Literature Review in Nursing Research
On this page
Direct answer
Behind every defensible study stands a defensible review of what is already known: the literature review locates the study in existing knowledge, identifies the gap it will fill, prevents duplication, sharpens methodology by borrowing instruments and designs that worked, and builds the theoretical framework for interpreting results. Doing one is a procedure, not a formality: define the scope and question, design a search strategy — databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library; keywords and MeSH terms in Boolean combinations — set inclusion and exclusion criteria, screen titles and abstracts, retrieve and critically appraise the full texts, synthesise, and report honestly what was searched, where and when. The review chapter is where examiners first test whether a researcher understands the field or merely copy-assembled it.
What you must remember
- Purposes (the exam list): identify the research gap, avoid duplication, justify the question, inform the methodology and instruments, provide the conceptual framework, and situate the findings for discussion.
- Core databases: PubMed/MEDLINE for biomedical literature, CINAHL for nursing and allied health, the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and trials — supplemented by regional repositories and Indian journals.
- Search craft: MeSH terms plus free-text synonyms; Boolean operators — AND narrows, OR broadens, NOT excludes; filters for year, language and study type; reference-list hand-searching for missed papers.
- Steps in order: define the question and scope, set criteria, search, screen titles and abstracts, retrieve full texts, appraise critically, synthesise, write — documenting the flow at every stage.
- Types: narrative (broad, selective synthesis), integrative (combining diverse methods), scoping (mapping a field), systematic (protocol-driven, exhaustive, answers a focused question), meta-analysis (statistical pooling of comparable studies within a systematic review).
- Critical appraisal: judge methodology, sampling, validity of tools, findings and generalisability — CASP-style checklists keep it honest.
- Grey literature: theses, conference proceedings, government reports — including them counters publication bias.
- Writing ethics: paraphrase with citation; plagiarism and self-plagiarism end dissertations; Vancouver style dominates Indian health science journals.
A dissertation review, step by step
An M.Sc nursing student plans a study on nurse-led preoperative education and anxiety. Her review question: what is known about preoperative education formats and their effect on patient anxiety? Scope set — adults, elective surgery, the last fifteen years — she builds the strategy: (patient education OR preoperative teaching) AND anxiety AND nursing, run in PubMed and CINAHL with MeSH equivalents, then hand-searching the reference lists of everything she keeps. Screening: 214 titles, then 61 abstracts, then 23 full texts meeting the criteria; exclusions logged with reasons — a PRISMA-style flow diagram where the review claims to be systematic. Appraisal: trials checked for randomisation and blinding; tools checked for validity; one strong Indian study surfaces and anchors relevance to her population. Synthesis: themes — timing of education before surgery, format (booklet versus face-to-face), family inclusion — and the gap: no studies of regional-language booklet education in Indian district hospitals, which becomes her justification almost verbatim. The final paragraph of her review chapter writes her study's rationale for her — that is what a review is for.
Exam and viva angles
The confusion pair: narrative versus systematic review — a selective expert summary versus a protocol-driven, exhaustive, reproducible synthesis; and meta-analysis is statistical pooling, not a synonym for systematic review. Viva examiners test process honesty: which databases, which terms, how many hits, why papers were excluded — "I searched PubMed" alone sinks the answer. And remember the pyramid: systematic reviews with meta-analysis sit above randomised trials in the evidence hierarchy.
Frequently asked questions
Why is the literature review the first step of research?
It identifies the gap, prevents duplication, justifies the question and supplies validated instruments — a study without it risks repeating existing work or asking an irrelevant question.
Which databases should a nursing review search at minimum?
PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by regional repositories and reference-list hand-searching.
How does a systematic review differ from a narrative review?
A systematic review follows a pre-defined protocol — focused question, exhaustive search, explicit criteria, reproducible screening — while a narrative review selects and synthesises broadly and subjectively.
What is a meta-analysis?
The statistical pooling of results from comparable studies — typically randomised trials — conducted within a systematic review and sitting at the apex of the evidence hierarchy.
What is grey literature and why include it?
Unpublished or non-journal material — theses, reports, conference abstracts — whose inclusion counters publication bias, the tendency of negative results to vanish from journals.