There is a paper that has used entropy feature in the beta band for subject classification and obtained a specific accuracy value. I am aware that there is no context here, but I put these minimal information just to explain my problem. Now I have two subsections under the "Literature Review" chapter in my thesis. In the first subsection, I am exploring frequency bands' effect on the accuracy and I reviewed the mentioned paper's results. In another subsection, I am dealing with the effect of complexity-based features on the accuracy, so again I need to review that paper again. I can't just split the feature and frequency band information in two and report them separately under the two sections because it harms the understanding of the review. What can I do here? Repeating the review, although with different emphasis, seems redundant. And cross-referencing inconveniently interrupts the flow of the text for the reader.
Repeating yourself for the sake of clarity is not redundancy. Redundancy is repeating yourself needlessly.
The scenario that you have described seems to me to be a very well justified case for reviewing the same paper twice in two different sections. In one section, you should emphasize frequency bands, and in the other section emphasize complexity-based features. And it is quite appropriate to briefly refer back to the paper so that the attentive reviewer knows that you are quite aware that you are referring to the same paper twice, albeit from slightly different angles. So, for example, you could begin the second time with something like, "Authors (20xx), whom we discussed in our section on frequency bands, also analyzed complexity-based features and they found that …".