How to Write a Narrative Review Article

Narrative reviews are possibly one of the most challenging article types to write. Yet, on the ladder of evidence, they rank the lowest. Rightly so, because they are not based on actual studies like original articles, nor are they based on an analysis of all evidence related to a topic like #systematicreviews or #scopingreviews. If I were to describe a #narrativereview very simply, it is the authors' narrative on a topic, based on the published literature that they choose to select. In that case, logic says narrative reviews should be the easiest to write, isn't it? One could say yes, if the objective is to just get them published in some unknown journal, irrespective of whether anyone will ever read or cite the article. However, if the authors wish to be respected for their perspective, the objective should be to publish the article in leading journals. Here is where it gets very challenging. Many leading journals do not accept narrative review articles or accept them only by solicitation, much like #expertopinion articles. This is because narrative reviews can be very biased because the author(s) choose supporting evidence at will. I had previously written about how to write #expertopinion articles here https://lnkd.in/d2iVmJN9. The bigger challenge with #narrativereviews is that the authors might not necessarily be #KOLs; hence, they might not be invited to write a narrative review article. The only way to achieve a successful publication is by making it interesting to read so that the journal editors are convinced that it will be useful to the readers.

While the structure will be similar to an expert opinion article, the challenge is that in the case of an expert opinion article, the KOLs' names will drive publication and readership, while narrative review articles by non-KOLs can attract publication and readership only if the content offers a unique perspective and is backed by strong evidence.

Even if the services of a #medicalwriter are used for writing the article, the author(s) should decide the topic based on their own literature search and experience. This usually requires some thought about topics that the author himself/herself would find interesting to read as a clinician, but about which not much is often written, or questions (s)he would like to ask a KOL's insights on. Or maybe (s)he has observed some unique patterns in his/her clinical practice but found that there is not much literature around it and thinks that sharing these with peers would be helpful. Once the author(s) has listed down some probable topics, it is a good idea to look up published literature on the same to check whether recent and adequate literature is available and/or if he/she can bring out some unique perspectives that clinicians would be interested in reading about. As an example, clinicians might not be interested in reading just another review article on a gliptin or insulin or calcium channel blocker etc. However, a review article on pleotropic effects of metformin might attract more interest. The medical writer should be briefed accordingly. Similarly, if a medical writer has not received a detailed brief but has been given only a topic to write a narrative review, the writer should ask for a detailed briefing and discuss in detail the messages that the author(s) wishes to focus on in the article.

Once the discussion with the author(s) is done, it is a good idea for the writer to do some reading on the topic to understand the subject matter before even thinking about what to write. It is important to read the latest literature because medicine is possibly one of the most dynamic sciences and what was true yesterday might not be true today. A good place to start would be reading up on the most recent practice guidelines on the topic. After some understanding of the subject, the next step should be putting down subtitles of the sections in chronological order, with a few sentences on what you would cover under each. At this stage, the writer needs to be sure that (s)he will be able to find literature on each of the sections. It might be good to share this layout with the author(s) before proceeding to write the article.

When writing the article, the flow should be very smooth with every sentence and section logically leading to the next one. A common mistake I see is writers using evidence almost 15 to 20 years old. In medical writing, the golden rule is to stick to the last 5 years' literature and use older literature only when it becomes an absolute must due to nothing having been published on the topic recently. Another important aspect is objectivity. Evidence for as well as against each section should be presented before ending it with the author(s) perspective on why he/she/they think they think some evidence(s) is more convincing. This keeps the narrative balanced and not overtly biased.

The general structure is quite similar to that of an expert opinion article, the link to which I have provided above. The article should end with a final paragraph summarizing all sections so that not more than 2-3 clear take-home messages emerge.

The standard accepted length of?#narrativereview?articles is 2500 to 4500 words.

#medicalaffairs?#medicalwriting?#medicalwriter?#medicalcontent??

#medicalcommunications?#healthcarecommunications?#scientificwriting?

#freelancemedicalwriter?#scicomms #medcomms