In this post, I’ll walk you through how to write a review article, a task that can feel overwhelming but is essential to becoming an expert in a specific topic. Using my drug-coated balloon (DCB) review article as a reference, I’ll show you how to approach this systematically. Writing review articles early in your career will give you an edge by developing expertise in a specific area. Additionally, it will make writing the discussion sections of your other research articles easier by honing your literature review and analytical skills.
I. Introduction to Writing a Review Article
Writing a review article requires 80–100 hours of focused effort. The process involves selecting a topic, conducting a literature search, synthesizing information, and writing a coherent narrative. A mentor will be crucial, helping you choose the right topic and providing guidance along the way. Time management is key, as the volume of information can be overwhelming, and you need to stay focused.
II. Types of Review Articles
There are several types of review articles, each with a specific purpose and methodology. Here are the key types:
- Narrative Review
- Provides a broad overview of a topic, summarizing key concepts, trends, and developments.
- Does not follow a strict methodology but presents the author’s synthesis of existing literature, typically organized around themes or concepts.
- Best suited for: Topics that are broad or emerging.
- Example: My drug-coated balloon article, which explored strategies, technologies, and future directions in DCB angioplasty.
- Systematic Review
- Uses a rigorous and reproducible methodology to identify, analyze, and synthesize all relevant research on a specific research question.
- Provides a detailed summary of the evidence and highlights gaps or inconsistencies in the data.
- Best suited for: Answering focused clinical or research questions (e.g., “Does stent retriever thrombectomy reduce mortality in acute stroke?”).
- Databases to use: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid.
- Requires: Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailed literature search protocols, and comprehensive data analysis.
- Meta-Analysis
- Combines the quantitative results from multiple studies into a single statistical analysis, providing a pooled estimate of the effect size.
- Best suited for: Topics with sufficient quantitative data available across multiple studies.
- Example: Assessing the pooled efficacy of drug-eluting stents versus drug-coated balloons in reducing restenosis rates.
- Scoping Review
- Explores the breadth of literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, research gaps, and trends.
- Does not involve quality assessments of the included studies.
- Best suited for: Mapping existing literature on a topic that is under-researched or not well-defined.
- Example: Exploring the role of wearable technology in cardiovascular health.
- State-of-the-Art Review
- Focuses on the latest developments and cutting-edge research in a specific area.
- Highlights recent advances, current debates, and future directions.
- Best suited for: Topics with rapidly evolving evidence or new technologies.
- Example: My state-of-the-art review on drug-coated balloons in JACC, which summarized existing knowledge and anticipated future trends.
- Systematic Review with Meta-Synthesis
- Involves qualitative synthesis of findings from multiple qualitative studies.
- Provides a deeper understanding of patient experiences, behaviors, or clinical processes.
- Best suited for: Topics where qualitative data is central, such as patient-reported outcomes or behavioral interventions.
III. Selecting a Topic
Choosing the right topic is critical. A mentor can guide you to a topic that is both relevant and manageable. Avoid topics that already have recent review articles published in major journals. Instead, focus on emerging trends discussed frequently in scientific or news outlets, such as “Importance of heart rate variability in wearable monitors: Friend or Foe?” Choose a topic that offers room for new insights or perspectives.
IV. Conducting a Literature Search (30 Hours)
The foundation of a review article lies in a thorough literature search. Use PubMed for narrative or state-of-the-art reviews. For systematic reviews, use multiple databases such as Ovid, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Save all relevant studies on PubMed and then identify key studies for review. Review 10–15 high-quality review articles and 10 major clinical trials or studies relevant to your topic. As you read, take detailed notes to organize your ideas and findings.
V. Planning the Article (5 Hours)
Outline the structure of your article before writing. Identify the main sections you want to cover. In my DCB article, I used the following sections: Introduction, Drug-coated balloon design, Drug-coated balloons in de novo coronary artery disease, two strategies for use, Newer DCBs and future directions, and Conclusion. After reviewing the literature, these sections will become clear. If you encounter challenges, consult your mentor for guidance.
VI. Creating Tables (10–15 Hours)
Create tables of all the studies in systematic reviews or key studies in narrative or state-of-the-art reviews. Tables provide a concise summary of data and make it easier for readers to understand the research. Organize baseline characteristics, study outcomes, or key comparisons into tables to highlight essential findings.
VII. Writing the Manuscript (30–40 Hours)
Start writing the manuscript section by section. Begin with bullet points for each section to outline the key points you want to include. Expand on these bullet points using full sentences, citing relevant studies as you go. Use reference management tools like EndNote to keep your citations organized. Your mentor can provide feedback on each section, but you are responsible for driving the process forward.
If working with coauthors, assign them specific sections or tasks. Set clear deadlines to ensure the work is completed on time.
VIII. Reviewing and Finalizing (10–20 Hours)
Review the manuscript thoroughly, checking for clarity, consistency, and completeness. Incorporate feedback from mentors and coauthors. Plan for multiple rounds of revisions. Use the final hours to polish the text, ensuring that all references are accurate and the manuscript is ready for submission.
IX. Time Management Summary
- Literature search and reading: 30 hours
- Planning the structure: 5 hours
- Creating tables: 10–15 hours
- Writing the manuscript: 30–40 hours
- Review and finalization: 10–20 hours
Assign specific tasks to coauthors with deadlines to ensure timely completion.
X. Final Thoughts on Writing a Review Article
Writing a review article is a demanding task but offers significant professional rewards. Early in your career, review articles will help you build expertise and develop academic writing skills. Good time management and collaboration with coauthors are essential to completing the article efficiently.
Each journal has specific word limits and formatting guidelines. Draft the article using the suggested structure and time limits, and tailor it to meet the requirements of the journal during the final review.
Key Takeaways
- Choose a relevant topic with guidance from your mentor, avoiding topics with recent reviews in major journals.
- Dedicate 30 hours to literature search, reading, and planning.
- Create tables to summarize key studies and outcomes.
- Write section by section, starting with bullet points and expanding into full text.
- Use tools like EndNote to organize references efficiently.
- Assign tasks to coauthors and set deadlines for timely completion.
- Reserve time for multiple revisions and incorporate feedback from mentors and coauthors.
By following this guide, you’ll be able to write a well-organized, high-quality review article that showcases your expertise and contributes meaningfully to the literature.
References
- Yerasi, Charan, et al. “Drug-coated balloon for de novo coronary artery disease: JACC state-of-the-art review.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 75.9 (2020): 1061-1073.
Leave a Reply