UEG News
United European Gastroenterology
Young GI angle: Why and how to write a
good review article
Introduction
Review articles aim to give an overview of the current
scientific knowledge on a specific topic and are an
important element of evidence-based medicine.
Technically, review articles do not generate new data,
but rather identify, structure, evaluate and summarize
the evidence of existing primary research studies.1
While narrative review articles usually apply a less
stringent methodology and present a broader scope
of a topic, systematic reviews aim to answer precisely
a specific scientific question by synthesizing the avail-
able evidence qualitatively and, whenever possible,
quantitatively as meta-analyses, which requires pro-
found methodological knowledge and skills in statis-
tics. Narrative and systematic elements (with or
without meta-analysis) can also be combined in one
article.2 In any case, review articles tend to be of high
quality, basically for two reasons: first, since they reach
out to a broader audience and their visibility is more
long-lasting compared with fast-moving original stud-
ies, authors and publishers want to ensure they do not
lose their reputation. And second, they are usually
written by either experts of a certain field or by
researchers who are specifically dedicated to, and
have a high level of expertise in, conducting systematic
reviews and meta-analyses. At the same time, writing a
review article comes with a considerable burden of
responsibility because they shape future research.1
For instance, where evidence is scarce, review articles
can create awareness of an unmet need to start up new
projects. In other fields, evidence can be so abundant
that it has become nearly impossible for researchers to
read and appraise all available studies, and review
articles are a welcomed source to understand current
evidence with a reasonable effort of time.
What obstacles do young researchers face?
It is obvious that before you consider writing a review
article you need to understand your subject both deeply
and broadly, which is rarely the case for young
researchers or clinicians who might just have started
to subspecialize in a certain field. In addition, allocat-
ing, reading and evaluating the available evidence from
Journal
2020, Vol. 8(5) 621–623
! Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2050640620926818
journals.sagepub.com/home/ueg
various sources such as MEDLINE, EMBASE,
Cochrane library, and so on, can be very time consum-
ing, and time is usually scarce in the life of a young
researcher who in parallel works on the wards, deals
with night shifts or other research projects, and so
forth. This is why most newcomers start their careers
with easier types of articles such as case studies, or
aspire to gain scientific credits by performing and pub-
lishing original studies. Young professionals might also
be intimidated by the more stringent review process,
which in the case of review articles usually includes at
least four peer reviewers, and these tend to be very
critical. Because of the need to deeply understand a
topic, and their potentially important impact on
future research or even on clinical practice, most
review articles are written by recognized experts. In
fact, it is rather unlikely that a publisher would
accept a review article that was not submitted by an
expert, or at least an author with some kind of senior-
ity. Moreover, in many cases it is the publisher who
invites an expert to write about a certain topic.
However, in this case it is frequent that the senior
will ask a younger group member to do the hard work.
Why should young researchers write
review articles?
Despite all the obstacles, there are important reasons
why young researchers should engage in writing review
articles. It is true that when it comes to career promo-
tions or gaining research funding, oftentimes publica-
tions of original work in prestigious journals have the
heaviest weight. However, high-quality review articles
are usually published in high-impact journals too, and
contribute substantially to the researcher’s prestige and
visibility as they are read by a broad audience and are
frequently cited.1,3 For the seniors it is also evidence
that a young colleague is capable of diving into and
managing a complex topic that requires a high degree
of motivation and dedication. But most importantly,
writing a review is a great opportunity to gain compre-
hensive and profound knowledge which can be the
starting point for a new line of research and/or the
introduction of a PhD thesis. From the viewpoint of
622
the scientific community, it cannot be appreciated
enough how fulfilling and satisfying it is for a scientist
to have contributed to guiding future research and
inspiring new projects. And lastly, a good review article
may be a marker that starts to position you as an
expert in your field.
Tips for writing a good review article
There are plenty of resources and readings that can
help you through the process of preparing and writing
a good review article,1–4 so I will not go into detail here
but rather highlight some of the most important lessons
I learned when I wrote my first review article. Even
before you start, the most important thing is your atti-
tude. Obviously, the extent of your review will depend
on the topic or the amount of available evidence, but in
general I recommend that you do not expect quick
results; be patient and carry on your work continuously
and with dedication. If this is not a review that you or
your principal investigator have been invited by a jour-
nal to prepare, the next step is to define the aim and
purpose of your review and to formulate an answerable
question. In most cases, this will determine what sub-
type of review article you will be approaching. For
instance, if you want to summarize everything current-
ly known about a certain pathology, or how treatment
options or technologies have evolved over time, then a
narrative review is suitable. By contrast, if you want to
appraise all the evidence on a specific intervention for a
specific disease, a systematic review is the right choice,
eventually combined with a meta-analysis if the origi-
nal data allow this. For systematic reviews, ‘PICO’ is
an acronym that summarizes the framework you will
need to formulate your scientific question and organize
your literature research: what kind of persons (or
patients) undergo which kind of study intervention
(i.e. treatment or diagnostic procedure), are compared
with what other kind of standard procedure, and what
outcomes are we interested in?5 In this phase it is advis-
able to do a first scoping of your question in order to
see how much evidence is actually out there. This will
help you to refine or extend your question and search
strategy. It is not uncommon to retrieve your final
search results after several cycles of search and re-
search.3 Keep in mind that although your review article
has of course to reflect up-to-date research, don’t forget
to also consider older papers. In any case, I strongly
recommend that you are as systematic as possible, and
to almost obsessively document your search strategies,
your search results and the main findings and conclu-
sions of the papers you want to include in your review
article, because otherwise it is quite easy to lose track
when you are dealing with hundreds of papers.
United European Gastroenterology Journal 8(5)
Compared with original articles, it is more common
for review articles to be written by a smaller number of
authors, though they usually contribute more equally
to analysis and writing. For instance, it is convenient to
divide a large narrative review into sub-chapters and
then distribute them among the authors. In a system-
atic review, it is a sign of high quality when both liter-
ature research and quantitative analyses are performed
by at least two researchers independently and in a
blinded way, and when results are then compared
with each other, because this reduces substantially
sources of selection bias.4 As good teamwork is decisive
for getting a coherent narrative and results, make sure
that you arrange regular meetings. These are not only
important to discuss relevant concepts and results, but
will also help you to push the project forward and not
to lose time. As I mentioned before, writing review
articles requires a high level of expertise which of
course you will gain during the process, but it is indis-
pensable that you have at least one mentor on your side
who is well-known in the field and serves as senior
author, enhancing considerably your chances of being
accepted by the journal. In order to become familiar
with the methodology and the prevailing language of
review articles, a good idea is to read at least two to
three reviews of a similar topic, and/or that are pub-
lished in the journal you are planning to submit to.
When you have your data together, the PRISMA
guidelines are of immeasurable value to summarize
the literature critically, appraise the findings and
results, identify biases and finally draw useful conclu-
sions.6 Be aware that simply listing previous data will
not provide any additional information to the scientific
community, and the manuscript will likely be rejected.
Hence, focus on finding gaps of knowledge that could
justify new projects, consistent results that potentially
could change current paradigms or clinical manage-
ment, contradictory findings and how you interpret
them to guide subsequent studies, and/or identifying
biases, limitations and weaknesses and how future
studies could be designed to avoid them.
Further resources for help
Cochrane is a London-based international charity
organization with more than 30,000 volunteer experts
who are committed to generating high-quality, relevant
and accessible systematic reviews, and offers online
training modules and webinars about evidence-based
medicine and systematic reviews.7,8 The course
Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
offered by the Johns Hopkins University is also
highly recommended, and you can access it for free
on the online learning platform Coursera.9 As a tool,
the PRISMA statement provides guidance to improve
Jung
and standardize the reporting of systematic reviews and
meta-analyses, and an increasing number of journals
have incorporated the PRISMA statement into their
instructions to authors. On the PRISMA website you
can download the four-phase flow diagram, the 27-item
checklist and further tips that will help you to make
your review perfect.10
Conclusion
Engaging in review articles is an excellent opportunity
for young talents to expand their in-depth knowledge
of a certain topic and to foster a wide range of meth-
odological skills in science, from critical reading to
advanced statistics and effective writing. The task
might seem unmanageable initially, but tools, check-
lists, courses and plenty of advice from seniors are
very supportive, and remember that you only grow out-
side of your comfort zone. After all, being the author of
a distinguished and highly cited review article will cer-
tainly be one of the key stones to establishing yourself
as an expert.
Useful Links
1 https://training.cochrane.org/essentials
2 https://training.cochrane.org/
3 https://www.coursera.org/learn/systematic
4 http://www.prisma-statement.org
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
623
References
1. Gregory AT and Denniss AR. An introduction to writing
narrative and systematic reviews - tasks, tips and traps
for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ 2018; 27: 893–898.
2. Conn VS and Coon Sells TG. Is it time to write a review
article? West J Nursing Res 2014; 36: 435–439.
3. Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature
review. PLoS Comput Biol 9. Epub ahead of print July
2013.
4. Nguyen N and Singh S. A primer on systematic reviews
and meta-analyses. Semin Liver Dis 2018; 38: 103–111.
5. Miller SA and Forrest JL. Enhancing your practice
through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning
how to ask good questions. J Evid Based Dent Pract
2001; 1: 136–141.
6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA
statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-
analyses of studies that evaluate health care interven-
tions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6. Epub
ahead of print July 2009.
7. https://training.cochrane.org/essentials.
8. https://training.cochrane.org/.
9. https://www.coursera.org/learn/systematic.
10. http://www.prisma-statement.org.
Gerhard Jung1,2
1
Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clınic of
Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
2
Institut d’Investigacions Biom
ediques August Pi i
Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
Corresponding author:
Dr. Gerhard Jung, Department of Gastroenterology,
Hospital Clınic of Barcelona, Carrer Villarroel 170,
08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Email: jung@clinic.cat