Week 10

Research
Proposal
Literature
Writing the Literature Review (Part 2): From Notes to a Narrative
Author

Dr Samuel Nguah

Published

October 18, 2025

“Wisdom does not come overnight; a careful builder lays each brick with patience.”

Last Week’s Recap

Last week, we explored how to collect, organise, and appraise relevant literature, moving beyond a pile of PDFs to a structured understanding of what has been said before. This week, we go a step further, transforming that understanding into a coherent, critical story that sets the foundation for your study.

Introduction

You’ve gathered dozens of journal articles, highlighted sentences, and summarised paragraphs. Yet, staring at your blank Word document, you wonder: How do I turn all this into a flowing literature review that makes sense?

The literature review isn’t just a list of what others found; it’s your chance to show your intellectual muscles. You are telling the reader: “I understand what has been done, where the gaps are, and why my study matters.”

This week’s goal is simple: Learn how to move from information gathering to insight creation.

The Art of Weaving the Story

A good literature review reads like a conversation, not a census of studies. Think of it as hosting a dinner party where each guest (study) has something meaningful to say. You, the host (researcher), guide the discussion so it flows naturally toward your topic.

Here’s how to make that happen:

Structure with Purpose

Most literature reviews in medical research follow one of three structures:

  1. Chronological: You describe how knowledge has evolved over time.
  2. Thematic: You group studies by themes (e.g., epidemiology, clinical features, and outcomes of severe malaria).
  3. Methodological: You organise based on study design or method.

👉 Choose one structure and be consistent. Mixing them makes the review messy and confusing.

Start Broad, Then Narrow Down

Imagine zooming in with a camera:

  1. Begin with the global picture: What is known about the topic internationally.
  2. Narrow down to regional evidence, focusing on Africa or similar LMIC contexts.
  3. Then zoom into national and local data: What has been found (or not found) in Ghana, Nigeria, or your study site.

This approach not only shows you understand the global context but also justifies why your local study is relevant.

Be Critical, Not Just Descriptive

Saying “Agyeman et al. (2019) found that 30% of children with severe malaria had anaemia” is descriptive.
But saying “While Agyeman et al. (2019) reported high anaemia rates, the small sample size and single-centre design limit generalizability” is critical.

Note

Your review should highlight:

  1. What was done well
  2. What was missing
  3. What was contradictory
  4. What your study will add

That’s how you demonstrate mastery.

Create Logical Flow Between Paragraphs

Each paragraph should connect naturally to the next. Think of them as chapters in a story. Use linking sentences such as:

  • “While most studies have focused on mortality, few have examined long-term neurological outcomes.” or
  • “In contrast to hospital-based studies, community surveys paint a different picture of malaria prevalence.”

These transitions make your review readable and coherent.

Summarise, Don’t Suffocate

Avoid turning your review into a bibliography dump. Group similar studies together and summarise their combined message. For example:

“Several studies in sub-Saharan Africa have reported declining malaria mortality rates in under-fives (Adjei et al., 2017; Kamya et al., 2019; Toure et al., 2021), though rural-urban disparities persist.”

This approach keeps your review crisp and analytical rather than cluttered.

Use Tables to Organize Complex Information

Author (Year) Study Design Population Key Findings Gaps Identified
Agyeman et al., 2019 Cross-sectional 250 children with severe malaria, Ghana 30% had severe anemia Single-center
Kamya et al., 2020 Cohort 1,200 Ugandan children Predictors of mortality: coma, hypoglycemia No community follow-up
Toure et al., 2021 Retrospective 400 cases, Mali 12% mortality, late presentation Missing lab data

Tables save words and clarify complex comparisons at a glance.

End with a Gap and Transition

“Although several studies have described mortality patterns in severe malaria, few have explored predictive clinical and laboratory markers in Ghana’s middle-belt region, where malaria transmission is perennial. Understanding these predictors could inform early interventions and reduce mortality.”

This transition connects your review directly to your study’s justification or rationale.

Example of a Literature Review Summary Paragraph

“Globally, malaria remains a leading cause of under-five mortality, with sub-Saharan Africa bearing the greatest burden. Several studies have explored predictors of mortality in severe malaria, identifying variables such as coma, acidosis, and hypoglycemia. In Ghana, however, data are limited, and most studies are from the northern regions. There is a paucity of contemporary data from the Ashanti region, where transmission is intense year-round. Identifying local predictors of mortality will help tailor interventions to reduce childhood deaths.”

Take-home Message

A literature review is not about showing how much you’ve read, it’s about showing how well you’ve understood. Think of yourself as building a bridge between what is known and what you will discover.

Your review should:

  1. Provide background and context
  2. Demonstrate critical appraisal
  3. Reveal gaps in knowledge
  4. Lead directly into your study’s justification

If your supervisor reads your review and says, “Now I see why this study is needed!” congratulations, you’ve nailed it!

Next Week’s Topic

Next week, we’ll dive into “Writing the Literature Review (Part 3): How to Reference, Integrate, and Avoid Plagiarism Without Losing Your Mind.” Until then, keep your EndNote organized, your coffee strong, and your highlighters uncapped! ✍🏽

References

  1. Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

  2. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–117.
    doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6

  3. Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104:333–339.
    doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039