• Digital Manufacturing
• Smart Factory
Clearly defined research question(s) are the key elements which set the focus for study identification and data extraction [21] . These questions are formulated based on the PICOC criteria as presented in the example in Table 2 (PICOC keywords are underlined).
Research questions examples.
Research Questions examples |
---|
• : What are the current challenges of context-aware systems that support the decision-making of business processes in smart manufacturing? • : Which technique is most appropriate to support decision-making for business process management in smart factories? • : In which scenarios are semantic web and machine learning used to provide context-awareness in business process management for smart manufacturing? |
The validity of a study will depend on the proper selection of a database since it must adequately cover the area under investigation [19] . The Web of Science (WoS) is an international and multidisciplinary tool for accessing literature in science, technology, biomedicine, and other disciplines. Scopus is a database that today indexes 40,562 peer-reviewed journals, compared to 24,831 for WoS. Thus, Scopus is currently the largest existing multidisciplinary database. However, it may also be necessary to include sources relevant to computer science, such as EI Compendex, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. Table 3 compares the area of expertise of a selection of databases.
Planning Step 3 “Select digital libraries”. Description of digital libraries in computer science and software engineering.
Database | Description | URL | Area | Advanced Search Y/N |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scopus | From Elsevier. sOne of the largest databases. Very user-friendly interface | Interdisciplinary | Y | |
Web of Science | From Clarivate. Multidisciplinary database with wide ranging content. | Interdisciplinary | Y | |
EI Compendex | From Elsevier. Focused on engineering literature. | Engineering | Y (Query view not available) | |
IEEE Digital Library | Contains scientific and technical articles published by IEEE and its publishing partners. | Engineering and Technology | Y | |
ACM Digital Library | Complete collection of ACM publications. | Computing and information technology | Y |
Authors should define the inclusion and exclusion criteria before conducting the review to prevent bias, although these can be adjusted later, if necessary. The selection of primary studies will depend on these criteria. Articles are included or excluded in this first selection based on abstract and primary bibliographic data. When unsure, the article is skimmed to further decide the relevance for the review. Table 4 sets out some criteria types with descriptions and examples.
Planning Step 4 “Define inclusion and exclusion criteria”. Examples of criteria type.
Criteria Type | Description | Example |
---|---|---|
Period | Articles can be selected based on the time period to review, e.g., reviewing the technology under study from the year it emerged, or reviewing progress in the field since the publication of a prior literature review. | : From 2015 to 2021 Articles prior 2015 |
Language | Articles can be excluded based on language. | : Articles not in English |
Type of Literature | Articles can be excluded if they are fall into the category of grey literature. | Reports, policy literature, working papers, newsletters, government documents, speeches |
Type of source | Articles can be included or excluded by the type of origin, i.e., conference or journal articles or books. | : Articles from Conferences or Journals Articles from books |
Impact Source | Articles can be excluded if the author limits the impact factor or quartile of the source. | Articles from Q1, and Q2 sources : Articles with a Journal Impact Score (JIS) lower than |
Accessibility | Not accessible in specific databases. | : Not accessible |
Relevance to research questions | Articles can be excluded if they are not relevant to a particular question or to “ ” number of research questions. | Not relevant to at least 2 research questions |
Assessing the quality of an article requires an artifact which describes how to perform a detailed assessment. A typical quality assessment is a checklist that contains multiple factors to evaluate. A numerical scale is used to assess the criteria and quantify the QA [22] . Zhou et al. [25] presented a detailed description of assessment criteria in software engineering, classified into four main aspects of study quality: Reporting, Rigor, Credibility, and Relevance. Each of these criteria can be evaluated using, for instance, a Likert-type scale [17] , as shown in Table 5 . It is essential to select the same scale for all criteria established on the quality assessment.
Planning Step 5 “Define QA assessment checklist”. Examples of QA scales and questions.
Do the researchers discuss any problems (limitations, threats) with the validity of their results (reliability)? | 1 – No, and not considered (Score: 0) 2 – Partially (Score: 0.5) 3 – Yes (Score: 1) |
Is there a clear definition/ description/ statement of the aims/ goals/ purposes/ motivations/ objectives/ questions of the research? | 1 – Disagree (Score: 1) 2 – Somewhat disagree (Score: 2) 3 – Neither agree nor disagree (Score: 3) 4 – Somewhat agree (Score: 4) 5 – Agree (Score: 5) |
The data extraction form represents the information necessary to answer the research questions established for the review. Synthesizing the articles is a crucial step when conducting research. Ramesh et al. [15] presented a classification scheme for computer science research, based on topics, research methods, and levels of analysis that can be used to categorize the articles selected. Classification methods and fields to consider when conducting a review are presented in Table 6 .
Planning Step 6 “Define data extraction form”. Examples of fields.
Classification and fields to consider for data extraction | Description and examples |
---|---|
Research type | • focuses on abstract ideas, concepts, and theories built on literature reviews . • uses scientific data or case studies for explorative, descriptive, explanatory, or measurable findings . an SLR on context-awareness for S-PSS and categorized the articles in theoretical and empirical research. |
By process phases, stages | When analyzing a process or series of processes, an effective way to structure the data is to find a well-established framework of reference or architecture. : • an SLR on self-adaptive systems uses the MAPE-K model to understand how the authors tackle each module stage. • presented a context-awareness survey using the stages of context-aware lifecycle to review different methods. |
By technology, framework, or platform | When analyzing a computer science topic, it is important to know the technology currently employed to understand trends, benefits, or limitations. : • an SLR on the big data ecosystem in the manufacturing field that includes frameworks, tools, and platforms for each stage of the big data ecosystem. |
By application field and/or industry domain | If the review is not limited to a specific “Context” or “Population" (industry domain), it can be useful to identify the field of application : • an SLR on adaptive training using virtual reality (VR). The review presents an extensive description of multiple application domains and examines related work. |
Gaps and challenges | Identifying gaps and challenges is important in reviews to determine the research needs and further establish research directions that can help scholars act on the topic. |
Findings in research | Research in computer science can deliver multiple types of findings, e.g.: |
Evaluation method | Case studies, experiments, surveys, mathematical demonstrations, and performance indicators. |
The data extraction must be relevant to the research questions, and the relationship to each of the questions should be included in the form. Kitchenham & Charters [6] presented more pertinent data that can be captured, such as conclusions, recommendations, strengths, and weaknesses. Although the data extraction form can be updated if more information is needed, this should be treated with caution since it can be time-consuming. It can therefore be helpful to first have a general background in the research topic to determine better data extraction criteria.
After defining the protocol, conducting the review requires following each of the steps previously described. Using tools can help simplify the performance of this task. Standard tools such as Excel or Google sheets allow multiple researchers to work collaboratively. Another online tool specifically designed for performing SLRs is Parsif.al 1 . This tool allows researchers, especially in the context of software engineering, to define goals and objectives, import articles using BibTeX files, eliminate duplicates, define selection criteria, and generate reports.
Search strings are built considering the PICOC elements and synonyms to execute the search in each database library. A search string should separate the synonyms with the boolean operator OR. In comparison, the PICOC elements are separated with parentheses and the boolean operator AND. An example is presented next:
(“Smart Manufacturing” OR “Digital Manufacturing” OR “Smart Factory”) AND (“Business Process Management” OR “BPEL” OR “BPM” OR “BPMN”) AND (“Semantic Web” OR “Ontology” OR “Semantic” OR “Semantic Web Service”) AND (“Framework” OR “Extension” OR “Plugin” OR “Tool”
Databases that feature advanced searches enable researchers to perform search queries based on titles, abstracts, and keywords, as well as for years or areas of research. Fig. 1 presents the example of an advanced search in Scopus, using titles, abstracts, and keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY). Most of the databases allow the use of logical operators (i.e., AND, OR). In the example, the search is for “BIG DATA” and “USER EXPERIENCE” or “UX” as a synonym.
Example of Advanced search on Scopus.
In general, bibliometric data of articles can be exported from the databases as a comma-separated-value file (CSV) or BibTeX file, which is helpful for data extraction and quantitative and qualitative analysis. In addition, researchers should take advantage of reference-management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, Endnote, or Jabref, which import bibliographic information onto the software easily.
The first step in this stage is to identify any duplicates that appear in the different searches in the selected databases. Some automatic procedures, tools like Excel formulas, or programming languages (i.e., Python) can be convenient here.
In the second step, articles are included or excluded according to the selection criteria, mainly by reading titles and abstracts. Finally, the quality is assessed using the predefined scale. Fig. 2 shows an example of an article QA evaluation in Parsif.al, using a simple scale. In this scenario, the scoring procedure is the following YES= 1, PARTIALLY= 0.5, and NO or UNKNOWN = 0 . A cut-off score should be defined to filter those articles that do not pass the QA. The QA will require a light review of the full text of the article.
Performing quality assessment (QA) in Parsif.al.
Those articles that pass the study selection are then thoroughly and critically read. Next, the researcher completes the information required using the “data extraction” form, as illustrated in Fig. 3 , in this scenario using Parsif.al tool.
Example of data extraction form using Parsif.al.
The information required (study characteristics and findings) from each included study must be acquired and documented through careful reading. Data extraction is valuable, especially if the data requires manipulation or assumptions and inferences. Thus, information can be synthesized from the extracted data for qualitative or quantitative analysis [16] . This documentation supports clarity, precise reporting, and the ability to scrutinize and replicate the examination.
The analysis phase examines the synthesized data and extracts meaningful information from the selected articles [10] . There are two main goals in this phase.
The first goal is to analyze the literature in terms of leading authors, journals, countries, and organizations. Furthermore, it helps identify correlations among topic s . Even when not mandatory, this activity can be constructive for researchers to position their work, find trends, and find collaboration opportunities. Next, data from the selected articles can be analyzed using bibliometric analysis (BA). BA summarizes large amounts of bibliometric data to present the state of intellectual structure and emerging trends in a topic or field of research [4] . Table 7 sets out some of the most common bibliometric analysis representations.
Techniques for bibliometric analysis and examples.
Publication-related analysis | Description | Example |
---|---|---|
Years of publications | Determine interest in the research topic by years or the period established by the SLR, by quantifying the number of papers published. Using this information, it is also possible to forecast the growth rate of research interest. | [ ] identified the growth rate of research interest and the yearly publication trend. |
Top contribution journals/conferences | Identify the leading journals and conferences in which authors can share their current and future work. | , |
Top countries' or affiliation contributions | Examine the impacts of countries or affiliations leading the research topic. | [ , ] identified the most influential countries. |
Leading authors | Identify the most significant authors in a research field. | - |
Keyword correlation analysis | Explore existing relationships between topics in a research field based on the written content of the publication or related keywords established in the articles. | using keyword clustering analysis ( ). using frequency analysis. |
Total and average citation | Identify the most relevant publications in a research field. | Scatter plot citation scores and journal factor impact |
Several tools can perform this type of analysis, such as Excel and Google Sheets for statistical graphs or using programming languages such as Python that has available multiple data visualization libraries (i.e. Matplotlib, Seaborn). Cluster maps based on bibliographic data(i.e keywords, authors) can be developed in VosViewer which makes it easy to identify clusters of related items [18] . In Fig. 4 , node size is representative of the number of papers related to the keyword, and lines represent the links among keyword terms.
[1] Keyword co-relationship analysis using clusterization in vos viewer.
This second and most important goal is to answer the formulated research questions, which should include a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis can make use of data categorized, labelled, or coded in the extraction form (see Section 1.6). This data can be transformed into numerical values to perform statistical analysis. One of the most widely employed method is frequency analysis, which shows the recurrence of an event, and can also represent the percental distribution of the population (i.e., percentage by technology type, frequency of use of different frameworks, etc.). Q ualitative analysis includes the narration of the results, the discussion indicating the way forward in future research work, and inferring a conclusion.
Finally, the literature review report should state the protocol to ensure others researchers can replicate the process and understand how the analysis was performed. In the protocol, it is essential to present the inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and rationality beyond these aspects.
The presentation and reporting of results will depend on the structure of the review given by the researchers conducting the SLR, there is no one answer. This structure should tie the studies together into key themes, characteristics, or subgroups [ 28 ].
SLR can be an extensive and demanding task, however the results are beneficial in providing a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on a given topic. For this reason, researchers should keep in mind that the entire process of the SLR is tailored to answer the research question(s). This article has detailed a practical guide with the essential steps to conducting an SLR in the context of computer science and software engineering while citing multiple helpful examples and tools. It is envisaged that this method will assist researchers, and particularly early-stage researchers, in following an algorithmic approach to fulfill this task. Finally, a quick checklist is presented in Appendix A as a companion of this article.
Angela Carrera-Rivera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Original. William Ochoa-Agurto : Methodology, Writing-Original. Felix Larrinaga : Reviewing and Supervision Ganix Lasa: Reviewing and Supervision.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Funding : This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant No. 814078.
Carrera-Rivera, A., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). Context-awareness for the design of Smart-product service systems: Literature review. Computers in Industry, 142, 103730.
1 https://parsif.al/
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process.
What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .
What is a literature review .
A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.
A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2
1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge.
2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.
Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal
3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research.
4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered.
5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research.
6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature.
Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic.
Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies:
Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements.
Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources.
The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.
Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning.
Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!
Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements.
Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review.
Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria.
Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!
Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research.
Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1
Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!
Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.
Here’s how to use the Research feature:
The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.
A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.
Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.
Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic.
Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods.
Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers. Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved. Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic. Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings. Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject. It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.
The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review: Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic. Define the scope and purpose of the literature review. State the research question or objective. Body: Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology. Critically analyze and evaluate each source. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Highlight any methodological limitations or biases. Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review. Highlight the research gap. Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.
Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows:
Annotated Bibliography | Literature Review | |
Purpose | List of citations of books, articles, and other sources with a brief description (annotation) of each source. | Comprehensive and critical analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. |
Focus | Summary and evaluation of each source, including its relevance, methodology, and key findings. | Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular subject and identifies gaps, trends, and patterns in existing literature. |
Structure | Each citation is followed by a concise paragraph (annotation) that describes the source’s content, methodology, and its contribution to the topic. | The literature review is organized thematically or chronologically and involves a synthesis of the findings from different sources to build a narrative or argument. |
Length | Typically 100-200 words | Length of literature review ranges from a few pages to several chapters |
Independence | Each source is treated separately, with less emphasis on synthesizing the information across sources. | The writer synthesizes information from multiple sources to present a cohesive overview of the topic. |
References
Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.
Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.
Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!
Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).
A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.
Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.
A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:
Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:
Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.
Types of Literature Reviews
It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.
In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.
Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].
Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.
Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.
Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.
Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.
Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.
NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.
Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews." Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.
I. Thinking About Your Literature Review
The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :
The critical evaluation of each work should consider :
II. Development of the Literature Review
Four Basic Stages of Writing 1. Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2. Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3. Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4. Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.
Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1. Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2. What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3. Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4. Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5. Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.
III. Ways to Organize Your Literature Review
Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.
Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.
Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:
IV. Writing Your Literature Review
Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.
Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.
V. Common Mistakes to Avoid
These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.
Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.
Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!
Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.
Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Don't Just Review for Content!
While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:
When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.
Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.
When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?
Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:
Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.
Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.
Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:
The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic
A literature review is important because it:
All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University
Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:
Not an essay
Not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed. A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.
Not a research paper where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another. A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.
A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it
As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.
Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:
Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.
Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.
Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.
Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.
Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"
Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.
* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.
All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC
Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015), Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393
What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California
Systematic review or meta-analysis?
A systematic review answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.
A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.
Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:
Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review. More information on meta-analyses can be found in Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .
A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies. It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.
An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings. Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy.
Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.
A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.
Why is it important?
A literature review is important because it:
APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers
Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.
How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?
Make a list of the databases you will search.
Where to find databases:
Some questions to help you analyze the research:
Tips:
Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.
Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.
Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.
You identify:
So, what is a literature review .
"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available or a set of summaries." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".
Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:
In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.
Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?
Note: In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.
Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time.
Social Sciences
Hard science and health sciences:
Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples
Table of Contents
Definition:
A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.
Types of Literature Review are as follows:
Parts of a literature review are as follows:
The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.
This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.
The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.
Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.
The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.
The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).
Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:
Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:
For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:
“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”
Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024
Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL
some applications of literature review in different fields:
Here are some applications of literature review in research:
Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:
Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:
There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:
Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:
What is the right type of literature review my study demands?
If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.
Heading from scratch!
A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.
Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:
Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.
However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.
A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.
Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.
Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408
The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.
Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.
Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?
*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)
Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.
Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.
This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?
Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.
A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:
Paper title: Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review
Source: SciSpace
You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.
While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.
A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.
It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.
Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320
Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review
Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.
Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.
Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.
Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.
Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .
Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.
Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.
Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.
By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.
A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:
*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.
Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.
Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!
A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.
The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.
Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —
While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:
Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.
Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.
Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.
Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches. However, it varies depending on the research question.
Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .
A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:
In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.
Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review
Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.
Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.
Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers
A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.
An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:
Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Literature Review Type | Narrative | Systematic | Integrative | Rapid | Scoping |
Approach | The traditional approach lacks a structured methodology | Systematic search, including structured methodology | Combines diverse methodologies for a comprehensive understanding | Quick review within time constraints | Preliminary study of existing literature |
How Exhaustive is the process? | May or may not be comprehensive | Exhaustive and comprehensive search | A comprehensive search for integration | Time-limited search | Determined by time or scope constraints |
Data Synthesis | Narrative | Narrative with tabular accompaniment | Integration of various sources or methodologies | Narrative and tabular | Narrative and tabular |
Purpose | Provides description of meta analysis and conceptualization of the review | Comprehensive evidence synthesis | Holistic understanding | Quick policy or practice guidelines review | Preliminary literature review |
Key characteristics | Storytelling, chronological presentation | Rigorous, traditional and systematic techniques approach | Diverse source or method integration | Time-constrained, systematic approach | Identifies literature size and scope |
Example Use Case | Historical exploration | Effectiveness evaluation | Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed combination | Policy summary | Research literature overview |
Online scientific databases.
Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.
Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.
Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.
Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.
If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!
There you go!
Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.
A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.
A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.
A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.
A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Table of contents.
The number of academic papers doubles every 12 years. This wealth of new knowledge is exciting, but the pace of growth makes keeping up with the latest developments increasingly difficult.
One response to this challenge is “living literature reviews”. At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of accessible articles that synthesize academic research on a specific topic. These reviews are primarily written by a single expert who is responsible for its quality and accuracy.
Living literature reviews aim to be accessible to readers unfamiliar with a field while maintaining rigor. Unlike news articles that often focus on single, sensational studies, these reviews provide a broader perspective, synthesizing findings from multiple sources. They differ from traditional academic literature reviews by avoiding paywalls, dense jargon, and lengthy formats that pose barriers to non-specialists. Moreover, because they don’t assume familiarity with the assumptions of a field, living literature reviews aim to describe how conclusions were reached, not just what the conclusions are. This transparency allows readers to better understand the research methodology and form their own judgment on the strength of the findings.
Living literature reviews also help readers assess a field by relying on a single individual to provide a consistent voice, perspective, and expert curatorial taste. While these individuals collaborate with other experts in their fields, having one consistent author allows readers to gauge how much they trust the author’s judgment over time.
Finally, living literature reviews leverage digital platforms for hosting and distribution. Websites allow for post-publication corrections and updates, enabling a level of currency that traditional print reviews can’t match. Complementing these, email newsletters and podcasts extend the reach and convenience of learning about academic research.
By making research accessible to a broader audience, living literature reviews can facilitate interdisciplinary connections and inform policy work. They offer insights into work happening in adjacent fields, potentially inspiring collaborations and novel research directions.
Open Philanthropy supports several living literature reviews:
We are now seeking pre-proposals from individuals to write living literature reviews . We are particularly interested in reviews on neglected topics relevant to policymaking. Ideal candidates will have a PhD or equivalent expertise in their proposed area. Our support typically allows authors to dedicate a quarter to a third of their time to the project.
If you’re interested in launching your own living literature review, we encourage you to reach out. For more information on how to submit a pre-proposal, please contact [email protected] .
Cookie | Duration | Description |
---|---|---|
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
Advanced Search
Background The overall burden of bronchiectasis on patients and healthcare systems has not been comprehensively described. Here, we present the findings of a systematic literature review that assessed the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis with subanalyses by aetiology (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023404162).
Methods Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications relating to bronchiectasis disease burden (December 2017–December 2022). Journal articles and congress abstracts reporting on observational studies, randomised controlled trials and registry studies were included. Editorials, narrative reviews and systematic literature reviews were included to identify primary studies. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
Results 1585 unique publications were identified, of which 587 full texts were screened and 149 were included. A further 189 citations were included from reference lists of editorials and reviews, resulting in 338 total publications. Commonly reported symptoms and complications included dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production, haemoptysis and exacerbations. Disease severity across several indices and increased mortality compared with the general population was reported. Bronchiectasis impacted quality of life across several patient-reported outcomes, with patients experiencing fatigue, anxiety and depression. Healthcare resource utilisation was considerable and substantial medical costs related to hospitalisations, treatments and emergency department and outpatient visits were accrued. Indirect costs included sick pay and lost income.
Conclusions Bronchiectasis causes significant clinical and socioeconomic burden. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce both healthcare resource utilisation and overall costs are needed. Further systematic analyses of specific aetiologies and paediatric disease may provide more insight into unmet therapeutic needs.
Bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients, their families and employers, and on healthcare systems. Therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce resource use and overall costs are needed. https://bit.ly/4bPCHlp
Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous chronic respiratory disease clinically characterised by chronic cough, excessive sputum production and recurrent pulmonary exacerbations [ 1 ], and radiologically characterised by the abnormal widening of the bronchi [ 2 ]. Bronchiectasis is associated with several genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders [ 3 ]. Regardless of the underlying cause, the defining features of bronchiectasis are chronic airway inflammation and infection, regionally impaired mucociliary clearance, mucus hypersecretion and mucus obstruction, as well as progressive structural lung damage [ 4 , 5 ]. These features perpetuate one another in a “vicious vortex” leading to a decline in lung function, pulmonary exacerbations and associated morbidity, mortality and worsened quality of life [ 4 , 5 ]. Bronchiectasis can be further categorised into several infective and inflammatory endotypes and is associated with multiple comorbidities and underlying aetiologies [ 6 ].
Bronchiectasis has been described as an emerging global epidemic [ 7 ], with prevalence and incidence rates increasing worldwide [ 8 – 12 ]. The prevalence of bronchiectasis, as well as of the individual aetiologies, varies widely across geographic regions [ 13 ]. In Europe, the reported prevalence ranges from 39.1 (females) and 33.3 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Spain and 68 (females) and 65 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Germany, to as high as 566 cases (females) and 486 cases (males) per 100 000 inhabitants in the UK [ 10 – 12 ]. In the US, the average overall prevalence was reported to be 139 cases per 100 000 [ 14 ], in Israel, the prevalence was reported to be 234 cases per 100 000 [ 15 ], and in China the prevalence was reported to be 174 per 100 000 [ 8 ]. Studies show that bronchiectasis prevalence increases with age [ 14 ]. This may increase the socioeconomic impact of bronchiectasis on countries with disproportionately higher number of older citizens. Large registry studies in patients with bronchiectasis have been published from the US (Bronchiectasis Research Registry) [ 16 ], Europe and Israel (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC)); the largest and most comprehensive report available to date) [ 17 ], India (EMBARC-India) [ 18 , 19 ], Korea (Korean Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration) [ 20 ] and Australia (Australian Bronchiectasis Registry) [ 21 ].
Although there are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis [ 4 ], comprehensive clinical care recommendations for the management of patients with bronchiectasis have been published [ 22 , 23 ]. However, the burden that bronchiectasis imposes on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, payers and employers, remains poorly understood. No review to date has used a systematic method to evaluate the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. This is the first systematic literature review aimed at investigating and synthesising the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis. A better understanding of the overarching burden of bronchiectasis, both overall and by individual aetiologies and associated diseases, will highlight the need for new therapies and assist healthcare systems in planning care and required resources.
The protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (reference number: CRD42023404162).
This systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 24 ]. Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies related to the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis (noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) and cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (CFBE)) using the search terms available in supplementary table S1 . Articles written in English and published over a 5-year period (December 2017–December 2022) were included.
The following article types reporting on prospective and retrospective observational studies, registry studies and randomised controlled trials (only baseline data extracted) were included: journal articles, preprints, research letters, conference proceedings, conference papers, conference abstracts, meeting abstracts and meeting posters. Reviews, literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as editorials, commentaries, letters and letters to the editor, were included for the purpose of identifying primary studies. A manual search of references cited in selected articles was performed and references were only included if they were published within the 5 years prior to the primary article being published.
A reviewer screened all titles and abstracts to identify publications for full-text review. These publications then underwent full-text screening by the same reviewer for potential inclusion. A second reviewer independently verified the results of both the title/abstract screen and the full-text screen. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data relating to aetiology, symptoms, disease severity, exacerbations, lung function, infection, comorbidities, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), exercise capacity, mortality, impact on family and caregivers, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), treatment burden, medical costs, and indirect impacts and costs, as well as data relating to the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, were extracted from the final set of publications into a standardised Excel spreadsheet by one reviewer. Studies were grouped based on the burden measure, and aggregate data (range of reported values) were summarised in table or figure format. For the economic burden section, costs extracted from studies reporting in currencies other than the euros were converted to euros based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.
Data from patients with specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and in children (age limits varied from study to study and included upper age limits of 15, 18, 19 and 20 years) were reported separately, where available. As literature relating to NCFBE and CFBE is generally distinct, any data related to CFBE are reported separately in the tables and text. We conducted subanalyses of key disease burden indicators, in which we extracted data from multicentre studies or those with a sample size >1000 subjects, to try to identify estimates from the most representative datasets. These data from larger and multicentre studies are reported in square brackets in tables 1 – 3 and supplementary tables S2–S7 , where available.
Prevalence and severity of bronchiectasis symptoms overall, in children, during exacerbations and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies
Patient-reported outcome scores in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies
Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies
Given the nature of the data included in this systematic literature review (that is, a broad range of patient clinical and socioeconomic characteristics rather than the outcome(s) of an intervention), in addition to the broad range of study types included, meta-analyses to statistically combine data of similar studies were not deemed appropriate and therefore not performed.
A total of 1834 citations were retrieved from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases, of which 1585 unique citations were identified. Abstract/title screening led to the inclusion of 587 citations for full-text screening. Following full-text screening, 149 primary citations and 110 literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as editorials and letters to the editor remained. From the reference lists of these 110 citations, a further 189 primary citations were identified. These articles were only included if 1) the primary articles contained data relating to the burden of bronchiectasis and 2) the primary articles were published within the 5 years prior to the original article's publication date. In total, 338 publications were considered eligible and included in this review ( supplementary figure S1 ). This included 279 journal articles, 46 congress abstracts and 13 letters to the editor or scientific/research letters. The results are summarised in the sections below. For the results from individual studies, including a description of the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, please see the supplemental Excel file .
The most frequently reported aetiologies included post-infectious, genetic (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) and cystic fibrosis (CF)), airway diseases (COPD and asthma), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), aspiration and reflux-related, immunodeficiency and autoimmune aetiologies ( supplementary figure S2 ). However, in up to 80.7% of adult cases and 53.3% of paediatric cases, the aetiology was not determined (referred to as “idiopathic bronchiectasis”) ( supplementary figure S2 ). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the frequency of idiopathic bronchiectasis ranged from 11.5 to 66.0% in adults and from 16.5 to 29.4% in children. Further details and additional aetiologies can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .
Symptom burden and severity.
Commonly reported symptoms in patients with bronchiectasis included cough, sputum production, dyspnoea, wheezing and haemoptysis, with these symptoms more prevalent in adults compared with children ( table 1 ). Other reported symptoms included chest discomfort, pain or tightness (both generally and during an exacerbation), fever and weight loss in both adults and children, and fatigue, tiredness or asthenia, appetite loss, and sweating in adults. In children, respiratory distress, hypoxia during an exacerbation, sneezing, nasal and ear discharge, thriving poorly including poor growth and weight loss, exercise intolerance, malaise, night sweats, abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, and diarrhoea were reported ( supplemental Excel file ). Classic bronchiectasis symptoms such as sputum production (range of patients reporting sputum production across all studies: 22.0–92.7%) and cough (range of patients reporting cough across all studies: 24.0–98.5%) were not universally reported ( table 1 ).
In a study comparing bronchiectasis (excluding CFBE) in different age groups (younger adults (18–65 years), older adults (66–75 years) and elderly adults (≥76 years) [ 63 ]), no significant differences across age groups were reported for the presence of cough (younger adults: 73.9%; older adults: 72.8%; elderly adults: 72.9%; p=0.90), sputum production (younger adults: 57.8%; older adults: 63.8%; elderly adults: 6.0%; p=0.16) or haemoptysis (younger adults: 16.5%; older adults: 19.3%; elderly adults: 16.3%; p=0.47).
Disease severity was reported according to several measures including the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI), the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), Age, Chronic Colonisation, Extension, Dyspnoea (FACED) score and the Exacerbations-FACED (E-FACED) score, all of which are known to be associated with future exacerbations, hospitalisations and mortality ( supplementary table S2 and the supplemental Excel file ). Up to 78.7, 41.8 and 40.8% of patients with bronchiectasis reported severe disease according to the BSI, FACED score and E-FACED score, respectively ( supplementary table S2 ). In most studies, severity scores were greater among people with bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or post-tuberculosis (TB) than idiopathic bronchiectasis ( supplementary table S2 ). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically.
The number of exacerbations experienced by patients with bronchiectasis in the previous year, per year and during follow-up are presented in figure 1 . For further details, please see the supplemental Excel file . Two studies reported exacerbation length in patients with bronchiectasis; this ranged from 11 to 16 days (both small studies; sample sizes of 191 and 32, respectively) [ 25 , 64 ]. A study in children with NCFBE reported a median of one exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, the same study reported that 31.1% of children with bronchiectasis experienced ≥3 exacerbations per year [ 65 ].
Range of bronchiectasis exacerbations in the previous year, per year and in the first and second years of follow-up. # : Two studies reported significant differences in the number of exacerbations experienced in the previous year across individual aetiologies. Study 1 [ 90 ]: Patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis had significantly fewer exacerbations in the previous year compared with other aetiologies (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), COPD and post-infectious) (p<0.021). Study 2 [ 33 ]: significant difference between post-tuberculosis (TB) bronchiectasis (mean: 2.8) and other aetiologies excluding idiopathic bronchiectasis (mean: 1.7) (p<0.05).
Reduced lung function was reported across several different measures in adults and children with bronchiectasis overall, including FEV 1 (absolute values and % predicted), forced vital capacity (FVC; absolute values and % pred) and lung clearance index (adults only) ( supplementary table S3 and the supplemental Excel file ). In most studies, lung function was lowest among people with post-TB bronchiectasis and bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or PCD ( supplementary table S2 ). Additional measures of lung function are detailed in the supplemental Excel file . Lung clearance index, considered more sensitive than spirometry to early airway damage, was elevated in two studies in adults with bronchiectasis, with a range of 9.0–12.8 (normal: 6–7 or less) [ 66 , 67 ].
In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, elderly adults (≥76 years) had significantly lower FEV 1 % pred (median: 67) compared with both younger (18–65 years; median: 78) and older adults (66–75 years; median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ]. FVC % pred was found to be significantly lower in elderly adults (mean: 65) compared with both younger adults (median: 78) and older adults (median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ].
Chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 22.3–79.6% of patients with bronchiectasis, although each study defined chronic infection differently (number of studies: 20). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 10.7–54.5% of patients with bronchiectasis (number of studies: 12). In two studies in NCFBE, significant differences in the proportion of patients chronically infected with at least one pathogen were reported across aetiologies (p<0.001 for both studies) [ 68 , 69 ]. Patients with post-infectious (other than TB) bronchiectasis (34.9%) [ 68 ] and patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis (68.3%) [ 69 ] had the highest prevalence of chronic infection.
The most commonly reported bacterial and fungal pathogens are shown in supplementary table S4 . The two most common bacterial pathogens were Pseudomonas ( P .) aeruginosa and Haemophilus ( H. ) influenzae . In several studies, more patients with PCD, TB and COPD as the aetiology of their bronchiectasis reported infection with P. aeruginosa . Additionally, in one study, significantly more children with CFBE had P. aeruginosa infection compared with children with NCFBE [ 70 ]. Further details and additional pathogens are reported in the supplemental Excel file .
Diversity of the sputum microbiome was assessed in two studies. In the first study in people with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), reduced microbiome alpha diversity (defined as the relative abundance of microbial species within a sample), particularly associated with Pseudomonas or Proteobacteria dominance, was associated with greater disease severity, increased frequency and severity of exacerbations, and a higher risk of mortality [ 71 ]. In the second study (unknown whether people with CFBE were excluded), a lower Shannon–Wiener diversity index (a measure of species diversity, with lower scores indicating lower diversity) score was associated with multiple markers of disease severity, including a higher BSI score (p=0.0003) and more frequent exacerbations (p=0.008) [ 72 ].
In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years) [ 63 ], chronic infection with H. influenzae was reported in 18.3% of younger adults, 12.8% of older adults and 8.8% of elderly adults, and chronic infection with Streptococcus ( Str. ) pneumoniae was reported in 5.3% of younger adults, 2.8% of older adults and 1.3% of elderly adults. For both of the above, the prevalence was significantly higher in younger adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017 for both comparisons). However, no significant differences across age groups were reported for P. aeruginosa , Moraxella catarrhalis or Staphylococcus ( Sta .) aureus chronic infection.
P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with reduced FEV 1 [ 73 ], more severe disease [ 74 ], more frequent exacerbations [ 35 , 49 , 75 , 76 ], increased hospital admissions, reduced quality of life based on St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and increased and 4-year mortality [ 49 , 76 ]. Additionally, in a study reporting healthcare use and costs in the US between 2007–2013, healthcare costs and hospitalisation costs were found to be increased in patients infected with P. aeruginosa ($56 499 and $41 972 more than patients not infected with P. aeruginosa , respectively) [ 77 ]. In the same study, HCRU was also higher in patients infected with P. aeruginosa (fivefold increase in the number of hospitalisations and 84% more emergency department (ED) visits compared with patients not infected with P. aeruginosa ) [ 77 ].
The most frequently reported comorbidities included cardiovascular (including heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and hypertension), respiratory (including asthma, COPD and sinusitis), metabolic (including diabetes and dyslipidaemia), malignancy (including haematological and solid malignancies), bone and joint-related (including osteoporosis and rheumatological disease), neurological (including anxiety and depression), renal, hepatic, and gastrointestinal comorbidities ( supplementary table S5 ). No data relating to comorbidities were reported for CFBE specifically. For further details and additional comorbidities, please see the supplemental Excel file .
In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), younger adults had a significantly lower prevalence of diabetes compared with older adults, a significantly lower prevalence of stroke compared with elderly adults and a significantly lower prevalence of heart failure, solid tumours and renal failure compared with both older and elderly adults (p<0.0017 for all comparisons). Additionally, the prevalence of COPD was significantly lower in both younger and older adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017) [ 63 ]. In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, the prevalence of comorbid asthma ranged from 22.2 to 25.8% [ 65 , 78 ] and the prevalence of sinusitis was reported to be 12.7% in a single study [ 79 ].
CCI scores can range from 0 to 37, with higher scores indicating a decreased estimate of 10-year survival. In this review, CCI scores ranged from 0.7 to 6.6 in studies reporting means (number of studies: 7). In one study, adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) who experienced ≥2 exacerbations per year were found to have significantly higher CCI scores (3.3) compared with patients who experienced less than two exacerbations per year (2.2) (p=0.001) [ 35 ]. In another study in adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), CCI scores increased significantly with increasing disease severity, with patients with mild (FACED score of 0–2), moderate (FACED score of 3–4) and severe (FACED score of 5–7) bronchiectasis reporting mean CCI scores of 3.9, 5.7 and 6.3, respectively [ 80 ]. No CCI scores were reported for CFBE specifically.
Several studies reported a higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities. such as heart failure [ 81 ], stroke [ 82 , 83 ] and hypertension [ 82 – 84 ] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with a matched general population or healthy controls. Conversely, several additional studies reported no significant differences [ 81 , 85 , 86 ]. Two large studies reported an increased prevalence of diabetes in patients with bronchiectasis compared with nonbronchiectasis control groups [ 83 , 84 ]; however, three additional smaller studies reported no significant differences [ 81 , 82 , 86 ]. The prevalence of gastro–oesophageal reflux disease was found to be significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls in one study [ 87 ], but no significant difference was reported in a second study [ 85 ]. Both anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched healthy controls in one study [ 55 ]. Lastly, two large studies reported an increased prevalence of asthma [ 84 , 87 ] and five studies reported a significantly higher prevalence of COPD [ 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 87 ] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls or the general population. A smaller study reported conflicting evidence whereby no significant difference in the prevalence of asthma in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched controls was reported [ 85 ].
Patient-reported outcomes.
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue, anxiety and depression were reported across several PRO measures and domains. The most frequently reported PROs are discussed in further detail in the sections below ( table 2 ). Further details and additional PROs can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .
In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), the median SGRQ total score was significantly higher in elderly adults (50.8) compared with younger adults (36.1), indicating a higher degree of limitation (p=0.017) [ 63 ].
In a study that reported Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores in men and women with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) separately, women had significantly lower LCQ total scores (14.9) when compared with men (17.5) (p=0.006), indicating worse quality of life [ 88 ]. Additionally, women had significantly lower scores across all three LCQ domains (p=0.014, p=0.005 and p=0.011 for physical, psychological and social domains, respectively) [ 88 ].
Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis was reported using walking tests namely the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) ( supplementary table S6 ). The 6MWT data from patients with bronchiectasis generally fell within the normal range for healthy people; however, the ISWT data was below the normal range for healthy people ( supplementary table S6 ). Studies also reported on daily physical activity, daily sedentary time and number of steps per day in patients with bronchiectasis, and in children specifically ( supplementary table S6 ). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically. Further details can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .
In one study, the ISWT distance was reported to be significantly lower in patients with NCFBE compared with healthy controls (592.6 m versus 882.9 m; difference of ∼290 m; p<0.001) [ 89 ]. Additionally, patients with bronchiectasis spent significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity compared with healthy controls (p=0.030 and 0.044, respectively) [ 89 ]. Lastly, a study reported that patients with NCFBE had a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls (p<0.001) [ 89 ].
Mortality ranged from 0.24 to 67.6%; however, it should be noted that the study duration differed across studies. When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the mortality rate ranged from 0.24 to 28.1%. One study reported more deaths in patients with NCFBE (9.1%; 5.9-year mean follow-up period) compared with patients without bronchiectasis (0.8%; 5.4-year mean follow-up period) [ 84 ]. In one study, significantly more patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis died (37.5%) compared with other aetiologies (19.0%) (3.4-year mean follow-up period; p<0.001). After adjusting for several factors, multivariate analysis showed that the diagnosis of COPD as the primary cause of bronchiectasis increased the risk of death by 1.77 compared with the patients with other aetiologies [ 41 ]. Similarly, in another study, COPD-associated bronchiectasis was associated with higher mortality (55%) in multivariate analysis as compared with other aetiologies (rheumatic disease: 20%; post-infectious: 16%; idiopathic: 14%; ABPA: 13%; immunodeficiency: 11%) (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% CI 1.04–4.30; p=0.038; 5.2-year median follow-up period) [ 90 ].
The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year mortality rates in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) ranged from 0.0 to 12.3%, 0.0 to 13.0%, 0.0 to 21.0%, 5.5 to 39.1% and 12.4 to 53.0%, respectively (number of studies: 9, 4, 7, 1 and 4, respectively). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates ranges were 0.4–7.9%, 3.9–13.0%, 3.7–21.0% and 12.4–53.0% (no 4-year mortality data from larger or multicentre studies). No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.
Two studies reported mortality rate by bronchiectasis aetiology (people with CFBE excluded). In the first study, no significant difference in the 4-year mortality rate was reported across aetiologies (p=0.7; inflammatory bowel disease: 14.3%; post-TB: 13.4%; rheumatoid arthritis: 11.4%; idiopathic or post-infectious: 10.1%; ABPA: 6.1%; other aetiologies: 6.1%) [ 49 ]. In the second study, patients with post-TB bronchiectasis had a significantly higher 5-year mortality rate (30.0%) compared with patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis (18.0%) and other aetiologies (10.0%) (p<0.05 for both comparisons) [ 32 ].
In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.9 to 59.3% in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) hospitalised for an exacerbation or for other reasons (number of studies: 7). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, in-hospital mortality rate was reported in only one study (33.0%). One study reported mortality in bronchiectasis patients admitted to a tertiary care centre according to aetiology; in-hospital mortality was highest in patients with post-pneumonia bronchiectasis (15.8%), followed by patients with idiopathic (7.1%) and post-TB (2.6%) bronchiectasis. No deaths were reported in patients with COPD, ABPA or PCD aetiologies [ 42 ]. Intensive care unit mortality was reported in two studies and ranged from 24.6 to 36.1% [ 62 , 91 ]. No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.
Only two studies discussed the impact that having a child with bronchiectasis has on parents/caregivers. In the first study, parents of children with bronchiectasis (not specified whether children with CFBE were excluded) were more anxious and more depressed according to both the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Centre of Epidemiological Studies depression scale, compared with parents of children without any respiratory conditions (both p<0.001; sample size of 29 participants) [ 53 ]. In the second study, parents or carers of children with bronchiectasis (multicentre study with a sample size of 141 participants; children with CFBE excluded) were asked to vote for their top five greatest concerns or worries; the most common worries or concerns that were voted for by over 15% of parents were “impact on his/her adult life in the future, long-term effects, normal life” (29.8%), “ongoing declining health” (25.5%), “the cough” (24.8%), “impact on his/her life now as a child (play, development)” (24.1%), “lack of sleep/being tired” (24.1%), “concerns over aspects of antibiotic use” (22.7%), “missing school or daycare” (17.7%) and “breathing difficulties/shortness of breath” (16.3%) [ 92 ].
HCRU in terms of hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits and length of stay overall and by bronchiectasis aetiology are reported in table 3 . No data relating to HCRU were reported for CFBE specifically.
In a study in children with bronchiectasis (children with CFBE excluded), 30.0% of children were hospitalised at least once in the previous year [ 65 ]. The median number of hospitalisations per year was 0 (interquartile range: 0–1) [ 65 ]. In another study, the mean length of hospital stay for children with bronchiectasis was 6.7 days (standard deviation: 4.8 days) [ 93 ]. In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, significantly more elderly adults (≥76 years; 26.0%) were hospitalised at least once during the first year of follow-up compared with younger adults (18–65 years; 17.0%) and older adults (66–75 years; 17.0%) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ]. Additionally, length of stay was found to be significantly longer in male patients (mean: 17.6 days) compared with female patients (mean: 12.5 days) (p=0.03) [ 94 ].
Length of stay was found to be 38% higher in patients with bronchiectasis (mean: 15.4 days; people with CFBE excluded) compared with patients with any other respiratory illness (mean: 9.6 days) (p<0.001) [ 94 ]. In a study reporting on HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) over a 3-year period (Germany; 2012–2015) [ 85 ], a mean of 24.7 outpatient appointments per patient were reported; there was no significant difference in the number of outpatient appointments between patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (patients without bronchiectasis matched by age, sex and distribution, and level of comorbidities) (mean: 23.4) (p=0.12). When assessing specific outpatient appointments over the 3-year period, patients with bronchiectasis attended a mean of 9.2 general practitioner appointments, 2.9 radiology appointments, 2.5 chest physician appointments and 0.8 cardiologist appointments. Patients with bronchiectasis had significantly fewer general practitioner appointments compared with matched controls (mean: 9.8) (p=0.002); however, they had significantly more radiology appointments (mean for matched controls: 2.3) and chest physician appointments (mean for matched controls: 1.4) compared with matched controls (p<0.001 for both comparisons).
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the crude hospital admission rate in 2013 was 88.4 (95% CI 74.0–105.6) per 100 000 person-years [ 91 ]. In New Zealand (2008–2013), the crude and adjusted hospital admission rates were 25.7 and 20.4 per 100 000 population, respectively [ 95 ]. Lastly, in Australia and New Zealand (2004–2008) the hospital admission rate ranged from 0.7 to 2.9 per person-year [ 96 ]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded.
In two studies, the percentage of patients with bronchiectasis receiving any respiratory medication at baseline ranged from 60.8 to 85.7% [ 97 , 98 ]. Additionally, in a study comparing healthcare costs in patients with bronchiectasis before and after confirmation of P. aeruginosa infection, mean pharmacy visits in the year preceding diagnosis were reported to be 23.2; this increased significantly by 56.5% to 36.2 in the year post-diagnosis (p<0.0001) [ 99 ]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis were prescribed a mean of 12 medications for bronchiectasis and other comorbidities [ 100 ]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded. The most frequently reported respiratory treatments can be seen in supplementary table S7 . These included antibiotics (including macrolides), corticosteroids, bronchodilators, mucolytics and oxygen. No treatment data were reported for CFBE specifically. Other respiratory treatments included saline, anticholinergics and leukotriene receptor antagonists ( supplemental Excel file ).
In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, 23.9% of children were receiving any bronchodilator at baseline [ 101 ], 9.0–21.7% of children were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at baseline [ 101 , 102 ], 4.3% of children were receiving oral corticosteroids at baseline [ 101 ] and 12.1% of children were receiving long-term oxygen therapy [ 103 ].
Medical costs for bronchiectasis included overall costs, hospitalisation costs, ED visits and outpatient visit costs and costs of treatment; indirect impacts and costs included sick leave and sick pay, missed work and income loss for caregivers, and missed school or childcare for children ( table 4 and the supplemental Excel file ). People with CFBE were excluded from all of the studies in table 4 below. In studies reporting in currencies other than the €, costs were converted to € based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.
Bronchiectasis-related medical costs and indirect impacts and costs (individual studies)
No review to date has systematically evaluated the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. Here, we present the first systematic literature review that comprehensively describes the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis overall and across individual aetiologies and associated diseases. A total of 338 publications were included in the final analysis. Together, the results indicate that the burden of clinically significant bronchiectasis on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, is substantial, highlighting the urgent need for new disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis.
Bronchiectasis is associated with genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders. However, in many patients with bronchiectasis, an underlying aetiology cannot be identified (idiopathic bronchiectasis) [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. This is supported by the results of this systematic literature review, in which up to 80.7% of patients were reported to have idiopathic bronchiectasis. The results are in line with those reported in a systematic literature review of bronchiectasis aetiology conducted by G ao et al. [ 13 ] (studies from Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa and Oceania included) in which an idiopathic aetiology was reported in approximately 45% of patients with bronchiectasis, with a range of 5–82%. The maximum of 80.7% of patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis identified by this systematic literature review is much higher than in the recent report on the disease characteristics of the EMBARC where idiopathic bronchiectasis was the most common aetiology and reported in only ∼38% of patients with bronchiectasis [ 17 ]. This highlights the importance of sample size and geographic variation (80.7% reported from a single-country study with a small sample size versus ∼38% reported from a continent-wide study with a large sample size). Nevertheless, identifying the underlying aetiology is a recommendation of bronchiectasis guidelines as this can considerably alter the clinical management and prognosis [ 23 , 110 ]. Specific therapeutic interventions may be required for specific aetiologies, such as ICS for people with asthma-related bronchiectasis, antifungal treatment for those with ABPA-associated bronchiectasis and immunoglobulin replacement therapy for those with common variable immunodeficiency-related bronchiectasis [ 23 , 111 ]. Indeed, an observational study has shown that identification of the underlying aetiology affected management in 37% of people with bronchiectasis [ 112 ]. Future studies to determine the impact of identifying the underlying aetiology on management and prognosis are needed to fully understand its importance.
Patients with bronchiectasis experienced a significant symptom burden, with dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production and haemoptysis reported most commonly. These symptoms were also reported in children with bronchiectasis at slightly lower frequencies. Dealing with bronchiectasis symptoms are some of the greatest concerns from a patient's perspective. In a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to deal with, sputum, dyspnoea and cough were the first, fifth and sixth most common answers, respectively [ 113 ]. Some aetiologies were reported to have a higher prevalence of certain symptoms. For example, in single studies, patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of cough and wheezing [ 39 ], patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of sputum production [ 41 ], and patients with post-TB bronchiectasis were found to have a higher prevalence of haemoptysis [ 30 ] compared with other aetiologies. Together, these results highlight the need for novel treatments that reduce the symptom burden of bronchiectasis. They also highlight the importance of teaching patients to perform and adhere to regular nonpharmacological interventions, such as airway clearance using physiotherapy techniques, which have been shown to improve cough-related health status and chronic sputum production [ 110 ]. Future studies assessing when airway clearance techniques should be started, and which ones are the most effective, are a research priority [ 113 ].
The burden of exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis was high, with patients experiencing three or more exacerbations in the previous year (up to 73.6%), per year (up to 55.6%) or in the first year of follow-up (up to 32.4%). Few studies reported significant differences between aetiologies. Importantly, exacerbations are the second-most concerning aspect of bronchiectasis from the patient's perspective [ 113 ]. Patients with frequent exacerbations have more frequent hospitalisations and increased 5-year mortality [ 114 ] and exacerbations are also associated with poorer quality of life [ 114 , 115 ]. Therefore, prevention of exacerbations is of great importance in the management of bronchiectasis [ 116 ]. The exact cause of exacerbations in bronchiectasis (believed to be multifactorial) is not fully understood due a lack of mechanistic studies [ 116 ]. Future studies into the causes and risk factors for exacerbations [ 113 ] may lead to improvements in their prevention.
Many patients with bronchiectasis, including children, experienced chronic infections with bacterial pathogens such as P. aeruginosa , H. influenzae , Sta. aureus and Str. pneumoniae as well as non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Importantly, P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with more severe disease, reduced lung function and quality of life, and increased exacerbations, hospital admission, morality, HCRU and healthcare costs. Due to the clear and consistent association between P. aeruginosa and poor outcomes, patients with chronic P. aeruginosa colonisation should be considered to be at a higher risk of bronchiectasis-related complications [ 110 ]. Additionally, regular sputum microbiology screening should be performed in people with clinically significant bronchiectasis to detect new isolation of P. aeruginosa [ 110 ]; in which case, patients should be offered eradication antibiotic treatment [ 23 ]. Eradication of P. aeruginosa is not only of clinical importance, but also of economic importance due to the associated HCRU and healthcare costs. As such, a better understanding of the key factors leading to P. aeruginosa infection is a priority for future research [ 113 ].
Bronchiectasis markedly impacted HRQoL across several PROs including the SGRQ, Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis score, LCQ, COPD Assessment Test and Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire. In children with bronchiectasis, significantly lower quality of life (according to the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory score) compared with age-matched controls was reported [ 53 ]. The majority of studies reporting HRQoL in individual aetiologies and associated diseases either reported in a single aetiology, did not perform any statistical analyses to compare aetiologies, or reported no significant differences across aetiologies. Patients also experienced mild-to-moderate anxiety and depression according to the HADS-Anxiety, HADS-Depression and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire scores, with very limited data reported in individual aetiologies. When compared with healthy controls, anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis [ 55 ]. Additionally, exercise capacity was reduced, with patients with bronchiectasis reported to spend significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity and have a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls [ 89 ]. Improvements in anxiety, depression and exercise capacity are important priorities for people with bronchiectasis; in a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to manage, “not feeling fit for daily activities”, anxiety and depression were the fourth, eighth and ninth most common answers, respectively [ 113 ].
The studies relating to HCRU and costs in this review were heterogeneous in terms of methodology, time period, country and currency, making them challenging to compare. Nevertheless, this study found that HCRU was substantial, with patients reporting a maximum of 1.3 hospitalisation, 1.3 ED and 21.0 outpatient visits per year. Length of stay was found to be significantly longer in patients with bronchiectasis compared with patients with any other respiratory illness in one study [ 91 ]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis reported significantly more specialist appointments (radiologist appointments and chest physician appointments) compared with matched controls [ 85 ]. Patients with bronchiectasis also experienced a significant treatment burden, with up to 36.4, 58.0 and 83.0% of patients receiving long-term inhaled antibiotics, oral antibiotics and macrolides, respectively, up to 80.4% receiving long-term ICS and up to 61.7% and 81.4% receiving long-term long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta agonists, respectively. Wide ranges of treatment use were reported in this study, which may reflect geographic variation in treatment patterns. Heterogeneous treatment patterns across Europe were observed in the EMBARC registry data with generally higher medication use in the UK and Northern/Western Europe and lower medication use in Eastern Europe (inhaled antibiotics: 1.8–8.9%; macrolides: 0.9–24.4%; ICS: 37.2–58.5%; long-acting beta agonists: 42.7–52.8%; long-acting muscarinic antagonists: 26.5–29.8%) [ 17 ]. Similarly, data from the Indian bronchiectasis registry indicate that the treatment of bronchiectasis in India is also diverse [ 19 ]. Furthermore, in a comparison of the European and Indian registry data, both long-term oral and inhaled antibiotics were more commonly used in Europe compared with India [ 19 ].
Cost varied widely across studies. However, patients, payers and healthcare systems generally accrued substantial medical costs due to hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits, hospital-in-the-home and treatment-related costs. Other medical costs incurred included physiotherapy and outpatient remedies (including breathing or drainage techniques), outpatient medical aids (including nebulisers and respiration therapy equipment) and the cost of attending convalescence centres. Only one study compared the medical costs in patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (age, sex and comorbidities) and found that patients with bronchiectasis had significantly higher total direct medical expenditure, hospitalisation costs, treatment costs for certain medications and costs associated with outpatient remedies and medical aids [ 85 ]. Bronchiectasis was also associated with indirect impacts and costs, including sick leave, sick pay and income lost due to absenteeism and missed work, and lost wages for caregivers of patients with bronchiectasis. Children with bronchiectasis also reported absenteeism from school or childcare.
Our findings regarding HRCU and costs in bronchiectasis are mirrored by a recent systematic literature review by R oberts et al . [ 117 ] estimating the annual economic burden of bronchiectasis in adults and children over the 2001–2022 time period. R oberts et al . [ 117 ] found that annual total healthcare costs per adult patient ranged from €3027 to €69 817 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), predominantly driven by hospitalisation costs. Likewise, we report annual costs per patient ranging from €218 to €51 033, with annual hospital costs ranging from €1215 to €27 612 (adults and children included) ( table 4 ). Further, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a mean annual hospitalisation rate ranging from 0.11 to 2.9, which is similar to our finding of 0.03–1.3 hospitalisations per year ( table 3 ). With regard to outpatient visits, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a mean annual outpatient respiratory physician attendance ranging from 0.83 to 6.8 visits, whereas we report a maximum of 21 visits per year ( table 3 ). It should be noted, however, that our value is not restricted to visits to a respiratory physician. With regard to indirect annual costs per adult patient, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a loss of income because of illness of €1109–€2451 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), whereas we report a figure of ∼€1410 ( table 4 ). Finally, burden on children is similarly reported by us and R oberts et al . [ 117 ], with children missing 12 days of school per year per child ( table 4 ).
Due to the nature of this systematic literature review, no formal statistical analyses or formal risk of bias assessments were performed.
Several limitations within the existing literature were identified. Firstly, the vast majority of studies reported patients with NCFBE overall, with limited availability of literature reporting on individual aetiologies and associated disease. Furthermore, where this literature was available, it was limited to a handful of individual aetiologies and associated diseases, and in many of these studies, no statistical analyses to compare different aetiologies and associated disease were performed. Additionally, the methods used to determine aetiologies within individual studies may have differed. Literature on NCFBE and CFBE has traditionally been very distinct; as such, most of the studies included in this review have excluded people with CF. As the general term “CF lung disease” was not included in our search string in order to limit the number of hits, limited data on CFBE are included in this review. Bronchiectasis remains largely under-recognised and underdiagnosed, thus limiting the availability of literature. There is a particular knowledge gap with respect to paediatric NCFBE; however, initiatives such as the Children's Bronchiectasis Education Advocacy and Research Network (Child-BEAR-Net) ( www.improvebe.org ) are aiming to create multinational registries for paediatric bronchiectasis.
There were variations in the amount of literature available for the individual burdens. While there was more literature available on the clinical burden of bronchiectasis, economic data (related to both medical costs and indirect costs) and data on the impact of bronchiectasis on families and caregivers, were limited. Additionally, cost comparisons across studies and populations were difficult due to differences in cost definitions, currencies and healthcare systems.
Sample sizes of the studies included in this systematic literature review varied greatly, with the majority of studies reporting on a small number of participants. Furthermore, many of the studies were single-centre studies, thus limiting the ability to make generalisations about the larger bronchiectasis population, and cross-sectional, thus limiting the ability to assess the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis over a patient's lifetime. Furthermore, there may be potential sex/gender bias in reporting that has not been considered in this systematic literature review.
Finally, for many of the reported outcomes, data varied greatly across studies, with wide estimates for the frequency of different aetiologies and comorbidities as well as disease characteristics such as exacerbations and healthcare costs noted. This reflects the heterogeneity of both the study designs (including sample size and inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the study populations themselves. Additionally, the use of non-standardised terms across articles posed a limitation for data synthesis. Systematic collection of standardised data across multiple centres, with standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria such as that being applied in international registries, is likely to provide more accurate estimates than those derived from small single-centre studies.
Collectively, the evidence identified and presented in this systematic literature review show that bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients and their families and employers, as well as on healthcare systems. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and reduce both HCRU and overall costs are urgently needed. Further systematic analyses of the disease burden of specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and associated disease (particularly PCD-, COPD- and post-TB-associated bronchiectasis, which appear to impose a greater burden in some aspects) and paediatric bronchiectasis (the majority of data included in this study were obtained from adults) may provide more insight into the unmet therapeutic needs for these specific patient populations.
Further research into the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis for individual aetiologies and associated diseases is required.
Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.
Supplementary figures and tables ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT
Supplementary Excel file ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT
Laura Cottino, PhD, of Nucleus Global, provided writing, editorial support, and formatting assistance, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.
Conflict of interest: The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). J.D. Chalmers has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Novartis, Insmed and Trudell, and received consultancy or speaker fees from Antabio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Trudell and Zambon. M.A. Mall reports research grants paid to their institution from the German Research Foundation (DFG), German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), German Innovation Fund, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Prieris, Recode, Santhera, Splisense and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; speaker fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals; and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M.A. Mall also reports advisory board participation for AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Pari and Vertex Pharmaceuticals and is a fellow of ERS (unpaid). P.J. McShane is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim's Airleaf trial and Insmed's Aspen trial. P.J. McShane is also a principal investigator for clinical trials with the following pharmaceutical companies: Insmed: Aspen, 416; Boehringer Ingelheim: Airleaf; Paratek: oral omadacycline; AN2 Therapeutics: epetraborole; Renovian: ARINA-1; Redhill; Spero; and Armata. K.G. Nielsen reports advisory board membership for Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Shteinberg reports having received research grants from Novartis, Trudell Pharma and GlaxoSmithKline; travel grants from Novartis, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Rafa; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Teva, Novartis, Kamada and Sanofi; and advisory fees (including steering committee membership) from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kamada, Syncrony Medical, Zambon and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M. Shteinberg also reports data and safety monitoring board participation for Bonus Therapeutics, Israel and is an ERS Task Force member on bronchiectasis guideline development. S.D. Sullivan has participated in advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and has research grants from Pfizer, Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline. S.H. Chotirmall is on advisory boards for CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pneumagen Ltd, served on a data and safety monitoring board for Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc., and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Chiesi Farmaceutici.
Support statement: This systematic literature review was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry .
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .
NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Literature review on collaborative project delivery for sustainable construction: bibliometric analysis.
2. literature review, 2.1. collaborative project delivery, 2.2. design build (db), 2.3. construction manager at risk (cmar), 2.4. integrated project delivery method (ipd), 2.5. sustainability, 2.6. sustainable construction, 2.7. benefits of eci comparing case studies, 2.8. collaborative delivery models, 3. methodology, 3.1. research methods, 3.2. database research, 4.1. ipd, design-build, and cmar overview, 4.1.1. yearly publication distribution of db cmar and ipd, 4.1.2. major country analysis, 4.1.3. most relevant and influential journals, 4.1.4. corresponding author countries, 4.2. keyword analysis, 4.2.1. high-frequency keyword analysis, 4.2.2. co-occurrence network analysis, 4.2.3. analysis of keywords’ frequency over time, 5. discussion, 5.1. findings of advantages and disadvantages of ipd, db, and cmar for sustainable construction, 5.1.1. advantages of ipd, 5.1.2. advantages of design-build, 5.1.3. advantages of construction manager at risk, 5.1.4. disadvantages of ipd, 5.1.5. disadvantages of design-build, 5.1.6. disadvantages of construction manager at risk, 5.2. most suitable cpd technique for sustainable construction based on literature review, 5.2.1. limitations, 5.2.2. recommendations for future research, 6. future trend, 6.1. enhancing innovation through collaborative project delivery, 6.2. open communication and block chain technology, 6.3. multi-party agreement, 6.4. utilizing artificial intelligence in decision support systems, 7. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Paper | Reference | Total Citation TC | TC Per Year | Normalized TC |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kent D.C., 2010, J Constr Eng Manage | (Kent and Becerik-Gerber, 2010) [ ] | 300 | 21.43 | 7.67 |
Ugwu O.O., 2007, Build Environ | (Ugwu and Haupt, 2007) [ ] | 269 | 15.82 | 7.69 |
Kines P., 2010, J Saf Res | (Kines et al., 2010) [ ] | 238 | 17.00 | 6.08 |
Asmar M., 2013, J Constr Eng Manag | (Asmar et al., 2013) [ ] | 226 | 20.55 | 5.01 |
Ballard G., 2008, Lean Constr J | (Ballard, 2008) [ ] | 221 | 13.81 | 6.85 |
Hale D.R., 2009, J Constr Eng Manag | (Hale et al., 2009) [ ] | 211 | 14.07 | 6.95 |
Bynum P., 2013, J Constr Eng Manag | (Bynum et al., 2013) [ ] | 185 | 16.82 | 4.11 |
Ibbs C.W., 2003, J Constr Eng Manag | (Ibbs et al., 2003) [ ] | 183 | 8.71 | 8.58 |
Choudry R.M., 2009, J Constr Eng Manag | (Choudhry et al., 2009) [ ] | 182 | 12.13 | 6.00 |
Mollaoglu-Korkmaz S., 2013, J Manage Eng | (Mollaoglu-Korkmaz et al., 2013) [ ] | 152 | 13.82 | 3.37 |
El Wardani M.A., 2006, J Constr Eng Manag | (El Wardani et al., 2006) [ ] | 144 | 8.00 | 4.65 |
Ghassemi R., 2011, Lean Constr J | (Ghassemi and Becerik-Gerber, 2011) [ ] | 143 | 11.00 | 5.54 |
Liu J., 2016, J Constr Eng Manag | (Liu et al., 2016) [ ] | 140 | 17.50 | 5.12 |
El-Sayegh S.M., 2015, J Manag Eng | (El-Sayegh and Mansour, 2015) [ ] | 135 | 15.00 | 6.59 |
Fang C., 2012, Reliab Eng Syst Saf | (Fang et al., 2012) [ ] | 131 | 10.92 | 4.05 |
Franz B., 2017, J Constr Eng Manag | (Franz et al., 2017) [ ] | 126 | 18.00 | 5.56 |
Kim H., 2016, J Comput Civ Eng | (Kim et al., 2016) [ ] | 125 | 15.63 | 4.57 |
Ding L.Y., 2013, Autom Constr | (Ding and Zhou, 2013) [ ] | 118 | 10.73 | 2.62 |
Wanberg J., 2013, J Constr Eng Manag | (Wanberg et al., 2013) [ ] | 116 | 10.55 | 2.57 |
Shrestha, P.P., 2012, J Constr Eng Manag | (Shrestha et al., 2012) [ ] | 112 | 9.33 | 3.47 |
Torabi S.A., 2009, Int J Prod Res | (Torabi and Hassini, 2009) [ ] | 105 | 7.00 | 3.46 |
Baradan S., 2006, J Constr Eng Manag | (Baradan and Usmen, 2006) [ ] | 99 | 5.50 | 3.20 |
Levitt R.E., 2007, J Constr Eng Manag | (Levitt, 2007) [ ] | 97 | 5.71 | 2.77 |
Sullivan J., 2017, J Constr Eng Manag | (Sullivan et al., 2017) [ ] | 93 | 13.29 | 4.11 |
Araya F., 2021, Saf Sci | (Araya, 2021) [ ] | 92 | 30.67 | 9.5 |
Country | Frequency |
---|---|
USA | 584 |
CHINA | 167 |
UK | 101 |
AUSTRALIA | 71 |
SOUTH KOREA | 56 |
CANADA | 51 |
IRAN | 39 |
MALAYSIA | 39 |
INDIA | 30 |
SOUTH AFRICA | 22 |
SPAIN | 22 |
FINLAND | 18 |
FRANCE | 17 |
DENMARK | 16 |
EGYPT | 16 |
SWEDEN | 16 |
INDONESIA | 15 |
NETHERLANDS | 14 |
NEW ZEALAND | 14 |
BRAZIL | 13 |
GERMANY | 13 |
NIGERIA | 13 |
UNITED ARAB ENIRATES | 13 |
JORDAN | 12 |
SAUDI ARABIA | 12 |
Country | TC | Average Article Citations |
---|---|---|
USA | 4933 | 23.70 |
CHINA | 1106 | 18.10 |
UNITED KINGDOM | 763 | 19.10 |
HONG KONG | 703 | 37.00 |
AUSTRALIA | 494 | 21.50 |
SOUTH KOREA | 312 | 16.00 |
IRAN | 198 | 52.00 |
SPAIN | 191 | 15.20 |
SWEDEN | 188 | 21.20 |
PAKISTAN | 182 | 20.90 |
FRANCE | 164 | 182.00 |
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES | 163 | 32.80 |
MALAYSIA | 154 | 32.60 |
INDIA | 145 | 15.40 |
SINGAPORE | 130 | 13.20 |
CANADA | 107 | 43.30 |
ITALY | 92 | 7.60 |
LEBANON | 92 | 18.40 |
NETHERLANDS | 91 | 18.40 |
NORWAY | 74 | 18.20 |
IPD Advantages | ||
---|---|---|
Advantages | % Percentage of Advantages from Ordered List of Publication | Publication List |
Collaborative atmosphere and fairness | 79 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] |
Early involvement of stakeholders | 63 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O U = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] |
Promoting trust | 25 | R = [ ] S = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] X = [ ] |
Reduce schedule time | 42 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] |
Reduce waste | 42 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] |
Shared cost, risk reward, and responsibilities | 75 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] X = [ ] |
Multi-party agreement and noncompetitive bidding | 54 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] N = [ ] Q = [ ] T = [ ] V = [ ] |
Integrated decision-making for designs and shared design responsibilities | 38 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] L = [ ] P = [ ] T = [ ] |
Open communication and time management | 38 | D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] O = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] |
Reduce project duration and liability by fast-tracking design and construction | 25 | F = [ ] G = [ ] L = [ ] O = [ ] S = V |
Shared manpower and changes in SOW, equipment rentage, and change orders | 17 | A = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] Q = [ ] |
Information sharing and technological impact | 38 | A = [ ] D = [ ] G = KLMPRV |
Fast problem resolution through an integrated approach | 21 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] S = [ ] |
Lowest cost delivery and project cost | 33 | A = [ ] C = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] L = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] |
Improved efficiency and reduced errors | 29 | B = [ ] C = [ ] F = [ ] L = [ ] Q = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] |
Combined risk pool estimated maximum price (allowable cost) | 17 | A = [ ] L = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] |
Cooperation innovation and coordination | 46 | CEFLPQRSTUV |
Combined labor material cost estimation, budgeting, and profits | 25 | A = [ ] D = [ ] P = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] |
Strengthened relationship and self-governance | 17 | C = [ ] D = [ ] F = [ ] |
Fewer change orders, Schedules, and request for information | 21 | L = [ ] O = [ ] Q = [ ] T = [ ] V = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] X = [ ] |
DB Advantages | ||
---|---|---|
Disadvantages | %Percentage of Advantages from Ordered List of Publication | Publication List |
Single point of accountability for the design and construction | 39 | CDIJMOQRT C = [ ] D = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] Q = [ ] R = [ ] T = [ ] |
Produces time saving schedule | 52 | CDHJKLMORSTV C = [ ] D = [ ] H = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] V = [ ] |
Cost effective projects | 39 | CKLMNOPQSV C = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] S = [ ] V = [ ] |
Design build functions as a single Entity | 8 | DF D = [ ] F = [ ] |
Enhances quality and mitigates design errors | 21 | F = [ ] J = [ ] S = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] F = [ ] |
Facilitates teamwork between owner and design builder | 30 | J = [ ] N = [ ] P = [ ] S = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] |
Insight into constructability of the design build contractor (Early involvement of contractor) | 13 | H = [ ] I = [ ] T = [ ] |
Enhances fast tracking | 4 | R = [ ] |
Good coordination and decision-making | 27 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] Q = [ ] |
Clients’ owner credibility | 13 | A = [ ] C = [ ] G = [ ] |
Dispute reduction mitigates disputes | 21 | B = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] Q = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] T = [ ] U = [ ] V = [ ] W = [ ] |
CMAR Advantages | ||
---|---|---|
Advantages | Percentage of Advantages from the Ordered List of Publication | Publication List |
Early stakeholder involvement | 31 | H = [ ] I = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] |
Fast-tracking cost savings and delivery within budget | 50 | A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] F = [ ] I = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] |
Reduce project duration by fast-tracking design and construction | 6 | C = [ ] |
Clients have control over the design details and early knowledge of costs | 50 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] K = [ ] M = [ ] P = [ ] |
Mitigates against change order | 50 | A = [ ] C = [ ] E = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] K = [ ] M = [ ] P = [ ] |
Provides a GMP by considering the risk of price | 31 | A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] |
Reduces design cost and redesigning cost | 25 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] H = [ ] |
Facilitates schedule management | 75 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] |
Facilitates cost control and transparency | 69 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] |
Single point of responsibility for construction and joint team orientation for accountability | 44 | A = [ ] B = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] I = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] |
Facilitates Collaboration | 25 | E = [ ] F = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] |
IPD Disadvantages | ||
---|---|---|
Disadvantages | % Percentage of Disadvantages from Ordered List of Publication | Publication List |
Impossibility of being sued internally over disputes and mistrust, alongside complexities in compensation and resource distribution | 42 | C = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] I = [ ] L = [ ] |
Skepticism of the added value of IPD and impossibility of owners’ inability to tap into financial reserves from shared risk funds | 50 | E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] |
Difficulty in deciding scope | 17 | A = [ ] H = [ ] |
Difficulty in deciding target cost/Budgeting | 25 | A = [ ] D = [ ] H = [ ] |
Adversarial team relationships and legality issues | 50 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] F = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] |
Immature insurance policy for IPD and uneasiness to produce a coordinating document | 25 | A = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] |
Fabricated drawings in place of engineering drawings because of too early interactions | 8 | F = [ ] |
High initial cost of investment in setting up IPD team and difficulty in replacing a member of IPD team | 16 | J = [ ] L = [ ] |
Inexperience in initiating/developing an IPD team and knowledge level | 16 | K = [ ] L = [ ] |
Low adoption of IPD due to cultural, financial, and technological barriers | 33 | E = [ ] F = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] |
High degree of risks amongst teams coming together for IPD and owners responsible for claims, damages, and expenses (liabilities) | 25 | D = [ ] F = [ ] L = [ ] |
Issues with poor collaboration | 8 | H = [ ] |
Non-adaptability to IPD environment | 42 | E = [ ] G = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] |
DB Disadvantages | ||
---|---|---|
Disadvantages | Percentage of Disadvantages from Ordered List of Publication | Publication List |
Non-competitive selection of team not dependent on best designs of professionals and general contractors | 35 | B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] G = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] |
Deficient checks, balances, and insurance among the designer, general contractor, and owner | 30 | A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] U = V |
Unfair allocation of risk and high startup cost | 40 | R = [ ] C = [ ] S = [ ] |
Architect/Engineer(A/E) not related to clients/owners with no control over the design requirements. A/E has less control or influence over the final design and project requirements | 60 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] S = [ ] |
Owner cannot guarantee the quality of the finished project | 35 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] S = [ ] |
Difficulty in defining SOW, and alterations in the designs after the contract and during construction with decrease in time | 35 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] |
Difficulty in providing track record for design and construction | 40 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] N = [ ] |
Discrepancy in quality control and testing intensive of owner’s viewpoint | 25 | C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] N = [ ] |
Delay in design changes, inflexibility, and the absence of a detailed design | 35 | D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] O = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] |
Owner/client needs external support to develop SOW/preliminary design of the project | 10 | E = [ ] F = [ ] L = [ ] O = [ ] S = [ ] |
Increased labour costs and tender prices | 5 | A = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] Q = [ ] |
Guaranteed maximum price is established with Incomplete designs and work requirement | 25 | A = [ ] D = [ ] G = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] P = [ ] R = [ ] |
Responsibility of contractor for omission and changes in design | 20 | A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] S = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] R = [ ] S = [ ] |
CMAR Disadvantages | ||
---|---|---|
Disadvantages | % Percentage of Advantages from Ordered List of Publication | Publication List |
Unclear definition and relationship of roles and responsibilities of CM and design professionals | 78 | A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] |
Difficult to enforce GMP, SOW, and construction based on incomplete documents | 67 | A = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] |
Not suitable for small projects or hold trade contractors over GMP tradeoffs and prices | 56 | B = [ ] C = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] |
Improper education on CMAR methodology, polices, and regulations | 56 | E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] |
Knowledge, conflicts, and communication issues between the designer and the CM | 56 | B = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] |
Shift of responsibilities (including money) from owners/clients to CM | 44 | A = [ ] B = [ ] E = [ ] I = [ ] |
Additional cost due to design and construction and design defects | 56 | A = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] |
Inability of CMAR to self-perform during preconstruction | 11 | C = [ ] |
Disputes/issues concerning construction quality and the completeness of the design | 22 | A = [ ] D = [ ] |
No information exchange/alignment between the A/E with the CMAR | 11 | A = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] |
Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Construction | ||
---|---|---|
Advantages | Percentage of Advantages from Ordered List of Publication % | Publication List |
Collaborative atmosphere | 47 | A = [ ] C = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] K = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] |
Early stakeholder involvement | 26 | N = [ ] J = [ ] I = [ ] |
Reduce design errors | 13 | N = [ ] O = [ ] |
Cost savings and delivery within budget/Client representative | 33 | ABCEF A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] |
Influence of client | 13 | B = [ ] J = [ ] |
Ordered list of publication A = [ ] B = [ ] C = [ ] D = [ ] E = [ ] F = [ ] G = [ ] H = [ ] I = [ ] J = [ ] K = [ ] L = [ ] M = [ ] N = [ ] O = [ ] P = [ ] Q = [ ] |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Babalola, O.G.; Alam Bhuiyan, M.M.; Hammad, A. Literature Review on Collaborative Project Delivery for Sustainable Construction: Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177707
Babalola OG, Alam Bhuiyan MM, Hammad A. Literature Review on Collaborative Project Delivery for Sustainable Construction: Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177707
Babalola, Olabode Gafar, Mohammad Masfiqul Alam Bhuiyan, and Ahmed Hammad. 2024. "Literature Review on Collaborative Project Delivery for Sustainable Construction: Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177707
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
Objective The objective of this study is to characterise the key factors that influence positive engagement and desirable developmental outcomes in sport among elite youth athletes by summarising the methods, groups and pertinent topical areas examined in the extant published research.
Design Scoping review.
Data sources We searched the databases SPORTDiscus, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science and Sports Medicine & Education Index for peer-reviewed, published in English articles that considered the factors influencing positive developmental outcomes for athletes under 18 years competing at a national and/or international level.
Results The search returned 549 articles, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. 16 studies used a qualitative approach, 14 collected quantitative data, 2 adopted mixed methods and 11 were reviews. Seven articles involved athletes competing in absolute skill contexts (ie, against the best athletes of any age) while the majority involved athletes competing in relative skill contexts (ie, against the best in a specific age or developmental group). The studies described the characteristics of the athletes, as well as their training, relationships with others, social and physical environments, and/or their overall developmental pathways.
Conclusion Existing research on positive engagement in elite youth sport aligned with and mapped onto established models of positive development in youth sport more generally. Our findings further support that, while certain youth athletes may demonstrate extraordinary performance capabilities, they are still children who benefit from positive engagement prompted and reinforced by developmentally appropriate and supportive activities, relationships and environments.
Data are available on reasonable request.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108200
Request permissions.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
X @SGWilsonQU, @mia_jkf, @hale_smith, @DrMBergeron_01, @jeancote46
Contributors SGW is the guarantor. JC and MFB conceived of the project. SGW, MK, HHS and JC designed and conducted the review. SGW, MK and JC drafted the paper, and all authors contributed to editing and revising the paper.
Funding This research was supported by a Research Grant from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC Grant # 435-2020-0094).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Tarek Dika, Descartes’s Method: The Formation of the Subject of Science , Oxford University Press, 2023, 416pp., $115.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780192869869.
Reviewed by Patrick Brissey, University of South Carolina
Descartes’s Method by Tarek Dika is perhaps the most thorough book on Descartes’s Rules for the Direction of the Mind . It is an exceptional volume written for Cartesian scholars and provides a novel and ingenious interpretation of Descartes’s infamous method, reviving it from literary slumber. Dika provides interesting responses to many of the traditional issues in the literature and is the first author to incorporate the recently published Cambridge Manuscript of the Rules to bolster his interpretation. He provides an in-depth, detailed, and well-documented account of Descartes’s faculty psychology, the non-uniform procedures of the method, the heuristics of enumeration, mathesis universalis as propaedeutic to natural philosophy, the “most noble example,” the non-hierarchical theory of simple natures, the mathematics in Rules 13–21 and how this geometrical calculus resulted in the demise of the Rules (but not the method), the proof of the anaclastic curve, and why, according to Dika, the method is efficacious.
In Part I, “The Habitual Unity of Science,” Dika contends that Descartes’s method is not a sui generis set of heuristic rules that, if followed, leads a Cartesian investigator to knowledge in natural philosophy, as is traditionally argued for (and against) in the literature. Dika’s remarkable claim is that the method is a scientific habitus (ch. 2), a cognitive disposition (virtue) of one’s ingenium to solve problems in natural philosophy, akin to the ethical habitus of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and Francisco Suarez (ch. 1). The methodical procedures, on Dika’s interpretation, are universal, applicable to any question accessible to human reason, but the method is also non-uniform; there is no fixed, mechanistic procedure for a Cartesian investigator to follow, contrary to what seems to be Descartes’s claim in Rule 5 of the Rules and in the Discourse on Method (8, 347). Dika’s seemingly ruleless method is an outstanding claim, especially considering the title of the work— Rules for the Direction of the Mind . Nevertheless, Dika’s assertion is that there are no absolute rules to the method. There are, however, contextual rules based on the parameters of the problem (93–102, 117–119, 144). Although the thesis may seem relativistic— “Do whatever whenever”—and vacuous (the method provides minimal guidance to solving problems), Dika asserts that his habitus interpretation provides “unity” to Cartesian science, for one’s ingenium coordinates the sciences to solve particular problems (73–74).
In Part II, “The Operations and Culture of the Method,” Dika provides a detailed account of Descartes’s faculty psychology and its operations (ch. 3). In line with the literature, Dika distinguishes the corporeal faculties (i.e., sensation, imagination and memory) as aids to achieving knowledge and the intellect (intuition and deduction) as vis cognoscens (the knowing power part of ingenium ). In addition, he proposes that enumeration is not only a heuristic, that is, not merely a helpful procedure conducted by his faculties, but is itself a faculty. Descartes proposes three procedures for this proposed faculty. He begins with a question, and then proceeds through enumeration by analyzing the question into sub-questions and these into more simple questions. Ultimately, the answers to the simple questions provide premises to answer the sub-questions, and, last, the initial question. Thus, the first kind of enumeration provides a framework for the method. The second kind is Descartes’s procedure for answering a question. In this case, Descartes enumerates viable explanations/solutions to a question and the cognition of the answer along with the denial of the other possibilities is cognized by enumeration (103). In contrast, other commentators contend that “intuition” cognizes the correct answer, but Dika’s claim is that the question is solved solely through “enumeration,” again, making it a faculty, a power of ingenium . The third kind of enumeration is the well-known procedure described in Rules 7 and 11 that reduces complex inferences to a near single cognition by providing repetitive reviews of the finished deduction, practically eliminating memory. What is controversial and innovative about Dika’s account is not only his claim that enumeration is a faculty, but his claim that vis cognoscens is composed of intuition and deduction as well as enumeration, and that the latter can solve problems independent of the former—a claim that seems to be in tension with Descartes’s account of the intellect, e.g., “we can have no knowledge without mental intuition or deduction” (AT 10:368, 370, 372; CSM 1:14, 15, 16).
Dika next turns to the controversial issue of the identity of mathesis universalis in Rule 4 (Jean-Paul Weber’s and John Schuster’s Rule 4B in Weber (1964) and Schuster (1980) respectively). Dika’s contention is that universal mathematics is propaedeutic to science, used to prepare the Cartesian ingenium to produce a habitus of solving scientific problems, first, in mathematics and, later, in natural philosophy (ch. 4). The Cartesian investigator, Dika tells us, is to practice “recreational mathematics” and the “so-called feminine arts” to build one’s sagacity in intuition and perspicacity in deduction and, later, will graduate to solving “the simplest and easiest mathematical sciences [. . .] the theory of proportions,” i.e., mathesis universalis (120). This practice will prepare an investigator to solve the “problem of the limits of knowledge” and then Descartes’s more advanced mathematics sketched in Rules 13–21 (perfect problems) before turning to imperfectly understood problems in natural philosophy. In contrast, John Schuster (2013) notably argues that Descartes’s mathesis universalis refers to his early mathematics linked to his programmatic phase of physico-mathematics developed with Issac Beeckman before his inflection to a general scientific method. For Schuster, Descartes created the method, in part, by generalizing aspects of mathesis universalis . In response, Dika uses Sergeantson and Edwards’s recent publication of the Cambridge Manuscript (CM) to undermine Schuster’s historically grounded argument. Sergeantson et al.’s (2023, 55–60) claim that the CM is an early manuscript of the Rules seems to be groundbreaking because this draft does not contain Descartes’s remarks about mathesis universalis , which, for Sergeantson et al ., indicates that universal mathematics is a later development and, thus, that the method could not arise from it (137–140). Schuster (2023) contends, on the other hand, that the CM is a late “curated” draft in which Descartes redacted parts (i.e., Rule 4B and the content on simple natures that were part of a largely complete version of the Rules , what Schuster calls the “Ur-source”) to make the method digestible to new consumers (e.g., Cardinal Bérulle et al . after the Chandoux lecture) before Descartes’s move to Holland.
In Part III, “The First Problem of the Method,” Dika takes up the heated issue of the “most noble example” in Rule 8, the problem of establishing the limits and scope of human knowledge. Descartes begins his solution (ch. 6) by enumerating the human cognitive faculties. He defines the corporeal faculties as dubitable, the intellect as certain, and concludes that only intuition and deduction can achieve knowledge. Dika’s contribution is the claim that this problem could not be solved by the intellectual faculties, for intuition cannot intuit that only intuition and deduction are capable of human knowledge (118, 145–146). Thus, Dika concludes that the first problem of the method is solved by enumeration.
Dika next turns to Descartes’s theory of simple natures in his problem of the limits of knowledge (ch. 7). There are three kinds of simple natures: material (e.g., extension, shape, motion), intellectual (e.g., volition, doubt, knowledge), and common (e.g., existence, unity, duration). Descartes asserts that the scope of knowledge is based on the extent of the combinations of these. Dika provides a detailed and exhaustive account of Descartes’s theory in Rule 8 and its sequel in Rule 12. His main contribution, however, is not revealed until chapter 11. Dika asserts that metaphysics cannot be foundational in the Rules , and this is because all simple natures are “equally knowable” (329). For Dika, there is no absolute ordering of simple natures in the Rules in contrast to the tree of philosophy in the Principles , no beginning with metaphysics and proceeding to physics and, then, to medicine, mechanics, and morals. In response, it seems that “equally knowable” does not “rule out” a hierarchy of the sciences. There is explicitly a hierarchy among the simple natures in any given problem, as Dika informs us, and, given his account of enumeration, a conclusion in a chain of inference is as equally known as the premises; the same would hold for a general architectonics with metaphysics at its foundation.
In Part IV, “Perfect and Imperfectly Understood Problems,” Dika provides a thorough account of Descartes’s mathematics developed in Rules 13–21 as an example of perfectly understood problems (ch. 9) and Descartes’s “proof” of the anaclastic curve as an imperfectly understood problem (ch. 10). In the latter, Dika provides a succinct summary of the popular reconstructions, all of which assert that Descartes discovered the law of refraction through, first, mathematics, after which he developed a physical description, which fits Descartes’s physico-mathematical procedure that he developed with Isaac Beeckman pre- Rules . In contrast, Dika’s reconstruction relies, in part, on Descartes’s description of the “proof” in Rule 8, where Descartes begins the constructive stage of the method with physics and then proceeds to mathematics.
Additionally, Dika explains Descartes’s mature mathematics in the later Rules , the chief example of his “perfectly understood problems.” Descartes’s aim was to unify mathematics through his theory of proportions using a calculus that only includes lines and rectangles. Dika shows that Descartes’s theory successfully explains discrete magnitudes in arithmetic, but that geometry contains both discrete and continuous magnitudes, requiring square roots in his algebraic equations, which necessitate circles (not known through intuition). This failure of his geometrical calculus resulted in the demise of the Rules (268).
In Part V, “Beyond Rules,” Dika explains (ch. 11) the fate of the method post-Rules. As we see in the Discourse and Principles, Descartes’s philosophy evolved into a hierarchical structure, and he rarely made references to the method. Did Descartes discard the method? Dika informs us that Descartes jettisoned the requirement that simple natures did not have an absolute ordering, and, further, that Descartes updated his theory of matter and intuition to accommodate his corpuscularianism (matter is indefinitely divisible) and plenum theory (matter extends indefinitely) that he developed in The World (1630–1632). However, despite these changes and others, Dika contends that the method was endorsed and used throughout Descartes’s mature philosophy.
In the Conclusion, Dika asserts that the method is efficacious and that this allows a response to post-Kuhnian historians and sociologists in the history and philosophy of science who are skeptical of method narratives (349–351). The thrust of Dika’s response is that post-Kuhnians provide “criticisms” to jettison past commentator’s sui generis (mechanical) models of the method. Dika’s proposal, however, is that Descartes’s method is not an absolute mechanical procedure, but has rules based on the parameters of the problem. Given this, Dika claims to dodge the blows of the myth of method criticisms thrown by Gaston Bachelard (1984), Alexandre Koyré (1978), Thomas Kuhn (1962), Paul Feyerabend (1993), and John Schuster 2013). In response, the issue of post-Kuhnian science is complex; covering the dynamics of science (proposals, negotiations, refinement, acceptance, and rejection of bids) in diverse, sui generis expert fields and sub-fields of research that post-Kuhnians highlight is not similar to simple, abstract method narratives. Given these dynamics, Dika’s final paragraph is insufficient to provide a refutation, much less a viable response to method skeptics (For a more thorough post-Kuhnian response, see Schuster, 2024).
In an appendix, Dika dates the earliest entries to the Rules not to 1619–20 as nearly all contemporary commentators have held post Weber’s and Schuster’s developmental thesis, but to sometime between 1626–29 (333–336). Dika provides plausible arguments. Nevertheless, his late composition thesis is in tension with Descartes’s intellectual autobiography. In the Discourse, Descartes dates his development of the method to the winter of 1619, specifically mentioning the “coronation of the emperor,” Ferdinand II, which dates to this period (AT 6:11; CSM 1:116).
Dika’s Descartes’s Method is an interesting, thought-provoking, and exceptional volume. His ingenious habitus model of Descartes’s method provides perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of the method in the literature. This publication, along with the recently published Cambridge Manuscript, will spark much needed research and debate on Descartes’s early philosophy, especially his method.
Jean-Paul Weber, La constitution du texte des “Regulae ,” Paris: Société d’édition d'enseignement supérieur, 1964, ch. 1.
John A. Shuster, “Descartes’ Mathesis Universalis , 1619–28,” in Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics , ed. Stephen Gaukroger, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1980.
John A. Schuster, Descartes–Agonistes: Physico-Mathematics, Method and Corpuscular-Mechanism, 1618–1633 , Dordrecht: Springer, 2013, chs. 3 and 5.
René Descartes, Regulae ad directionem ingenii: an early manuscript version . Introduced, Edited, and Translated by Richard Serjeantson and Michael Edwards, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, 55–60.
John A. Schuster, “The Discovery of the Century—An Early Version of Descartes’ Regulae : More Questions than Answers?” review of René Descartes: Regulae ad Directionem Ingenii, An Early Manuscript Version , Introduced, Edited and Translated by Richard Serjeantson and Michael Edwards, History of European Ideas , 2023,1–8.
Gaston Bachelard, The New Scientific Spirit , Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
Alexandre Koyré, Galileo Studies , New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1978.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962.
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge , New York: Verso Books, 1993.
John A. Schuster, “Heroic Resuscitation? An Attempt to Revive Descartes’ Method,” review of Descartes’s Method: The Formation of the Subject of Science , by Tarek R. Dika, Annals of Science , 2024, 1–11.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. Therefore, questions can be raised about the quality and trustworthiness of these types of reviews.
A Review of the Theoretical Literature" (Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.) Example literature review #2: "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines" ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and ...
Writing a Literature Review - Purdue OWL
Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews
What kinds of literature reviews are written? Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified.
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
The use of a literature review as a methodology was previously explored in a recent study which provided an in-depth discussion on the processes and types of using literature review as a ...
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review: Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context, it refers to a combination of review approaches, for example, combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.
How to write a superb literature review
Literature Review. A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing ...
Abstract. Performing a literature review is a critical first step in research to understanding the state-of-the-art and identifying gaps and challenges in the field. A systematic literature review is a method which sets out a series of steps to methodically organize the review. In this paper, we present a guide designed for researchers and in ...
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
5. The Literature Review - Organizing Your Social Sciences ...
Literature Review - Research Guides - University of Delaware
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed. You identify: core research in the field. experts in the subject area. methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
METHODOLOGY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Most literature reviews are embedded in articles, books, and dissertations. In most research articles, there are set as a specific section, usually titled, "literature review", so they are hard to miss.But, sometimes, they are part of the narrative of the introduction of a book or article. This section is easily recognized since the author is engaging with other academics and experts by ...
The systematic literature review (SLR) is one of the important review methodologies which is increasingly becoming popular to synthesize literature in any discipline in general and management in particular. In this article, we explain the SLR methodology and provide guidelines for performing and documenting these studies.
Types of Literature Review are as follows: Narrative literature review: This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper. Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and ...
A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the ...
The number of academic papers doubles every 12 years. This wealth of new knowledge is exciting, but the pace of growth makes keeping up with the latest developments increasingly difficult. One response to this challenge is "living literature reviews". At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of […]
Background The overall burden of bronchiectasis on patients and healthcare systems has not been comprehensively described. Here, we present the findings of a systematic literature review that assessed the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis with subanalyses by aetiology (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023404162). Methods Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for ...
This paper aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis and traditional literature review concerning collaborative project delivery (CPD) methods, with an emphasis on design-build (DB), construction management at risk (CMAR), and integrated project delivery (PD) Methods. This article seeks to identify the most influential publications, reveal the advantages and disadvantages of CPD, and determine ...
This approach is particularly well-suited for this review of the evidence given that some migration studies have incorporated walking interviews as a distinct qualitative research method. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework (Moher et al., 2009 ...
This systematic literature review addresses the stigma concept in marketing and consumer behavior studies by analyzing 82 articles directly approaching stigma in empirical studies. ... knowledge on marketplace stigma. We found that stigma is a topic that fits in a wide range of theories, contexts, and methods in marketing and consumer behavior ...
Methods. Our review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocols and search strategies.13 A scoping review was deemed the most effective method to explore and assess the extant literature regarding avenues that facilitate elite youth athlete engagement in ...
Descartes's Method by Tarek Dika is perhaps the most thorough book on Descartes's Rules for the Direction of the Mind.It is an exceptional volume written for Cartesian scholars and provides a novel and ingenious interpretation of Descartes's infamous method, reviving it from literary slumber.
In the challenging environment of deep-sea oil and gas extraction, the occurrence of hydrate plugging due to gas hydrate formation and deposition in subsea pipelines poses significant operational risks. This issue, leading to pipeline or valve blockages, not only jeopardizes the safe extraction of oil and gas resources but also poses a threat to the marine environment. To address this problem ...