Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Chiropractic Medicine logoLink to Journal of Chiropractic Medicine
. 2006;5(3):101–117. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6

Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade

Bart N Green a,*, Claire D Johnson b, Alan Adams c
PMCID: PMC2647067  PMID: 19674681

Abstract

Objective

To describe and discuss the process used to write a narrative review of the literature for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication of narrative overviews of the literature should be standardized to increase their objectivity.

Background

In the past decade numerous changes in research methodology pertaining to reviews of the literature have occurred. These changes necessitate authors of review articles to be familiar with current standards in the publication process.

Methods

Narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts.

Discussion

An overview of the use of three types of reviews of the literature is presented. Step by step instructions for how to conduct and write a narrative overview utilizing a ‘best-evidence synthesis’ approach are discussed, starting with appropriate preparatory work and ending with how to create proper illustrations. Several resources for creating reviews of the literature are presented and a narrative overview critical appraisal worksheet is included. A bibliography of other useful reading is presented in an appendix.

Conclusion

Narrative overviews can be a valuable contribution to the literature if prepared properly. New and experienced authors wishing to write a narrative overview should find this article useful in constructing such a paper and carrying out the research process. It is hoped that this article will stimulate scholarly dialog amongst colleagues about this research design and other complex literature review methods.

Key Indexing Terms: Review Literature; Authorship; Peer Review, research; Manuscripts; Meta-analysis

Footnotes

Sources of support: This article is reprinted with permission. Its original citation is: Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil 2001;15:5–19.

References

  • 1.Helewa A, Walker JM. Critical evaluation of research in physical rehabilitation: toward evidence-based practice. W.B. Saunders Co.; Philadelphia: 2000. pp. 109–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Day RA. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 5th ed. The Oryx Press; Phoenix, AZ: 1998. pp. 163–167. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Crombie IK. The pocket guide to critical appraisal. BMJ Publishing Group; London: 1999. pp. 23–29. 56–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gray JAM. Evidence-based health care: how to make health policy and management decisions. Churchill Livingstone; NY: 1997. pp. 72–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lang G, Heiss GD. A practical guide to research methods. University Press of America; Lanham, MD: 1998. pp. 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mendelson T. Evidence-based medicine: a framework for clinincal practice. In: Friedland DJ, editor. Keeping up with the medical literature. Appleton & Lange; Stamford, CT: 1998. pp. 145–150. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gehlbach SH. Interpreting the medical literature. McGraw-Hill, Inc.; NY: 1993. pp. 243–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paperbased journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278–280. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Inc; Upper Saddle River, NJ: 2000. pp. 127–133. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to metaanalysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:9–18. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hutchinson BG. Critical Appraisal of Review Articles. Can Fam Physician. 1993;39:1097–1102. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sackett DL. Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:61–66. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00085-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMA J. 1988;138:697–703. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–1278. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dixon RA, Munro JF, Silcocks PB. The evidence based medicine workbook: critical appraisal for clinical problem solving. Butterworth-Heinemann; Woburn, MA: 1998. pp. 148–166. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature, VI. How to use an overview. JAMA. 1994;272:1367–1371. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.17.1367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to research: multiple strategies for health and human services. Mosby-Year Book, Inc; St. Louis: 1993. pp. 61–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Oxman AD. Systematic reviews: checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994;309:648–651. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6955.648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. BMJ Publishing Group; London: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ball C, Sackett D, Phillips B, Haynes B, Straus S. Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (cited 1999 Nov 18] Available from: URL: http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/docs/levels.html
  • 22.Friedland DJ. Evaluating integrative literature. In: Friedland DJ, editor. Evidence-based medicine: a framework for clinincal practice. Appleton & Lange; Stamford, CT: 1998. pp. 221–246. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Chuchill Livingstone; Edinburgh: 2000. pp. 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Polgar S, Thomas SA. Introduction to research in the health sciences. 3rd ed. Churchill Livingstone; Melbourne: 1995. pp. 343–355. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351:123–127. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08468-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chalmers I. Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside: discussion. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:67–70. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00085-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:133–146. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00136-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lawrence DJ, Mootz RD. Research Agenda Conference 3: editor's presentation: streamlining manuscript submission to scientific journals. J Neuromusculosket Syst. 1998;6:161–167. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Green BN, Johnson CD. Writing patient case reports for peer reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil. 2000;14:51–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sackett DL. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. CMAJ. 1981;124:555–558. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lawrence DJ. Structured abstracts and the JMPT. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1992;15:77–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Willis JC. Notes for authors. Chiropr Hist. 2000;20:5. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Chiropractic Medicine are provided here courtesy of National University of Health Sciences

RESOURCES