Nursing Dissertation Chapter 2 Structure: Literature Review Checklist
Nursing dissertation Chapter 2 structure should guide the reader from the review purpose through search strategy, thematic synthesis, critical appraisal and the final research gap. This page focuses on how to organise Chapter 2. If you already have a structure but need help comparing studies critically, use the separate nursing literature review synthesis guide.
1. Chapter introduction
Open by stating the purpose of the literature review and how it supports the dissertation question. Define the main concepts and briefly explain the scope of the chapter.
Keep this section focused. Detailed critique belongs in the main body.
2. Review question or search focus
State the question or concept framework that guided the literature search. If you used PICO, PICo, SPIDER, PCC or another framework, explain how it helped define the evidence you needed. Cochrane guidance emphasises that a well-formulated review question should determine eligibility criteria, searching and synthesis rather than being fitted retrospectively to the available literature (Thomas et al., 2024).
3. Search strategy
Describe the databases, keywords, subject headings, date ranges and limits used. Where the review method requires reproducibility, provide enough information for a reader to understand how the evidence was located.
PRISMA-S recommends reporting databases and platforms, full search strategies, limits, search dates and methods used to manage records in systematic reviews (Rethlefsen et al., 2021). Do not overstate the search. If it was a structured dissertation search rather than a full systematic review, describe it accurately.
4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Explain which studies were eligible and why. Criteria may address population, setting, design, publication type, language, date range or outcomes.
Apply criteria consistently and avoid adding them retrospectively simply because a study produces an inconvenient result.
5. Study selection
Briefly explain how titles, abstracts and full texts were screened where relevant. If a flow diagram is used, make sure the narrative and figure contain consistent numbers. PRISMA 2020 provides a recognised framework for reporting identification, screening, exclusion and inclusion in systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021).
6. Critical-appraisal approach
State how study quality was assessed. Use an approach suited to the included designs and explain how appraisal affected interpretation. The CASP checklists and JBI critical appraisal tools provide structured design-specific prompts for appraisal (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [CASP], n.d.; JBI, n.d.).
Do not treat a checklist score as the whole appraisal. The main purpose is to understand how methodological strengths and weaknesses affect confidence in findings.
7. Evidence overview
Provide a concise overview of the included evidence before moving into detailed themes. This may include settings, populations, designs or key study characteristics.
An evidence table can reduce repetitive description in the main text.
8. Thematic or conceptual synthesis
Organise the main body around themes, concepts, debates or evidence patterns rather than around individual authors.
Each subsection should:
- state an analytical claim;
- compare several relevant studies;
- evaluate methodological quality;
- explain contradictions or context differences; and
- link the interpretation back to the review question.
Where meta-analysis is not appropriate, Cochrane recommends using transparent, pre-specified synthesis methods rather than an unstructured study-by-study narrative (McKenzie & Brennan, 2024).
9. Theory or conceptual framework
If the dissertation uses a theoretical framework, integrate it where it helps interpret evidence. Avoid creating a long detached theory section that never reappears in the analysis.
10. Evidence gaps and unresolved issues
Use the synthesis to show what remains uncertain. A meaningful gap might involve inconsistent findings, weak methods, a missing population, limited transferability or an unresolved mechanism.
The gap should be demonstrated from the evidence rather than asserted.
11. Implications for the dissertation
Explain how the literature supports the need for the present study or informs the chosen methodology. This section should create a clear bridge from Chapter 2 to Chapter 3.
12. Chapter summary
End with the main conclusions from the literature, the most important uncertainty and the specific gap the dissertation addresses.
Recommended Chapter 2 order
- Introduction
- Review question or framework
- Search strategy
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Study selection
- Critical-appraisal approach
- Evidence overview
- Theme or concept 1
- Theme or concept 2
- Theme or concept 3
- Theory or framework where relevant
- Research gap
- Implications for the dissertation
- Chapter summary
Your university may require a different arrangement. Follow the programme handbook where a formal structure is specified.
Chapter 2 paragraph structure
A useful analytical paragraph sequence is:
Claim → Evidence comparison → Methodological evaluation → Explanation → Implication.
| Paragraph element | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Claim | States the analytical point |
| Evidence comparison | Shows agreement, disagreement or variation |
| Evaluation | Assesses quality and relevance |
| Explanation | Explores why patterns differ |
| Implication | Links the evidence to the research gap or question |
Common Chapter 2 mistakes
- One study per paragraph.
- Search methods that cannot be explained.
- Using only evidence that supports the preferred argument.
- Reporting appraisal scores without interpretation.
- Long theory sections disconnected from the evidence.
- Claiming a gap without showing how it emerged.
- Repeating the same study details in both tables and prose.
- Ending without a clear bridge to the dissertation question.
Final Chapter 2 checklist
- The review purpose is explicit.
- The search focus is aligned with the dissertation question.
- Search and eligibility decisions are transparent.
- Study quality affects the synthesis.
- Main sections are organised analytically.
- Contradictory evidence is included.
- The research gap is specific and evidenced.
- The final section leads logically to the methodology or present study.
Related Nursing Guides
- Nursing Dissertation Chapter 3 Structure: Methodology Checklist
- Nursing Dissertation Abstract: Structure, Example and Checklist
- Nursing Dissertation Discussion Chapter Structure: Section-by-Section Template
Conclusion
A clear nursing dissertation Chapter 2 structure turns the literature review into a coherent evidence argument. Move from search and appraisal into thematic synthesis, identify the gap and end by showing why the dissertation is needed. For more detailed help with comparing and synthesising studies, use the separate nursing literature review synthesis guide.
References
- Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (n.d.). CASP checklists. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
- JBI. (n.d.). Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
- McKenzie, J. E., & Brennan, S. E. (2024). Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.5). Cochrane. https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-12
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
- Thomas, J., Kneale, D., McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., & Bhaumik, S. (2024). Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.5). Cochrane. https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-02
