DNP 820 Week 4: introduction to the literature review
The structure is prescribed by arithmetic: five concepts, three subthemes each, five sub-sections per subtheme. Working out that shape before drafting is what makes 2,000 to 3,000 words achievable.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Fifteen articles, five concepts, fifteen subthemes
Do the arithmetic before you write anything, because it determines everything. Five major concepts with three subthemes each gives fifteen subthemes, and each subtheme needs five things addressed: an introduction, the research questions the studies posed, the sample populations, the limitations, and the conclusions with recommendations for further research. At 2,000 to 3,000 words that is roughly 130 to 200 words per subtheme, which is two tight paragraphs. Knowing that in advance changes how you write — there is no room for preamble, and no room to describe a study at length. It also means the concepts must be genuinely distinct, since two overlapping concepts will produce six subthemes that repeat each other and consume space you do not have. Overlap costs you twice: once in the repeated writing and again in the space it takes from a concept that had something to say. Fifteen is enough that at least one will turn out to be the wrong sort.
The empirical criterion in Part 1 does real work and the checklist is provided to enforce it: an empirical article reports original data collected and analysed by its authors, which excludes literature reviews, editorials, theoretical papers and clinical guidance however relevant they seem. At least one must be quantitative. Check each article against the checklist before it enters the chart, because an article that fails the criterion at the synthesis stage costs you a replacement and a re-chart. Then let the chart do the work it is designed for: complete it as you read rather than in a batch afterwards, and the concepts will surface from the completed rows instead of being imposed on them. That is the difference between synthesis and summary. Synthesis groups by finding across studies; summary walks through articles in turn — and with fifteen articles and a word ceiling, summary cannot fit even if you wanted it.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Apply an empirical criterion to article selection.
- 02Use a charting template to surface concepts from the evidence.
- 03Distinguish synthesis from sequential summary.
- 04Work to a prescribed structure under a word ceiling.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Fifteen empirical articles, at least one quantitative, checked against the checklist.
- 02A completed Research Article Chart for each.
- 03At least five major concepts with three subthemes each.
- 04A 2,000-3,000 word synthesis covering all five sub-sections per subtheme.
- 05APA formatting and the practice hours statement.
Select, chart, then synthesise by subtheme
Select against the criterion
Screen fifteen articles with the Empirical Research Checklist before charting.
Chart as you read
Complete the Research Article Chart per article at the point of reading.
Derive concepts and subthemes
Group the charted findings into five distinct concepts with three subthemes each.
Write by subtheme
Address the five required sub-sections within each subtheme, to the word budget.
Meeting the empirical criterion before charting
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- The Cochrane Library
- The Empirical Research Checklist
Search sequence
- 1.Screen each candidate against the empirical checklist before adding it to the chart.
- 2.Complete the chart row immediately after reading each article.
- 3.Group the completed rows by finding before deciding on your concepts.
- 4.Count your word budget per subtheme before drafting.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
BMJ · 2021
What a synthesis is required to report, which is the standard your grouping and reporting should follow.
- 02
CASP Checklists
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme · 2024
Design-specific appraisal, which is what fills the limitations sub-section for each study.
- 03
STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
EQUATOR Network · 2024
What an observational study should report, useful for judging sample populations and limitations.
- 04
JBI Critical Appraisal Tools
JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute), University of Adelaide · 2024
Instruments for the range of designs fifteen articles will span.
- 05
Asking Focused Questions
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford · 2024
The PICOT question the whole selection has to relate to, which is the relevance test for every article.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Including reviews or theoretical papers, which are not empirical.
- Choosing overlapping concepts, which produces repeating subthemes.
- Writing article by article instead of by subtheme.
- Completing the chart in a batch after reading rather than as you go.
- Ignoring the word arithmetic and running out of space at concept four.
Submission checklist
- Does every article report original data collected by its authors?
- Is at least one quantitative?
- Are your five concepts genuinely distinct?
- Does each subtheme cover all five required sub-sections?
- Is the paper organised by subtheme rather than by article?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.