Week 9

Research
Proposal
Literature
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Writing the Literature Review (Part 1)
Author

Dr Samuel Blay Nguah

Published

October 4, 2025

“Wisdom does not come overnight; it is gathered piece by piece by those who seek the truth.”

Recap…

Last week, we learned how to state a solid hypothesis, your bold prediction that keeps reviewers awake and statisticians employed.

Introduction

Congratulations! You’ve defined your research question, justified your study, and crafted clear objectives. Now comes the part that makes many residents sigh, scroll endlessly through PubMed, and whisper to themselves, “Wasn’t this supposed to be the easy part?” Yes, dear reader, it’s time to tackle the literature review.

The literature review is the foundation upon which your proposal rests. It demonstrates that you know what’s been done, what’s missing, and why your study is necessary. Think of it as your opportunity to show the assessors that you didn’t wake up one morning and decide to study “something interesting.” Rather, you’ve surveyed the landscape, identified the gaps, and are now ready to build something meaningful on that ground.

Why Write a Literature Review?

A literature review is not an exercise in showing how many articles you can download. Rather, it’s a strategic narrative that:

  1. Provides context for your study.
  2. Shows gaps in existing knowledge.
  3. Demonstrates familiarity with prior work in your field.
  4. Justifies your study design and approach.
  5. Lays the groundwork for your hypothesis or research objectives.

In short, it tells the story of what is known, what is unknown, and what you intend to discover.

According to Green et al. (2006), a well-written literature review “clarifies the conceptual framework of the research and situates it within existing theory and evidence.”¹

What is a Literature Review?

Many senior residents make the same newbie mistake by confusing “reviewing literature” with “listing literature.”. Literature review is:

  • Not: “Ten studies have shown this. Five studies have shown that.”
  • But: “Most studies in sub-Saharan Africa have focused on hospitalised populations, leaving community-level prevalence under-explored.”

A good review is synthesised, not summarised. It connects the dots instead of scattering them.

Step 1: Searching for the Evidence

Start with broad search terms and then narrow them. Use recognised databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online (AJOL) to capture both global and local evidence.

Tips for efficient searching:

  1. Use Boolean operators (“AND”, “OR”, “NOT”) to refine your searches.
  2. Set filters (last 10 years, humans, children, English).
  3. Keep a search diary; your assessors might wonder how you identified your sources.
  4. Don’t forget the grey literature (theses, Ministry of Health reports, WHO bulletins).

Example: For “Predictors of mortality in severe malaria in children,” start with “severe malaria AND children AND mortality” and later narrow to “predictors of mortality in severe malaria AND Ghana.”

Step 2: Sorting What You’ve Found

After collecting papers, don’t rush to read everything. Skim abstracts first. Keep only what’s relevant to:

  1. Your study population (e.g., children under 5 years).
  2. Your geographical region (e.g., West Africa).
  3. Your study question (e.g., mortality predictors).

Use a reference manager like Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote, and your sanity will thank you later.

Organise your papers into thematic folders:

  1. Epidemiology and burden
  2. Risk factors
  3. Clinical presentation
  4. Management and outcomes
  5. Knowledge gaps

This thematic organisation will guide your writing structure later.

Step 3: Structuring Your Review

A literature review generally follows a funnel structure, from the general to the specific:

  1. Start broad: Describe the global picture (e.g., global burden of severe malaria).
  2. Narrow down: Move to African studies, then to Ghana or your study region.
  3. Zoom in: Highlight specific knowledge gaps directly linked to your research question.

This approach mirrors what most assessors expect in both WACP and GCPS proposals, a logical flow from context to rationale.

Example:
- Global: “Severe malaria remains a leading cause of childhood mortality in sub-Saharan Africa.”
- Regional: “In West Africa, despite improved diagnostic capacity, mortality remains high.”
- Local: “In Kumasi, data on predictors of mortality among children with severe malaria are limited.”

Step 4: Critical Reading

Don’t just report what authors found, evaluate it. Ask:

  1. Was the study design appropriate?
  2. Were the sample sizes adequate?
  3. How similar are their settings to mine?
  4. What did they miss?

This critical analysis shows your maturity as a researcher. It distinguishes a literature review from a literature recital. As Grant & Booth (2009) put it, “A review that merely summarises is of limited value; synthesis that provides new perspectives is the hallmark of scholarship.”²

Step 5: Identifying the Gaps

Once you’ve summarised and critiqued, highlight what remains unanswered. For instance:

“Although several studies in Ghana have explored severe malaria outcomes, none have specifically examined the role of metabolic derangements as predictors of mortality among children under five.”

This statement naturally leads to your justification and objectives.

Take-Home Message

Your literature review is not a dump of articles; it’s your intellectual argument about what is known, what is not known, and why your study matters. Think of it as your academic GPS; it tells readers where you are coming from, where you are, and where you are headed.

So, before you start writing, plan your route. Search smart, organise your findings, and critically appraise your sources. Remember: You are not writing to impress, but to inform.

Next Week…

Next week, we’ll roll up our sleeves and tackle “Writing and Synthesising the Literature Review (Part 2)”, where you’ll learn how to blend findings like a master chef, not just serve them raw.

Until then, remember: A researcher who copies too much literature ends up reviewing their supervisor’s patience instead of the evidence! See you next week.

References

  1. 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.
  2. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.