Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2026

BioMEMS: Forging New Collaborations Between Biologists and Engineers
Published on: November 1, 2007
Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors
Armen Yuri Gasparyan1, Lilit Ayvazyan, Heather Blackmore
1Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Research Unit, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham, UK), Russell's Hall Hospital, North Block, Dudley, West Midlands, DY1 2HQ, United Kingdom. a.gasparyan@gmail.com
Abstract:
Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer
Life Histories
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...
Tissues
Biodiversity and Human Values
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients

