Beyond summarizing: A guide to literature review in vascular surgery

The role of literature reviews in vascular surgery

In the rapidly evolving field of vascular surgery, conducting a comprehensive literature review is crucial for keeping researchers and clinicians informed about the latest advancements, refining clinical practices, and guiding future research directions.¹ These articles can offer readers numerous benefits, including identifying research gaps and controversies, assessing the efficacy and safety of interventional techniques, and informing the development of relevant research questions.² In contrast, challenges such as the overwhelming volume of medical literature, the need for critical evaluation skills, and time constraints can hinder effective reviews. Moreover, this crucial research stage necessitates synthesizing a significant body of existing scholarship and establishing a clear trajectory for contributions.

Nevertheless, the common misconception of a literature review as a simple collection of summaries overlooks its true purpose. Although summarizing relevant studies is part of the process, the primary goal is much broader. A strong literature review shows a deep understanding of the research area and pinpoints specific gaps in existing knowledge. It prioritizes critical evaluation over mere description. This process involves identifying recurring themes and methodological trends, as well as discerning where studies agree and disagree. It also requires evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different research methods and their impact on findings, while explicitly connecting the existing literature to the research question and clarifying how it builds on previous work, challenges assumptions, or addresses a recognized gap in the field. In this complex scenario, practical recommendations and strategic approaches should be followed, especially in the development of a vascular research project.^3,4

Choosing the right type of literature review

Literature reviews vary in type, each serving a distinct purpose and requiring different methodologies. For example, systematic reviews follow a highly structured and rigorous process, adhering to predefined protocols to minimize bias and synthesize evidence from multiple studies on a specific research question. Moreover, narrative reviews offer broad overviews of a topic, summarizing and interpreting existing literature without a strict methodological framework, making them useful for contextual understanding. Scoping reviews aim to map key concepts, identify gaps in research, and provide an initial assessment of the available evidence on a given topic, often serving as a precursor to systematic reviews. Finally, meta-analyses take systematic reviews a step further by statistically combining data from multiple studies to derive more robust conclusions about treatment efficacy, risk factors, or associations, thereby enhancing the overall strength of evidence. This structure can be found outlined in the Journal of Vascular Surgery guide for authors, section article type descriptions, subsection review articles.

To guide a trainee in approaching these different modalities, we suggest first identifying the research objective—whether it requires a structured, evidence-synthesizing approach, as in a systematic review or meta-analysis, or a broader, exploratory perspective, as in a narrative or scoping review—and then selecting the appropriate methodology, ensuring alignment with the intended product and research question.

A step-by-step guide

Although the specific structures may vary by discipline and research scope, fundamental principles apply. An analytic framework must guide the development process, addressing key elements such as the research question (eg, what is the central question of the study?), methodology (eg, what approaches were employed?), key findings and relevance to current research, and study limitations (eg, implications for generalizability?).

The review typically begins with an introduction, concisely stating the research domain and specific focus, and outlining key themes and research questions. The body of the review organizes content thematically or chronologically; synthesizing the relevant literature within each section; emphasizing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical perspectives; and grouping studies by shared characteristics rather than summarizing them individually. A synthesis and critical analysis section then transitions from summarization to analysis, identifying patterns, contradictions, gaps, and critically evaluating the strengths and limitations of the studies.⁵ Crucially, the review connects the literature to the researcher's specific objectives, explaining how the proposed work builds on prior research, addresses gaps, or challenges assumptions.

Concerning methodology, adhering to reporting guidelines, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)⁶ or Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for systematic and scoping reviews,⁷ enhances the credibility and reproducibility of the review. Tables and figures can effectively illustrate key trends and comparisons. Furthermore, ethical considerations, including transparency in methodology, avoiding bias, and disclosing potential conflicts of interest, are paramount in conducting a literature review. Importantly, maintaining a detailed record of the search process and inclusion and exclusion decisions ensures reproducibility. For this purpose, systematic organization is crucial. For example, reference management tools like Zotero or Mendeley for thorough recordkeeping are commonly implemented.⁸ Furthermore, a key step is a recommendation for future research. For this aim, researchers must propose areas for further exploration based on identified gaps. For example, for vascular training and education, exploring the role of technology such as artificial intelligence and machine learning in the field of vascular surgery can be influential.⁹ Finally, the conclusion summarizes key findings and reiterates the research's significance.¹⁰

Conducting a literature review in vascular surgery

When conducting a literature review in the field of vascular surgery, several key factors must be considered to ensure the process is thorough and results in valuable insights. For example, the literature search is the foundation of the review and must be accurately performed to produce a high-quality final product. The selected databases, such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, ensure access to high-quality scientific output (eg, peer-reviewed articles from relevant journals in the field). It is also important to review the landmark papers on the topic, as well as more recent studies that inform on the contemporary state of the topic. This step can also be useful for an in-depth understanding of the topic. Given the complexity of the medical field, accurate selection of keywords is vital. The terms should cover all relevant aspects of vascular surgery, including specific techniques, conditions, treatments, and outcomes. Using synonyms and specific terminology will help to capture all the necessary studies. Researchers must also consider that vascular surgery is a fast-evolving field, making it essential to incorporate recent studies to reflect the latest advancements, treatments, and techniques. Emerging issues of pivotal importance for trainees include the content of training, such as theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and professional attitudes, as well as new technologies, surgical approaches, and patient outcomes.

Once the databases have been selected, it is essential to define the criteria that will be followed to determine which relevant studies should be included or excluded in the literature review. For example, if the focus is on the outcomes of endovascular treatments for a particular condition, only studies that evaluate those specific treatments should be included (Table).

Table.

Framework for conducting a literature review in vascular surgery

Step	Key considerations	Best practices	Relevant guidelines
1. Define the research question	Identify a focused clinical question in vascular surgery (eg, effectiveness of endovascular vs open repair in aortic aneurysms).	Use frameworks such as PICO (for interventional studies) or SPIDER (for qualitative research).	PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols)
2. Select databases and sources	Choose relevant sources, including surgical and vascular journals.	Use Boolean operators and filters to refine searches in different databases.	Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews
3. Identify and use keywords	Ensure comprehensive search terms, including anatomical, procedural, and clinical terms (eg, “peripheral arterial disease,” “stent graft,” and “bypass surgery”).	Implement controlled vocabulary like MeSH terms in PubMed (eg, "Endovascular Procedures" AND "Aneurysm, Abdominal").	PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies)
4. Set inclusion/exclusion criteria	Define study eligibility based on population (eg, patients with chronic limb ischemia), interventions (eg, angioplasty vs bypass), and outcomes (eg, limb salvage rate).	Justify criteria to enhance transparency and reproducibility; avoid outdated techniques unless for historical comparisons.	PRISMA, Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual
5. Screen and select studies	Use a structured screening process (title/abstract screening, then full-text review).	Follow PRISMA guidelines and document reasons for exclusions (eg, lack of control group, outdated techniques).	PRISMA Flow Diagram, Cochrane Guidelines
6. Extract and synthesize data	Identify key themes, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes.	Use structured tables comparing procedural success rates, complications, and long-term outcomes.	PRISMA, MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology)
7. Critically analyze the literature	Assess methodological quality, biases, and study limitations in vascular trials (eg, single-center vs multicenter trials).	Use risk-of-bias tools like AMSTAR 2 for systematic reviews and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies.	AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews), ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions)
8. Structure the review	Organize findings by clinical relevance (eg, acute vs chronic arterial occlusion management) or intervention type (eg, open vs endovascular repair).	Maintain coherence and logical flow in discussion; use clinical pathway diagrams when applicable.	PRISMA, Cochrane Handbook
9. Address gaps and future directions	Identify research gaps, such as under-reported long-term complications of vascular grafts or lack of randomized trials on new stent designs.	Highlight unresolved questions and areas for further investigation, considering ongoing trials (eg, clinicaltrials.gov).	PRISMA, ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research)
10. Cite and manage references	Ensure proper citation of clinical trials, guidelines, and large registry studies (eg, VASCUNET project).	Use citation management tools such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote.	PRISMA, EQUATOR Network Guidelines

PRISMA, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Key challenges

Effective literature reviews require careful attention to avoid common pitfalls that can undermine their quality and impact. Mitigation strategies can be adopted. For example, emphasizing synthesis and critical analysis—not simply descriptive reporting—overcomes the pitfall of a mere summarization of studies. Additionally, researchers should articulate explicitly the relationship between the literature and the research question to prevent disconnection from research objectives. More important, the issue of plagiarism must be faced by adhering to strict citation practices and avoiding paraphrasing without proper attribution. Finally, researchers should review the guidelines of their target journal carefully before initiating their review.

On these premises, it is evident that, even in the field of vascular research, constructing a compelling literature review is a demanding yet intellectually stimulating endeavor. By adhering to these guidelines and adopting a critical and analytical approach, researchers can construct a robust foundation of knowledge that not only demonstrates expertise within the field but also provides a solid platform for their scholarly contributions. The literature review should be conceptualized not merely as a summary of extant research, but rather as a critical evaluation of the current state of knowledge and a strategic roadmap for future inquiry, within which the researcher's work plays an integral and significant role.

Funding

None.

Disclosures

None.