perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 , 45 , D353–D361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Croft, D.; O’Kelly, G.; Wu, G.; Haw, R.; Gillespie, M.; Matthews, L.; Caudy, M.; Garapati, P.; Gopinath, G.; Jassal, B.; et al. Reactome: A database of reactions, pathways and biological processes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 , 39 , D691–D697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, Z.; Jensen, M.; Zenklusen, J. A Practical Guide to the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Statistical Genomics. Methods Protoc. 2016 , 1418 , 111–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uhlén, M.; Fagerberg, L.; Hallström, B.M.; Lindskog, C.; Oksvold, P.; Mardinoglu, A.; Sivertsson, Å.; Kampf, C.; Sjöstedt, E.; Asplund, A.; et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 2015 , 347 , 1260419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Uhlen, M.; Oksvold, P.; Fagerberg, L.; Lundberg, E.; Jonasson, K.; Forsberg, M.; Zwahlen, M.; Kampf, C.; Wester, K.; Hober, S.; et al. Towards a knowledge-based human protein atlas. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010 , 28 , 1248–1250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uhlén, M.; Björling, E.; Agaton, C.; Szigyarto, C.A.-K.; Amini, B.; Andersen, E.; Andersson, A.-C.; Angelidou, P.; Asplund, A.; Asplund, C.; et al. A human protein atlas for normal and cancer tissues based on antibody proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2005 , 4 , 1920–1932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Barretina, J.; Caponigro, G.; Stransky, N.; Venkatesan, K.; Margolin, A.A.; Kim, S.; Wilson, C.J.; Lehár, J.; Kryukov, G.V.; Sonkin, D.; et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 2012 , 483 , 603–607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lamb, J.; Crawford, E.D.; Peck, D.; Modell, J.W.; Blat, I.C.; Wrobel, M.J.; Lerner, J.; Brunet, J.-P.; Subramanian, A.; Ross, K.N.; et al. The Connectivity Map: Using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 2006 , 313 , 1929–1935. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lamb, J. The Connectivity Map: A new tool for biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007 , 7 , 54–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Borate, B.; Baxevanis, A.D. Searching Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) for information on genetic loci involved in human disease. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2009 , 27 , 1.2.1–1.2.13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Goh, K.-I.; Cusick, M.E.; Valle, D.; Childs, B.; Vidal, M.; Barabási, A.-L. The human disease network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007 , 104 , 8685–8690. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, J.; Wu, S.-J.; Yang, S.-Y.; Peng, J.-W.; Wang, S.-N.; Wang, F.-Y.; Song, Y.-X.; Qi, T.; Li, Y.-X.; Li, Y.-Y. DNetDB: The human disease network database based on dysfunctional regulation mechanism. BMC Syst. Biol. 2016 , 10 , 36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Law, V.; Knox, C.; Djoumbou, Y.; Jewison, T.; Guo, A.C.; Liu, Y.; Maciejewski, A.; Arndt, D.; Wilson, M.; Neveu, V.; et al. DrugBank 4.0: Shedding new light on drug metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 , 42 , D1091–D1097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Andersson, M.L.; Böttiger, Y.; Bastholm-Rahmner, P.; Ovesjö, M.-L.; Veg, A.; Eiermann, B. Evaluation of usage patterns and user perception of the drug–drug interaction database SFINX. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2015 , 84 , 327–333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kale, V.P.; Habib, H.; Chitren, R.; Patel, M.; Pramanik, K.C.; Jonnalagadda, S.C.; Challagundla, K.; Pandey, M.K. Old drugs, new uses: Drug repurposing in hematological malignancies. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2021 , 68 , 242–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kuhn, M.; Letunic, I.; Jensen, L.J.; Bork, P. The SIDER database of drugs and side effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 , 44 , D1075–D1079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Siramshetty, V.B.; Nickel, J.; Omieczynski, C.; Gohlke, B.-O.; Drwal, M.N.; Preissner, R. WITHDRAWN—A resource for withdrawn and discontinued drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 , 44 , D1080–D1086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kuhn, M.; Szklarczyk, D.; Franceschini, A.; Von Mering, C.; Jensen, L.J.; Bork, P. STITCH 3: Zooming in on protein–chemical interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 , 40 , D876–D880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shameer, K.; Glicksberg, B.S.; Hodos, R.; Johnson, K.W.; Badgeley, M.A.; Readhead, B.; Tomlinson, M.S.; O’Connor, T.; Miotto, R.; Kidd, B.A.; et al. Systematic analyses of drugs and disease indications in RepurposeDB reveal pharmacological, biological and epidemiological factors influencing drug repositioning. Brief. Bioinform. 2018 , 19 , 656–678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garnett, M.J.; Edelman, E.J.; Heidorn, S.J.; Greenman, C.D.; Dastur, A.; Lau, K.W.; Greninger, P.; Thompson, I.R.; Luo, X.; Soares, J.; et al. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 2012 , 483 , 570–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, B.K.B.; Tiong, K.H.; Chang, J.K.; Liew, C.S.; Abdul Rahman, Z.A.; Tan, A.C.; Khang, T.F.; Cheong, S.C. DeSigN: Connecting gene expression with therapeutics for drug repurposing and development. BMC Genom. 2017 , 18 , 934. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Singhal, S.; Mehta, J.; Desikan, R.; Ayers, D.; Roberson, P.; Eddlemon, P.; Munshi, N.; Anaissie, E.; Wilson, C.; Dhodapkar, M.; et al. Antitumor activity of thalidomide in refractory multiple myeloma. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999 , 341 , 1565–1571. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rajkumar, S.V.; Blood, E.; Vesole, D.; Fonseca, R.; Greipp, P.R. Phase III clinical trial of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A clinical trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 , 24 , 431–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Afzal, A.; Fiala, M.A.; Gage, B.F.; Wildes, T.M.; Sanfilippo, K. Statins reduce mortality in multiple myeloma: A population-based US study. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 , 20 , e937–e943. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brånvall, E.; Ekberg, S.; Eloranta, S.; Wästerlid, T.; Birmann, B.M.; Smedby, K.E. Statin use is associated with improved survival in multiple myeloma: A Swedish population-based study of 4315 patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2020 , 95 , 652–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sanfilippo, K.M.; Keller, J.; Gage, B.F.; Luo, S.; Wang, T.-F.; Moskowitz, G.; Gumbel, J.; Blue, B.; O’Brian, K.; Carson, K.R. Statins are associated with reduced mortality in multiple myeloma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 , 34 , 4008–4014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Epstein, M.M.; Divine, G.; Chao, C.R.; Wells, K.E.; Feigelson, H.S.; Scholes, D.; Roblin, D.; Ulcickas Yood, M.; Engel, L.S.; Taylor, A.; et al. Statin use and risk of multiple myeloma: An analysis from the cancer research network. Int. J. Cancer 2017 , 141 , 480–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bernard, M.; Bancos, S.; Sime, P.; Phipps, R. Targeting cyclooxygenase-2 in hematological malignancies: Rationale and promise. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2008 , 14 , 2051–2060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tołoczko-Iwaniuk, N.; Dziemiańczyk-Pakieła, D.; Nowaszewska, B.K.; Celińska-Janowicz, K.; Miltyk, W. Celecoxib in cancer therapy and prevention—Review. Curr. Drug Targets 2019 , 20 , 302–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kardosh, A.; Soriano, N.; Liu, Y.-T.; Uddin, J.; Petasis, N.A.; Hofman, F.M.; Chen, T.C.; Schönthal, A.H. Multitarget inhibition of drug-resistant multiple myeloma cell lines by dimethyl-celecoxib (DMC), a non–COX-2 inhibitory analog of celecoxib. Blood 2005 , 106 , 4330–4338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marinac, C.R.; Colditz, G.A.; Rosner, B.; Ghobrial, I.M.; Birmann, B.M. Aspirin Use and Survival in Multiple Myeloma Patients. Blood 2018 , 132 , 3250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Birmann, B.M.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Rosner, B.A.; Colditz, G.A. Regular aspirin use and risk of multiple myeloma: A prospective analysis in the health professionals follow-up study and nurses’ health study. Cancer Prev. Res. 2014 , 7 , 33–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holien, T.; Olsen, O.E.; Misund, K.; Hella, H.; Waage, A.; Rø, T.B.; Sundan, A. Lymphoma and myeloma cells are highly sensitive to growth arrest and apoptosis induced by artesunate. Eur. J. Haematol. 2013 , 91 , 339–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Papanikolaou, X.; Johnson, S.; Garg, T.; Tian, E.; Tytarenko, R.; Zhang, Q.; Stein, C.; Barlogie, B.; Epstein, J.; Heuck, C. Artesunate overcomes drug resistance in multiple myeloma by inducing mitochondrial stress and non-caspase apoptosis. Oncotarget 2014 , 5 , 4118–4128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, S.; Xue, F.; Cheng, Z.; Yang, X.; Wang, S.; Geng, F.; Pan, L. Effect of artesunate on inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis of SP2/0 myeloma cells through affecting NFκB p65. Int. J. Hematol. 2009 , 90 , 513–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hu, G.-F.; Dong, K.; Dong, J.-F.; Wang, Y.; Gao, W. Effects of Artesunate Combined with Arsenious Acid on Proliferation and Apoptosis of Multiple Myeloma Cells via PI3K/AKT Signaling Pathway. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 2021 , 29 , 1819–1824. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Baumann, P.; Mandl-Weber, S.; Volkl, A.; Adam, C.; Bumeder, I.; Oduncu, F.; Schmidmaier, R. Dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitor A771726 (leflunomide) induces apoptosis and diminishes proliferation of multiple myeloma cells. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009 , 8 , 366–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosenzweig, M.; Palmer, J.; Tsai, N.-C.; Synold, T.; Wu, X.; Tao, S.; Hammond, S.N.; Buettner, R.; Duarte, L.; Htut, M.; et al. Repurposing leflunomide for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A phase 1 study. Leuk. Lymphoma 2020 , 61 , 1669–1677. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Nuffel, A.M.; Sukhatme, V.; Pantziarka, P.; Meheus, L.; Sukhatme, V.P.; Bouche, G. Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO)—Clarithromycin as an anti-cancer agent. Ecancermedicalscience 2015 , 9 , 513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mark, T.M.; Bowman, I.A.; Rossi, A.C.; Shah, M.; Rodriguez, M.; Quinn, R.; Pearse, R.N.; Zafar, F.; Pekle, K.; Jayabalan, D.; et al. Thalidomide, clarithromycin, lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy in newly diagnosed, symptomatic multiple myeloma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2014 , 55 , 2842–2849. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Strömberg, T.; Dimberg, A.; Hammarberg, A.; Carlson, K.; Osterborg, A.; Nilsson, K.; Jernberg-Wiklund, H. Rapamycin sensitizes multiple myeloma cells to apoptosis induced by dexamethasone. Blood 2004 , 103 , 3138–3147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gera, J.; Lichtenstein, A. The mammalian target of rapamycin pathway as a therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2011 , 52 , 1857–1866. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raje, N.; Kumar, S.; Hideshima, T.; Ishitsuka, K.; Chauhan, D.; Mitsiades, C.; Podar, K.; Le Gouill, S.; Richardson, P.; Munshi, N.C.; et al. Combination of the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin and CC-5013 has synergistic activity in multiple myeloma. Blood 2004 , 104 , 4188–4193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yee, A.J.; Hari, P.; Marcheselli, R.; Mahindra, A.K.; Cirstea, D.D.; Scullen, T.A.; Burke, J.N.; Rodig, S.J.; Hideshima, T.; Laubach, J.P.; et al. Outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in a phase I study of everolimus in combination with lenalidomide. Br. J. Haematol. 2014 , 166 , 401–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kikuchi, J.; Wada, T.; Shimizu, R.; Izumi, T.; Akutsu, M.; Mitsunaga, K.; Noborio-Hatano, K.; Nobuyoshi, M.; Ozawa, K.; Kano, Y.; et al. Histone deacetylases are critical targets of bortezomib-induced cytotoxicity in multiple myeloma. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 2010 , 116 , 406–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bono, C.; Karlin, L.; Harel, S.; Mouly, E.; Labaume, S.; Galicier, L.; Apcher, S.; Sauvageon, H.; Fermand, J.-P.; Bories, J.-C.; et al. The human immunodeficiency virus-1 protease inhibitor nelfinavir impairs proteasome activity and inhibits the proliferation of multiple myeloma cells in vitro and in vivo. Haematologica 2012 , 97 , 1101–1109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kraus, M.; Bader, J.; Overkleeft, H.; Driessen, C. Nelfinavir augments proteasome inhibition by bortezomib in myeloma cells and overcomes bortezomib and carfilzomib resistance. Blood Cancer J. 2013 , 3 , e103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alodhaibi, I.; Ailawadhi, S.; Burbano, G.P.; O’Brien, P.J.; Buadi, F.K.; Hayman, S.; Kumar, S.K.; Gonsalves, W.I. An Open-Label Phase I Study of Metformin and Nelfinavir in Combination with Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2024 , 24 , 298–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koltai, T. Nelfinavir and other protease inhibitors in cancer: Mechanisms involved in anticancer activity. F1000Research 2015 , 4 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dalva-Aydemir, S.; Bajpai, R.; Martinez, M.; Adekola, K.U.; Kandela, I.; Wei, C.; Singhal, S.; Koblinski, J.E.; Raje, N.S.; Rosen, S.T.; et al. Targeting the metabolic plasticity of multiple myeloma with FDA-approved ritonavir and metformin. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015 , 21 , 1161–1171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mishra, R.K.; Wei, C.; Hresko, R.C.; Bajpai, R.; Heitmeier, M.; Matulis, S.M.; Nooka, A.K.; Rosen, S.T.; Hruz, P.W.; Schiltz, G.E.; et al. In silico modeling-based identification of glucose transporter 4 (GLUT4)-selective inhibitors for cancer therapy. J. Biol. Chem. 2015 , 290 , 14441–14453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jagannathan, S.; Abdel-Malek, M.; Malek, E.; Vad, N.; Latif, T.; Anderson, K.; Driscoll, J. Pharmacologic screens reveal metformin that suppresses GRP78-dependent autophagy to enhance the anti-myeloma effect of bortezomib. Leukemia 2015 , 29 , 2184–2191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mansour, A.; Wakkach, A.; Blin-Wakkach, C. Emerging roles of osteoclasts in the modulation of bone microenvironment and immune suppression in multiple myeloma. Front. Immunol. 2017 , 8 , 954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tai, Y.-T.; Cho, S.-F.; Anderson, K.C. Osteoclast immunosuppressive effects in multiple myeloma: Role of programmed cell death ligand 1. Front. Immunol. 2018 , 9 , 1822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chroma, K.; Skrott, Z.; Gursky, J.; Bacovsky, J.; Moudry, P.; Buchtova, T.; Mistrik, M.; Bartek, J. A drug repurposing strategy for overcoming human multiple myeloma resistance to standard-of-care treatment. Cell Death Dis. 2022 , 13 , 203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yi, H.; Liang, L.; Wang, H.; Luo, S.; Hu, L.; Wang, Y.; Shen, X.; Xiao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Peng, H.; et al. Albendazole inhibits NF-κB signaling pathway to overcome tumor stemness and bortezomib resistance in multiple myeloma. Cancer Lett. 2021 , 520 , 307–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kumar, S.; Witzig, T.; Rajkumar, S.V. Thalidomide as an anti-cancer agent. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2002 , 6 , 160–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Miller, M.T. Thalidomide embryopathy: A model for the study of congenital incomitant horizontal strabismus. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1991 , 89 , 623–674. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Grover, J.; Vats, V.; Gopalakrishna, R.; Ramam, M. Thalidomide: A re-look. Natl. Med. J. India 2000 , 13 , 132–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Perri, A.J., III; Hsu, S. A review of thalidomide’s history and current dermatological applications. Dermatol. Online J. 2003 , 9 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gordon, J.; Goggin, P. Thalidomide and its derivatives: Emerging from the wilderness. Postgrad. Med. J. 2003 , 79 , 127–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holmes, A.; McMenamin, M.; Mulcahy, F.; Bergin, C. Thalidomide Therapy for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Herpes Simplex Virus—Related Genitalis in HIV-Infected Individuals. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007 , 44 , e96–e99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Holland, S. Cytokine therapy of mycobacterial infections. Adv. Intern. Med. 2000 , 45 , 431–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Gupta, S.C.; Sung, B.; Prasad, S.; Webb, L.J.; Aggarwal, B.B. Cancer drug discovery by repurposing: Teaching new tricks to old dogs. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2013 , 34 , 508–517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Locksley, R.M.; Killeen, N.; Lenardo, M.J. The TNF and TNF receptor superfamilies: Integrating mammalian biology. Cell 2001 , 104 , 487–501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hideshima, T.; Chauhan, D.; Richardson, P.; Mitsiades, C.; Mitsiades, N.; Hayashi, T.; Munshi, N.; Dang, L.; Castro, A.; Palombella, V.; et al. NF-κB as a therapeutic target in multiple myeloma. J. Biol. Chem. 2002 , 277 , 16639–16647. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Singhal, S.; Mehta, J. Thalidomide in cancer. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2002 , 56 , 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kumar, V.; Chhibber, S. Thalidomide: An old drug with new action. J. Chemother. 2011 , 23 , 326–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Solèr, R.A.; Howard, M.; Brink, N.S.; Gibb, D.; Tedder, R.S.; Nadal, D. Regression of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma during therapy with thalidomide. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996 , 23 , 501–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tunio, M.A.; Hashmi, A.; Qayyum, A.; Naimatullah, N.; Masood, R. Low-dose thalidomide in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Brain 2012 , 3 , 3.75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franks, M.E.; Macpherson, G.R.; Figg, W.D. Thalidomide. Lancet 2004 , 363 , 1802–1811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Figg, W.D.; Hussain, M.H.; Gulley, J.L.; Arlen, P.M.; Aragon-Ching, J.B.; Petrylak, D.P.; Higano, C.S.; Steinberg, S.M.; Chatta, G.S.; Parnes, H.; et al. A double-blind randomized crossover study of oral thalidomide versus placebo for androgen dependent prostate cancer treated with intermittent androgen ablation. J. Urol. 2009 , 181 , 1104–1113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghobrial, I.M.; Rajkumar, S.V. Management of thalidomide toxicity. J. Support. Oncol. 2003 , 1 , 194–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Fadul, C.E.; Kingman, L.S.; Meyer, L.P.; Cole, B.F.; Eskey, C.J.; Rhodes, C.H.; Roberts, D.W.; Newton, H.B.; Pipas, J.M. A phase II study of thalidomide and irinotecan for treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2008 , 90 , 229–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Penas-Prado, M.; Hess, K.R.; Fisch, M.J.; Lagrone, L.W.; Groves, M.D.; Levin, V.A.; De Groot, J.F.; Puduvalli, V.K.; Colman, H.; Volas-Redd, G.; et al. Randomized phase II adjuvant factorial study of dose-dense temozolomide alone and in combination with isotretinoin, celecoxib, and/or thalidomide for glioblastoma. Neuro-Oncology 2015 , 17 , 266–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chapman-Shimshoni, D.; Yuklea, M.; Radnay, J.; Shapiro, H.; Lishner, M. Simvastatin induces apoptosis of B-CLL cells by activation of mitochondrial caspase 9. Exp. Hematol. 2003 , 31 , 779–783. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pradelli, D.; Soranna, D.; Zambon, A.; Catapano, A.; Mancia, G.; La Vecchia, C.; Corrao, G. Statins use and the risk of all and subtype hematological malignancies: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Med. 2015 , 4 , 770–780. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yi, X.; Jia, W.; Jin, Y.; Zhen, S. Statin use is associated with reduced risk of haematological malignancies: Evidence from a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e87019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, P.; Liu, B. Statin use and the risk of multiple myeloma: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Ann. Hematol. 2020 , 99 , 1805–1812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Longo, J.; Smirnov, P.; Li, Z.; Branchard, E.; van Leeuwen, J.E.; Licht, J.D.; Haibe-Kains, B.; Andrews, D.W.; Keats, J.J.; Pugh, T.J.; et al. The mevalonate pathway is an actionable vulnerability of t (4; 14)-positive multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2021 , 35 , 796–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Juarez, D.; Buono, R.; Matulis, S.M.; Gupta, V.A.; Duong, M.R.; Yudiono, J.; Paul, M.; Mallya, S.; Diep, G.; Hsin, P.; et al. Statin-induced mitochondrial priming sensitizes multiple myeloma cells to BCL2 and MCL1 inhibitors. Cancer Res. Commun. 2023 , 3 , 2497–2509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cetin, M.; Buyukberber, S.; Demir, M.; Sari, I.; Sari, I.; Deniz, K.; Eser, B.; Altuntas, F.; Camcı, C.; Öztürk, A.; et al. Overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 in multiple myeloma: Association with reduced survival. Am. J. Hematol. 2005 , 80 , 169–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ladetto, M.; Vallet, S.; Trojan, A.; Dell’Aquila, M.; Monitillo, L.; Rosato, R.; Santo, L.; Drandi, D.; Bertola, A.; Falco, P.; et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is frequently expressed in multiple myeloma and is an independent predictor of poor outcome. Blood 2005 , 105 , 4784–4791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Trojan, A.; Tinguely, M.; Vallet, S.; Seifert, B.; Jenni, B.; Zippelius, A.; Witzens-Harig, M.; Mechtersheimer, G.; Ho, A.; Goldschmidt, H.; et al. Clinical significance of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in multiple myeloma. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2006 , 136 , 400–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Jendrossek, V. Targeting apoptosis pathways by Celecoxib in cancer. Cancer Lett. 2013 , 332 , 313–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Steinbach, G.; Lynch, P.M.; Phillips, R.K.; Wallace, M.H.; Hawk, E.; Gordon, G.B.; Wakabayashi, N.; Saunders, B.; Shen, Y.; Fujimura, T.; et al. The effect of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in familial adenomatous polyposis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000 , 342 , 1946–1952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Scilimati, A. Patient Bone Marrow Aspiration to Explore the Cyclooxygenases (COXs) Involvement in Multiple Myeloma. J. Cancer Res. Therap. Oncol. 2021 , 9 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy, P.; Sarkar, U.A.; Basak, S. The NF-κB activating pathways in multiple myeloma. Biomedicines 2018 , 6 , 59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fan, L.; Hong, J.; Huang, H.; Fu, D.; Wu, S.; Wang, Q.; Ye, Y.; Liu, Y. High expression of phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK1/2) is associated with poor prognosis in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Med. Sci. Monit. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2017 , 23 , 2636–2643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, H.; Xiong, C.; Liu, J.; Sun, T.; Ren, Z.; Li, Y.; Geng, J.; Li, X. Aspirin exerts anti-tumor effect through inhibiting Blimp1 and activating ATF4/CHOP pathway in multiple myeloma. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020 , 125 , 110005. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sakamoto, M.; Mikasa, K.; Hamada, K.; Konishi, M.; Maeda, K.; Yoshimoto, E.; Ueda, K.; Majima, T.; Sawaki, M.; Kita, E.; et al. Effect of clarithromycin treatment of natural killer cell activity in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Gan Kagaku Ryoho. Cancer Chemother. 1998 , 25 , 2259–2266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Musto, P.; Falcone, A.; Sanpaolo, G.; Bodenizza, C.; Carotenuto, M.; Carella, A.M. Inefficacy of clarithromycin in advanced multiple myeloma: A definitive report. Haematologica 2002 , 87 , 658–659. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Durie, B. Clarithromycin (Biaxin) as primary treatment for myeloma. Blood 1997 , 90 , 579. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart, A.; Trudel, S.; Al-Berouti, B.; Sutton, D.; Meharchand, J.; Shustik, C. Lack of response to short-term use of clarithromycin (BIAXIN) in multiple myeloma. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 1999 , 93 , 4441–4442. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moreau, P.; Huynh, A.; Facon, T.; Bouilly, I.; Sotto, J.; Legros, L.; Milpied, N.; Attal, M.; Bataille, R.; Harousseau, J.; et al. Lack of efficacy of clarithromycin in advanced multiple myeloma. Leukemia 1999 , 13 , 490–491. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Morris, T.; Ranaghan, L.; Morrison, J.; Group, N.I.R.H. Phase II trial of clarithromycin and pamidronate therapy in myeloma. Med. Oncol. 2001 , 18 , 79–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Coleman, M.; Leonard, J.; Lyons, L.; Pekle, K.; Nahum, K.; Pearse, R.; Niesvizky, R.; Michaeli, J. BLT-D (clarithromycin [Biaxin], low-dose thalidomide, and dexamethasone) for the treatment of myeloma and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia. Leuk. Lymphoma 2002 , 43 , 1777–1782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Morris, T.; Kettle, P.; Drake, M.; Jones, F.; Hull, D.; Boyd, K.; Morrison, A.; Clarke, P.; O’Reilly, P.; Quinn, J. Clarithromycin with low dose dexamethasone and thalidomide is effective therapy in relapsed/refractory myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. 2008 , 143 , 349–354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Puig, N.; Hernández, M.T.; Rosiñol, L.; González, E.; de Arriba, F.; Oriol, A.; González-Calle, V.; Escalante, F.; de la Rubia, J.; Gironella, M.; et al. Lenalidomide and dexamethasone with or without clarithromycin in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous transplant: A randomized trial. Blood Cancer J. 2021 , 11 , 101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Klein, B.; Zhang, X.-G.; Lu, Z.-Y.; Bataille, R. Interleukin-6 in human multiple myeloma. Blood 1995 , 85 , 863–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Khan, A.; Slifer, T.; Araujo, F.; Remington, J. Effect of clarithromycin and azithromycin on production of cytokines by human monocytes. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 1999 , 11 , 121–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moriya, S.; Komatsu, S.; Yamasaki, K.; Kawai, Y.; Kokuba, H.; Hirota, A.; Che, X.F.; Inazu, M.; Gotoh, A.; Hiramoto, M. Targeting the integrated networks of aggresome formation, proteasome, and autophagy potentiates ER stress-mediated cell death in multiple myeloma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 2015 , 46 , 474–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Takemori, N.; Ooi, H.-K.; Imai, G.; Hoshino, K.; Saio, M. Possible mechanisms of action of clarithromycin and its clinical application as a repurposing drug for treating multiple myeloma. Ecancermedicalscience 2020 , 14 , 1088. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sehgal, S.; Baker, H.; Vézina, C. Rapamycin (AY-22, 989), a new antifungal antibiotic II. Fermentation, isolation and characterization. J. Antibiot. 1975 , 28 , 727–732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Saunders, R.N.; Metcalfe, M.S.; Nicholson, M.L. Rapamycin in transplantation: A review of the evidence. Kidney Int. 2001 , 59 , 3–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Laplante, M.; Sabatini, D.M. mTOR signaling at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2009 , 122 , 3589–3594. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ichiyama, T.; Okada, K.; Lipton, J.M.; Matsubara, T.; Hayashi, T.; Furukawa, S. Sodium valproate inhibits production of TNF-α and IL-6 and activation of NF-κB. Brain Res. 2000 , 857 , 246–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, Y.; Hao, C.-L.; Zhang, Z.-H.; Wang, L.-H.; Yan, L.-N.; Zhang, R.-J.; Lin, L.; Yang, Y. Valproic acid increased autophagic flux in human multiple myeloma cells in vitro. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020 , 127 , 110167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, R.; Li, H.; Wang, T.; Yan, L.; Gu, C.; Zhao, L.; Hao, C. Valproic acid activates autophagy in multiple myeloma cell lines RPMI8226 and U266. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Xueyexue Zazhi 2016 , 37 , 478–483. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitazoe, K.-I.; Abe, M.; Hiasa, M.; Oda, A.; Amou, H.; Harada, T.; Nakano, A.; Takeuchi, K.; Hashimoto, T.; Ozaki, S.; et al. Valproic acid exerts anti-tumor as well as anti-angiogenic effects on myeloma. Int. J. Hematol. 2009 , 89 , 45–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Y.; Ikezoe, T.; Takeuchi, T.; Adachi, Y.; Ohtsuki, Y.; Takeuchi, S.; Koeffler, H.P.; Taguchi, H. HIV-1 protease inhibitor induces growth arrest and apoptosis of human prostate cancer LNCaP cells in vitro and in vivo in conjunction with blockade of androgen receptor STAT3 and AKT signaling. Cancer Sci. 2005 , 96 , 425–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kawabata, S.; Gills, J.; Mercado-Matos, J.; Lopiccolo, J.; Wilson, W.; Hollander, M.; Dennis, P. Synergistic effects of nelfinavir and bortezomib on proteotoxic death of NSCLC and multiple myeloma cells. Cell Death Dis. 2012 , 3 , e353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kalender, A.; Selvaraj, A.; Kim, S.Y.; Gulati, P.; Brûlé, S.; Viollet, B.; Kemp, B.E.; Bardeesy, N.; Dennis, P.; Schlager, J.J.; et al. Metformin, independent of AMPK, inhibits mTORC1 in a rag GTPase-dependent manner. Cell Metab. 2010 , 11 , 390–401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Del Barco, S.; Vazquez-Martin, A.; Cufí, S.; Oliveras-Ferraros, C.; Bosch-Barrera, J.; Joven, J.; Martin-Castillo, B.; Menendez, J.A. Metformin: Multi-faceted protection against cancer. Oncotarget 2011 , 2 , 896–917. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Greaves, D.; Calle, Y. Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) and Associated Invasive Adhesions in Solid and Haematological Tumours. Cells 2022 , 11 , 649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Noto, H.; Goto, A.; Tsujimoto, T.; Noda, M. Cancer risk in diabetic patients treated with metformin: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2012 , 7 , e33411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bodmer, M.; Meier, C.; Krähenbühl, S.; Jick, S.S.; Meier, C.R. Long-term metformin use is associated with decreased risk of breast cancer. Diabetes Care 2010 , 33 , 1304–1308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Machado-Neto, J.A.; Fenerich, B.A.; Scopim-Ribeiro, R.; Eide, C.A.; Coelho-Silva, J.L.; Dechandt, C.R.P.; Fernandes, J.C.; Rodrigues Alves, A.P.N.; Scheucher, P.S.; Simões, B.P.; et al. Metformin exerts multitarget antileukemia activity in JAK2V617F-positive myeloproliferative neoplasms. Cell Death Dis. 2018 , 9 , 311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mishra, A.K.; Dingli, D. Metformin inhibits IL-6 signaling by decreasing IL-6R expression on multiple myeloma cells. Leukemia 2019 , 33 , 2695–2709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chang, S.-H.; Luo, S.; O’Brian, K.K.; Thomas, T.S.; Colditz, G.A.; Carlsson, N.P.; Carson, K.R. Association between metformin use and progression of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance to multiple myeloma in US veterans with diabetes mellitus: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2015 , 2 , e30–e36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Boursi, B.; Mamtani, R.; Yang, Y.-X.; Weiss, B.M. Impact of metformin on the progression of MGUS to multiple myeloma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2017 , 58 , 1265–1267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• LeGrand, J.; Park, E.S.; Wang, H.; Gupta, S.; Owens, J.D., Jr.; Nelson, P.J.; DuBois, W.; Bair, T.; Janz, S.; Mushinski, J.F. Global gene expression profiling in mouse plasma cell tumor precursor and bystander cells reveals potential intervention targets for plasma cell neoplasia. Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 2012 , 119 , 1018–1028. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Y.; Zhang, E.; Lv, N.; Ma, L.; Yao, S.; Yan, M.; Zi, F.; Deng, G.; Liu, X.; He, J. Metformin and FTY720 synergistically induce apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2018 , 48 , 785–800. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berenson, J.R. Antitumor effects of bisphosphonates: From the laboratory to the clinic. Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2011 , 5 , 233–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Weinstein, R.S.; Roberson, P.K.; Manolagas, S.C. Giant osteoclast formation and long-term oral bisphosphonate therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 , 360 , 53–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, X.; Hou, Y.; Weng, X.; Pang, W.; Hou, L.; Liang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Du, L.; Wu, T.; Yao, M.; et al. Diethyldithiocarbamate-copper complex (CuET) inhibits colorectal cancer progression via miR-16-5p and 15b-5p/ALDH1A3/PKM2 axis-mediated aerobic glycolysis pathway. Oncogenesis 2021 , 10 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Suh, J.J.; Pettinati, H.M.; Kampman, K.M.; O’Brien, C.P. The status of disulfiram: A half of a century later. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2006 , 26 , 290–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kannappan, V.; Ali, M.; Small, B.; Rajendran, G.; Elzhenni, S.; Taj, H.; Wang, W.; Dou, Q.P. Recent advances in repurposing disulfiram and disulfiram derivatives as copper-dependent anticancer agents. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2021 , 8 , 741316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guo, W.; Wang, H.; Chen, P.; Shen, X.; Zhang, B.; Liu, J.; Peng, H.; Xiao, X. Identification and characterization of multiple myeloma stem cell-like cells. Cancers 2021 , 13 , 3523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jin, N.; Zhu, X.; Cheng, F.; Zhang, L. Disulfiram/copper targets stem cell-like ALDH+ population of multiple myeloma by inhibition of ALDH1A1 and Hedgehog pathway. J. Cell. Biochem. 2018 , 119 , 6882–6893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chai, J.-Y.; Jung, B.-K.; Hong, S.-J. Albendazole and mebendazole as anti-parasitic and anti-cancer agents: An update. Korean J. Parasitol. 2021 , 59 , 189–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, L.-J.; Lee, Y.-C.; Huang, C.-H.; Shi, Y.-J.; Chen, Y.-J.; Pei, S.-N.; Chou, Y.-W.; Chang, L.-S. Non-mitotic effect of albendazole triggers apoptosis of human leukemia cells via SIRT3/ROS/p38 MAPK/TTP axis-mediated TNF-α upregulation. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2019 , 162 , 154–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Al-Odat, O.S.; Nelson, E.; Budak-Alpdogan, T.; Jonnalagadda, S.C.; Desai, D.; Pandey, M.K. Discovering Potential in Non-Cancer Medications: A Promising Breakthrough for Multiple Myeloma Patients. Cancers 2024 , 16 , 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132381

Al-Odat OS, Nelson E, Budak-Alpdogan T, Jonnalagadda SC, Desai D, Pandey MK. Discovering Potential in Non-Cancer Medications: A Promising Breakthrough for Multiple Myeloma Patients. Cancers . 2024; 16(13):2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132381

Al-Odat, Omar S., Emily Nelson, Tulin Budak-Alpdogan, Subash C. Jonnalagadda, Dhimant Desai, and Manoj K. Pandey. 2024. "Discovering Potential in Non-Cancer Medications: A Promising Breakthrough for Multiple Myeloma Patients" Cancers 16, no. 13: 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132381

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals