Nursing Literature Review Guide

A nursing literature review is rarely hard to write because of the writing itself — it's hard because of everything that's supposed to happen first: choosing the right databases, running searches that return a manageable and relevant set of results, deciding what's in scope and what isn't, and organizing what you've found before drafting begins. This guide walks through that full process, end to end. For a worked example of what the resulting thematic write-up looks like in practice, see our companion literature review example and structure guide.

Step 1: Define your review question before you search

It's tempting to start searching as soon as you have a general topic — "fall prevention" or "diabetes self-management" — but a search this broad will return thousands of results, most irrelevant. Before opening a database, write a one- or two-sentence statement of what your review is trying to establish. If you're working toward a capstone, this is often your PICOT question or a close variant of it; if it's a standalone course assignment, your instructor's prompt should give you the scope.

A focused review question does double duty: it tells you what to search for, and later it tells you what to exclude — a source can be interesting and well-written and still not belong in your review if it doesn't speak to your specific question.

Step 2: Choose databases strategically

Not all databases are equally useful for nursing topics, and using only one (especially a general one like Google Scholar alone) tends to miss relevant nursing-specific literature. For most nursing literature reviews, start with CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) — it's the most nursing-specific major database. PubMed/MEDLINE covers broader biomedical literature and is essential for anything with a medical or pharmacological component. Cochrane Library is the place to check for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on your topic — if one exists, it can shortcut a huge amount of individual-study searching. Depending on your topic, PsycINFO (for mental health topics) or ERIC (for nursing education topics) may also be relevant.

Database Selection by Topic Area

Step 3: Build a search strategy with Boolean operators and limits

A search strategy is more than typing your topic into a search box. Most nursing literature reviews benefit from breaking the review question into its component concepts (often mirroring PICOT elements — population, intervention, outcome) and searching for each concept's synonyms, combined with Boolean operators. For example, a search for "fall prevention in hospitalized older adults" might become: (fall* OR "fall prevention") AND (elderly OR "older adult*" OR geriatric) AND (hospital* OR inpatient). The asterisk (*) is a truncation symbol most databases support, capturing variations like "fall," "falls," and "falling" in one search.

Applying limits

Most databases let you filter by publication date, language, peer-review status, and sometimes study type. A common (though not universal) convention for capstone literature reviews is to limit to sources published within the last 5–7 years, to ensure the evidence reflects current practice — though older "landmark" studies are sometimes appropriately included if they're foundational to the topic. Check your program's specific guidance, since some explicitly require a stricter window (e.g., 5 years) for evidence-based practice projects.

Step 4: Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria consistently

As your search returns results, you'll need a consistent rule for what gets included. Common inclusion criteria for a nursing literature review include: published in a peer-reviewed journal, published within your chosen date range, study population matches your review's population (e.g., adult patients, a specific care setting), and the study addresses your review's core question or a closely related one. Common exclusion criteria include: opinion pieces or editorials without original data (unless your review specifically includes these), studies in non-English without translation available, and studies whose population or setting doesn't transfer to your context (e.g., a pediatric study when your review focuses on adults, unless directly relevant).

Writing these criteria down before screening results — rather than deciding case-by-case — keeps your selection consistent and gives you a clear answer if anyone asks why a particular study was or wasn't included.

Citation Management — Set This Up Early

• Choose a citation manager before you start screening — Zotero (free) and Mendeley (free) both integrate with browsers to save sources directly from database searches
• Tag sources by theme as you save them — most citation managers support tags or folders, which makes thematic organization much easier later
• Export an APA 7 reference list directly from your citation manager rather than typing references manually — but always spot-check the output, since auto-generated citations sometimes have formatting errors (missing DOIs, incorrect capitalization)
• Keep a running spreadsheet alongside your citation manager with columns for author/year, design, sample, key findings, and theme — this becomes your synthesis table
• Note page numbers for direct quotes as you read — going back to find a page number after the fact is one of the most common time-wasters during final formatting

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Starting database searches before defining a specific review question, resulting in an unmanageable number of irrelevant results
• Relying on a single database (often just Google Scholar) and missing nursing-specific literature available through CINAHL
• Deciding inclusion/exclusion criteria source-by-source instead of setting them before screening, leading to inconsistent selection
• Not setting up a citation manager until the end, then spending hours retrofitting citations and fixing formatting
• Organizing the final review source-by-source (summary style) instead of by theme — see our worked example for the alternative
• Including sources that are topically related but don't actually speak to the review's specific question, diluting the synthesis
• Applying a date-range limit too strictly and excluding a foundational "landmark" study that's still widely cited in current literature
• Not checking whether a systematic review or meta-analysis already exists on the topic, and duplicating that work unnecessarily

Related Guides