Best examples of systematic literature review format (with real structures you can copy)

Real-world examples of systematic literature review format you can model

Let’s start with what you actually want: real examples of systematic literature review format that you can borrow from. Different fields tweak the details, but the backbone is surprisingly consistent.

Think of a typical high‑quality systematic review as having these core parts in this rough order:

• Structured title and abstract
• Clear research question (often using PICO or a similar framework)
• Methods section with search strategy, screening, and quality appraisal
• Results organized around themes, outcomes, or sub‑questions
• Discussion, limitations, and implications

The best examples of examples of systematic literature review format show these same pieces, just adapted to their discipline and journal.

Health sciences: example of systematic literature review format using PRISMA

Health and medical fields give some of the cleanest examples of systematic literature review format, because they often follow PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).

A typical health‑science format looks like this:

Title
“Effectiveness of Telehealth Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”

Notice how the title:

• Names the population and intervention
• Signals “Systematic Review” or “Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” explicitly

Structured Abstract
Most medical journals require subheadings, such as:

• Background
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusions

Main Sections
You’ll usually see:

• Introduction – Brief context, why the question matters, and a clear objective (e.g., “to evaluate the effectiveness of telehealth interventions on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes”).

• Methods – This is where the systematic part is made visible. Strong examples of systematic literature review format in health research include:

  • Protocol registration (e.g., PROSPERO ID)
  • Eligibility criteria (PICO or similar)
  • Databases searched (e.g., PubMed, Embase, CINAHL)
  • Search dates and key terms
  • Study selection process, often with a PRISMA flow diagram
  • Risk of bias/quality assessment tools (e.g., Cochrane RoB 2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale)
  • Data extraction and synthesis approach

• Results – Often structured as:

  • Study selection narrative (with numbers that match the PRISMA diagram)
  • Study characteristics table (sample size, country, design, outcomes)
  • Risk of bias summary
  • Outcome‑specific subsections (e.g., “Glycemic outcomes,” “Adherence outcomes,” “Adverse events”)

• Discussion – Interprets findings, compares to prior work, notes limitations, and offers practice/policy implications.

• Conclusion – Short, focused, and aligned with the original objective.

For a gold‑standard reference, look at the PRISMA 2020 statement and example flow diagrams from the official site: https://www.prisma-statement.org.

Education research: examples include narrative‑rich but still systematic formats

Education journals often prefer more narrative flow, but strong examples of systematic literature review format still keep the same logic.

Imagine a review titled:

“Technology‑Enhanced Formative Assessment in K‑12 Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence (2010–2024)”

Here’s how this might be structured:

• Introduction – Sets up the problem (e.g., pressure for data‑driven instruction, growth of classroom tech), then narrows to a clear question, such as: “How has technology‑enhanced formative assessment affected student achievement and teacher practice in K‑12 settings since 2010?”

• Methodology – Education reviews that are good examples of examples of systematic literature review format often include:

  • Databases (ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus)
  • Inclusion criteria (grade levels, subject areas, study designs)
  • Exclusion criteria (e.g., conceptual papers without empirical data)
  • Search strings in an appendix
  • Coding framework for extracting variables (e.g., subject, tech type, assessment strategy, outcomes)

• Results – Frequently organized thematically rather than by single outcome measure. For example:

  • “Impact on Student Achievement”
  • “Impact on Formative Feedback Quality”
  • “Teacher Implementation and Professional Learning”

• Discussion – Connects themes to theories of learning, points out gaps (e.g., limited research in early elementary grades), and suggests directions for practice and future research.

For education‑specific guidance, see resources from institutions like Harvard Graduate School of Education, which often share guidelines and examples of literature review structures: https://guides.library.harvard.edu.

Psychology and social sciences: example of a mixed‑methods systematic review format

Psychology and broader social sciences often use mixed‑methods systematic reviews. These are great examples of systematic literature review format when you need to integrate both quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Consider a review titled:

“Workplace Mindfulness Programs and Employee Well‑Being: A Mixed‑Methods Systematic Review”

The format might look like this:

• Introduction – Brief overview of workplace stress trends, the rise of mindfulness programs, and a focused question (e.g., “What is the impact of workplace mindfulness interventions on stress, burnout, and job satisfaction?”).

• Methods – Here, strong examples of examples of systematic literature review format will clearly separate quantitative and qualitative elements:

  • Search strategy and databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Business Source Complete)
  • Inclusion criteria (employee populations, intervention characteristics, outcomes)
  • Quality appraisal tools for both quantitative (e.g., randomized trial checklists) and qualitative (e.g., CASP) studies
  • Data synthesis: meta‑analysis for quantitative data and thematic synthesis for qualitative data

• Results – Often split into two main parts:

  • Quantitative outcomes (e.g., effect sizes on stress and burnout)
  • Qualitative themes (e.g., perceived barriers to participation, cultural fit, leadership support)

• Integrated Discussion – Brings both strands together, explaining how the numbers and narratives align or conflict.

For psychology students, the APA’s guidance on systematic reviews and meta‑analyses is a helpful reference: https://apastyle.apa.org.

Computer science and engineering: examples include protocol‑style formats

In computer science and engineering, systematic reviews are often called “systematic mappings” or “systematic literature reviews” and follow protocol‑style formats.

An example title:

“Systematic Review of Deep Learning Approaches for Medical Image Segmentation (2015–2024)”

The structure of these examples of systematic literature review format typically includes:

• Introduction – Technical context (e.g., why segmentation matters in diagnostics) and a narrow question, such as: “How have deep learning architectures been applied to medical image segmentation, and what performance trends are observable over time?”

• Research Questions – Sometimes listed as RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, for example:

  • RQ1: What types of deep learning architectures are most commonly used?
  • RQ2: What datasets and evaluation metrics are used?
  • RQ3: How has performance changed over time?

• Method – Good examples of examples of systematic literature review format in CS are very explicit about:

  • Digital libraries (IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus)
  • Search strings with technical terms
  • Inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., peer‑reviewed, human medical imaging, segmentation tasks)
  • Data extraction schema (architecture type, dataset, metrics, hardware, runtime)

• Results – Often presented with:

  • Tables summarizing architectures and datasets
  • Plots or narrative summaries of performance metrics over time
  • Subsections by architecture family (e.g., U‑Net variants, transformer‑based models)

• Threats to Validity – A section that is very common in engineering reviews, explicitly acknowledging publication bias, search limitations, and potential misclassification.

Nursing and public health: best examples of practice‑oriented systematic review format

Nursing and public health reviews are highly practice‑oriented and provide some of the best examples of systematic literature review format for students who need to tie evidence to clinical guidelines.

A typical title might be:

“Nurse‑Led Interventions to Reduce Hospital Readmissions in Heart Failure Patients: A Systematic Review”

The format often includes:

• Clinical Question – Frequently framed using PICO:

  • Population: Adults with heart failure
  • Intervention: Nurse‑led discharge planning and follow‑up
  • Comparison: Usual care
  • Outcome: 30‑day readmission, mortality, quality of life

• Methods – Strong examples of systematic literature review format in this area usually show:

  • Use of clinical databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library)
  • Clear time frame (e.g., 2010–2024)
  • Study design filters (e.g., randomized controlled trials, quasi‑experimental)
  • Quality appraisal using tools like the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists

• Results – Often organized by type of nurse‑led intervention:

  • Discharge education programs
  • Home visit programs
  • Telemonitoring and telephone follow‑up

• Implications for Practice – A dedicated section translating findings into recommendations for nurses and healthcare systems.

For methodology standards, the Cochrane Handbook is still a widely respected reference: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.

How to design your own format based on these examples

Looking across these examples of examples of systematic literature review format, a pattern emerges. You don’t need to copy any one paper; you need to adapt the common structure to your topic and audience.

Here’s a practical way to think about your own format:

1. Match your field’s conventions
Health and nursing reviews lean heavily on PRISMA and PICO. Education and social sciences may emphasize theories and themes. Engineering and CS favor protocol‑style layouts with numbered research questions. When you look for real examples of systematic literature review format, prioritize journals and theses in your own field.

2. Make methods auditable, not mysterious
The hallmark of a systematic review is that someone else could, in theory, repeat your search and screening. So in your Methods section:

• List the databases and time frame
• Show your inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Describe your screening process (e.g., two independent reviewers)
• Name the quality appraisal tools you used

3. Use tables and structured subsections
The best examples of systematic literature review format don’t hide detail in walls of text. They:

• Use tables to summarize study characteristics
• Break Results into clear subsections aligned with research questions or themes
• Separate “What we found” (Results) from “What it means” (Discussion)

4. Be explicit about limitations and bias
High‑quality examples of examples of systematic literature review format always have a candid limitations section. Common points include:

• Restricted to English‑language studies
• Database limitations
• Publication bias (few null results)
• Heterogeneity that prevented meta‑analysis

This honesty doesn’t weaken your review; it shows you understand how evidence actually works.

2024–2025 trends affecting systematic review formats

If you’re writing now, you’re not working in a vacuum. There are clear trends shaping examples of systematic literature review format published in 2024–2025:

• More protocol registration – Registering protocols (e.g., on PROSPERO for health topics) is increasingly expected, especially for graduate theses and journal submissions.

• Open science practices – Journals are asking for access to search strategies, screening forms, and even extracted data sets in repositories.

• AI‑assisted screening (with transparency) – Tools that help screen abstracts faster are appearing, but reviewers are expected to disclose if and how they used them and to keep human oversight.

• Equity and diversity lenses – Newer examples of systematic literature review format often include attention to population diversity, social determinants, or equity impacts, especially in health and education.

• Living systematic reviews – In fast‑moving fields (e.g., COVID‑19, AI in healthcare), some teams maintain “living” reviews that are updated regularly. The format is similar, but they clearly mark update cycles and versioning.

Organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) publish technical reports that are excellent real examples of systematic literature review format in practice:

• NIH: https://www.nih.gov
• AHRQ Evidence‑based Practice Center reports: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov

FAQ: examples of systematic literature review format

Q1. Where can I find free real examples of systematic literature review format?
Look at open‑access journals in your field and at government or university reports. For health topics, AHRQ and NIH reports are solid examples of systematic literature review format. For education and social sciences, check your university’s thesis repository and journals that label articles as “systematic review” or “systematic literature review.”

Q2. What is an example of a good systematic review title?
A strong title is specific and signals the design. For example: “Digital Interventions for Adolescent Depression: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials (2005–2024).” This tells readers the population, intervention, design, and time frame in one line.

Q3. Do all systematic reviews need a PRISMA flow diagram?
In health and related fields, almost all modern examples of systematic literature review format use a PRISMA‑style flow diagram. In other disciplines, it may be strongly recommended rather than mandatory, but it’s still a smart move to visually show how you went from thousands of records to the final set of studies.

Q4. Can I combine a systematic review with a meta‑analysis?
Yes, many of the best examples include both. The systematic review provides the structured search and screening; the meta‑analysis statistically pools comparable quantitative results. When studies are too heterogeneous, authors often stick to a narrative synthesis instead.

Q5. How long should a systematic literature review be?
There’s no single page limit. Journal articles often run 5,000–8,000 words, while theses can be longer. What matters is that your format looks like the strong examples of examples of systematic literature review format you see in your field: clear question, transparent methods, organized results, and thoughtful discussion.

If you’re stuck, pick two or three recent systematic reviews in your discipline, print them, and literally outline their structure. That exercise—plus the examples of systematic literature review format in this guide—will give you a concrete blueprint you can adapt rather than guessing your way through the process.