To write a mini review, pick one narrow question about recent work, describe how you searched, then synthesise what the studies show together rather than summarising each in turn. A mini review is a short narrative review of a focused topic. Length limits vary by journal, so check the target journal's instructions before you draft.
This guide shows how to write a mini review from the first scoping decision to the final reference check. It includes a section-by-section outline template and a scope-check table you can copy. The advice is general. Directive's article types page lists review articles but does not list a separate mini review format, and this post does not describe one.
What a mini review is and how it differs from other reviews
A mini review is a concise narrative review that covers a narrowly defined topic, usually concentrating on developments from recent years. It gives an informed reader a quick, well-argued update. A mini review does not attempt to find every study on a question, and it does not pool results statistically.
The three review formats below are easy to confuse. The comparison of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and literature reviews explains the full-length types in more depth.
| Feature | Mini review | Full narrative review | Systematic review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | One narrow question or recent development | A broad topic or field | One precisely framed question |
| Search | Described transparently, not exhaustive | Often described only briefly | Pre-specified, exhaustive and reproducible |
| Protocol | Not expected | Not expected | Protocol registration recommended, for example in PROSPERO when the review has a health-related outcome |
| Appraisal of studies | Informal, stated in the text | Informal | Formal risk-of-bias assessment |
| Reporting guideline | None specific; borrow elements where they help | None specific | PRISMA 2020 |
| Length | Short; set by each journal | Longer; set by each journal | Set by each journal |
| Claim it can make | Where this narrow question stands now | An expert overview of the field | What the whole body of evidence on the question shows |
Choose a question narrow enough to cover in a few thousand words
The scope decision matters more in a mini review than in a longer review, because the word limit leaves no room to cover a broad topic well. "Biomarkers in sepsis" is a book chapter. "What studies published since [year] report about one named biomarker for early sepsis recognition in adult emergency departments" is a question a mini review can cover. Both are illustrations only.
Narrow the question along three axes: the population or setting, the specific intervention, exposure or mechanism, and a time window. The time window is what makes a mini review an update rather than a history. State the window and the reason for it, such as the publication of a landmark trial or a change in a guideline.
Test the scope before drafting with the table below. If two or more rows land in the right-hand column, narrow the question further or consider writing a full review instead.
| Scope check | Fits a mini review | Too broad for a mini review |
|---|---|---|
| The question in one sentence | Fits, with a named population and focus | Needs "and" several times |
| Time window | Stated, with a reason | Open-ended, or every study ever published |
| Key studies to discuss | A set you can group into themes | So many that you can only list them |
| Themes | Two to four | Five or more, each needing its own long section |
| Existing reviews | None on this exact question, or yours adds newer work | A recent review already covers the same scope |
| Conclusion you expect | One or two specific take-home points | Only "more research is needed" |
| Intended reader | A defined specialist reader | Anyone with an interest in the field |
How to write a mini review search description readers can trust
A mini review does not need a systematic search, but it does need an honest one. Readers should be able to see where you looked, when, with which terms, and how you chose what to discuss. Without that, a balanced update looks the same as a selective one.
A transparent search paragraph names the databases, the date of the last search, the core search terms, the time window, the languages included and the selection approach. It then states plainly that the review is narrative, not systematic. That sentence tells reviewers which standard to judge the paper against, so the review is not read as a systematic review that fell short.
If you want the search to be exhaustive and reproducible, you are describing a systematic review, and the paper should be written as one. The EQUATOR Network lists PRISMA and its extensions for that route. A mini review may borrow individual elements, such as a list of sources searched, without claiming PRISMA compliance.
Synthesise across studies instead of summarising them one by one
A weak mini review reads as a list: one paragraph per paper, each beginning "Author et al. found". A synthesis groups studies by theme, compares their findings and explains why they agree or disagree.
Build each theme section around a claim. Open with the point the evidence supports, then show the studies that support it, the studies that do not, and a likely reason for the difference, such as population, design or outcome definition. Match the strength of each claim to the designs behind it. A group of case series can describe what was observed, but it cannot establish that a treatment works.
The contrast below is invented to illustrate the difference; the studies and findings are not real.
Listing: Study A (patients aged over 70) reported lower readmission with the intervention. Study B (adults aged 30 to 50) found no difference. Study C (patients aged over 65) reported lower readmission.
Synthesising: Two of three recent studies reported lower readmission with the intervention. Both enrolled older patients, while the study with no difference enrolled younger adults, which suggests any benefit may depend on age. None of the three was randomised, so the pattern is an association to test, not an established effect.
Mini review outline template, section by section
Copy the outline below and replace each bracketed slot. Required headings vary by journal, and some ask for a methods-style structure even in reviews. The guide to IMRaD structure explains that format if your journal expects it.
Title: [topic]: [the specific question or recent development]. Add the article type only if the journal asks for it in the title.
Abstract: unstructured unless the journal says otherwise. One sentence of context; the question; the time window and sources; the two to four main themes; the main take-home point.
Keywords: [keyword one]; [keyword two]; [keyword three], chosen from terms a reader would search for.
1. Introduction: why this narrow question matters now; what changed during [time window]; what existing reviews cover and the gap this one fills; a final sentence stating the aim.
2. Search and selection: databases [database names]; last searched [date]; terms [core terms]; window [start year] to [end year]; languages [languages]; how studies were chosen for discussion; a sentence stating that the review is narrative, not systematic.
3. Theme one — [claim the evidence supports]: the claim; the supporting studies; the conflicting studies; a likely reason for the difference; the study designs behind the evidence.
4. Theme two — [claim]: the same pattern as theme one.
5. Theme three (optional) — [claim]: the same pattern as theme one.
6. Gaps and limitations: what the evidence cannot yet answer; the limits of a non-systematic search; any of your own published studies among those discussed.
7. Conclusions: one or two specific take-home points that follow from the themes; one concrete question for future studies, not "more research is needed".
Declarations: author contributions; funding; conflicts of interest; any use of AI tools.
References: [number within the journal's limit], each one read and checked against its source.
Length, references and the checks before submission
Word limits for mini reviews are set by each journal and differ widely. Many journals set limits of a few thousand words, some allow considerably more, and reference expectations vary just as widely, from a capped list to a required minimum. Do not rely on a typical figure; use the numbers in your target journal's instructions.
When the reference list is capped, each citation carries more weight. Cite the primary study rather than a review that mentions it, and read every source you cite. The routine for checking a paper before you cite it sets out how. Then run a full check of your reference list for broken DOIs, mismatched details and retracted papers.
- The title and abstract use the article type name the journal uses.
- The search paragraph gives sources, dates, terms and the selection approach.
- Every theme section opens with a claim, not a citation.
- Each claim matches the study designs behind it.
- The conclusion says something specific.
- The word count and reference count are within the journal's limits.
Before submitting to Directive, read the article types page and the author guidelines. The overview of research article types helps if you are still choosing between a review and another format. If you find an error in this guide, see how to report a problem to us.