Resources Literature review evidence matrix
Literature review guide
How to build a literature review evidence matrix
Compare papers before you draft. A useful matrix records what each study did, what it found, where the evidence appears, and how it changes your argument.
Use the matrix to compare evidence
A literature review matrix is a table that applies the same questions to every source. Each row represents one paper. The columns capture the details you need to compare across papers.
The matrix should support your review question. A clinical review may need population and outcome fields. A methods review may need datasets, measures, assumptions, and evaluation criteria. Remove any column that will not affect screening, synthesis, or writing.
Start with seven fields
These fields preserve enough context to compare studies and return to the source when you write. Add discipline-specific fields only after you define the review question.
| Source | Use a stable record such as a DOI, title, and publication year. |
|---|---|
| Review question | State which part of your question the paper can address. |
| Method and sample | Record the design, population, data, measures, and analysis. |
| Finding | Write the result that matters to your question without adding interpretation. |
| Limitation | Keep the authors’ limitation separate from your own quality judgment. |
| Relevant claim | Name the claim this paper could support, challenge, or qualify. |
| Source location | Save the page, section, table, or exact passage you need to verify. |
Build the matrix in six passes
Work in passes so one detailed paper does not determine the structure for every later source.
- Define the question and boundary: Write the population, concept, outcome, period, and source types that belong in the review.
- Choose comparison fields: Start with the seven fields above, then add only the variables that affect your question.
- Record the source location: Save the page, section, table, or passage for every finding you may cite.
- Compare methods before results: Check whether different samples, measures, or designs explain apparent disagreement.
- Mark the relationship: Label each finding as support, contradiction, qualification, or unresolved evidence for a specific claim.
- Draft by claim: Write each paragraph around an idea or disagreement. Use several papers when the evidence permits it.
Writing your first undergraduate literature review
Start with the assignment brief: the question, required source types, word limit, citation style, and permitted AI assistance. Your lecturer may specify a structure or reading list. Use those requirements to decide what belongs in your matrix.
A starter outline
- Introduction: Define your question, explain its relevance, and state the scope of the review.
- Themes: Give each main idea a section. Compare what several sources say about it, including differences in methods or context.
- Conclusion: Answer the question as far as the evidence allows. Identify the uncertainty that matters to your assignment or final-year project.
This outline is a starting point, not a required format. A review for a composition course may build an argument across readings; a thesis review may lead into your own research question. Follow the brief rather than aiming for a universal paper count.
Move from notes to a comparison paragraph
Fictional teaching example: Imagine two readings about peer feedback. Source A describes students using comments to revise their drafts. Source B describes students struggling to interpret vague comments. These are invented source notes to demonstrate composition, not research findings to cite.
Peer feedback may be more useful when students can turn comments into specific revisions. Source A describes revision following feedback, while Source B highlights difficulty interpreting vague comments. Together, these accounts suggest that a review should examine the clarity of feedback as well as its presence. Differences in the assignments and students would need checking before drawing a broader conclusion.
The paragraph states a point, connects two sources, and limits the conclusion. For your own paragraph, replace the example with findings you have checked and add the real citations beside the claims. Use the matrix to locate each source passage, then compose the explanation in your own words.
Turn rows into a synthesis
Sort the matrix by the claim or theme column. Read the grouped rows across rather than down. This exposes agreement, competing explanations, and gaps that disappear when you summarize one paper at a time.
Write the relationship before the citations
Start a paragraph with the pattern you found. Then explain which studies support it, which methods limit the comparison, and which result changes the conclusion. Add citations only after that structure is clear.
Keep uncertainty visible
Do not turn an empty matrix cell into a negative finding. Record “not reported,” “not measured,” or “unclear” so missing evidence remains different from evidence that contradicts the claim.
Use AI for extraction, then verify the source
Artificial intelligence can propose fields, extract candidate passages, group similar findings, and draft a comparison. It can also miss a qualification, confuse reported background with a study result, or assign a claim to the wrong paper.
- Keep the exact source passage or page beside every important matrix entry
- Open tables, figures, equations, and footnotes in the original PDF
- Check the method before comparing results across studies
- Cite the paper rather than the generated summary
- Follow your institution, funder, and target venue rules for AI disclosure
A matrix does not make a review systematic
A formal systematic review also needs a documented protocol, reproducible search, eligibility criteria, screening records, quality assessment, and complete reporting. Treat the matrix as working evidence, not proof that the review method is complete.
Build the evidence trail in Rivul
Search the Rivul Index or add papers to your private library. Use Research to compare the selected sources, inspect the evidence matrix, and open the paper behind a finding. When the synthesis is ready, cite the source into your manuscript and export the draft with its bibliography using approved Pro access. Free accounts can begin with paper search and evidence organization; Pro access is manually approved during the controlled beta.