types of review of related literature in research

Reproduced from Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 2:29 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

• Traditional or narrative literature reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

The common types of literature reviews will be explained in the pages of this section.

• Narrative or traditional literature reviews
• Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
• Scoping reviews
• Annotated bibliographies

These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

What's the difference between reviews?

Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. Here are a couple of simple explanations.

• The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:

"Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. L., Arlt, S. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. R., Grindlay, D., Moberly, H. K., Morrow, L. D., Stavisky, J., & White, C. (2020). Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7 , 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00314 is licensed under CC BY 3.0

• The table below lists four of the most common types of review , as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).  

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009).  A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

Callander, J., Anstey, A. V., Ingram, J. R., Limpens, J., Flohr, C., & Spuls, P. I. (2017).  How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice.  British Journal of Dermatology (1951), 177(4), 1007-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15873 

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 12:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Literature Reviews

• Types of reviews
• Getting started

Types of reviews and examples

Choosing a review type.

• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

• Meta-analysis
• Systematized

Definition:

"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).

Characteristics:

• Provides examination of recent or current literature on a wide range of subjects
• Varying levels of completeness / comprehensiveness, non-standardized methodology
• May or may not include comprehensive searching, quality assessment or critical appraisal

Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review.  Sustainability ,  14 (15), 9653.  doi.org/10.3390/su14159653

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).

• Assessment of what is already known about an issue
• Similar to a systematic review but within a time-constrained setting
• Typically employs methodological shortcuts, increasing risk of introducing bias, includes basic level of quality assessment
• Best suited for issues needing quick decisions and solutions (i.e., policy recommendations)

Learn more about the method:

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.  Systematic reviews, 1 (1), 1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol .

Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence.  Sustainability, 11 (10), 2757.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies.  Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).

Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic

Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14)

Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview

Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search

Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?".  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013

Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.  Systematic reviews, 5 (1), 1-21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x

Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence.  Environment international ,  147 , 105954.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954

Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 . 

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies.  Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108.  https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).

• Main purpose is to map out and categorize existing literature, identify gaps in literature—great for informing policy-making
• Search comprehensiveness determined by time/scope constraints, could take longer than a systematic review
• No formal quality assessment or critical appraisal

Learn more about the methods :

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.  International Journal of Social Research Methodology ,  8 (1), 19-32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Example : 

Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review.  Science of the Total Environment, 757 , 143872.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872

A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.

• Compiles evidence from multiple reviews into one document
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review

Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence.  The Korean Journal of Pain ,  35 (2), 127–128.  https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth ,  18 (2), 704.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704

A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).

• Statistical technique for combining results of quantitative studies to provide more precise effect of results
• Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching
• Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion criteria
• May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review

Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations.  Environmental Science & Technology ,  38 (4), 945–956.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g

A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).

• Aims to compile and synthesize all known knowledge on a given topic
• Adheres to strict guidelines, protocols, and frameworks
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  12 (4), 4354–4379.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354

"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a  structured review  (Huelin et al., 2015).

• Typically conducted by postgraduate or graduate students
• Often assigned by instructors to students who don't have the resources to conduct a full systematic review

Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  15 (5), 897.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897

Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/

• Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree.
• LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews) with practical tips about strengths and weaknesses of different methods.
• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: 1. Define your research question >>
• Last Updated: Aug 1, 2024 12:05 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

• University of Wisconsin–Madison
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Research Guides
• Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services
• Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services : Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

• Develop a Protocol
• Develop Your Research Question
• Select Databases
• Select Gray Literature Sources
• Write a Search Strategy
• Manage Your Search Process
• Register Your Protocol
• Citation Management
• Article Screening
• Risk of Bias Assessment
• Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Find Guidance by Discipline
• Manage Your Research Data
• Browse Evidence Portals by Discipline
• Automate the Process, Tools & Technologies
• Adapting Systematic Review Methods
• Additional Resources

Choosing a Literature Review Methodology

Growing interest in evidence-based practice has driven an increase in review methodologies. Your choice of review methodology (or literature review type) will be informed by the intent (purpose, function) of your research project and the time and resources of your team. 

• Decision Tree (What Type of Review is Right for You?) Developed by Cornell University Library staff, this "decision-tree" guides the user to a handful of review guides given time and intent.

Types of Evidence Synthesis*

Critical Review - Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model.

Mapping Review (Systematic Map) - Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature.

Meta-Analysis - Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

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.

Narrative (Literature) Review - Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness.

Overview - Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics.

Qualitative Systematic Review or Qualitative Evidence Synthesis - Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies.

Rapid Review - Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research.

Scoping Review or Evidence Map - Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research.

State-of-the-art Review - Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research.

Systematic Review - Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. (An emerging subset includes Living Reviews or Living Systematic Reviews - A [review or] systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available.)

Systematic Search and Review - Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis.’

Umbrella Review - Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.

*These definitions are in Grant & Booth's "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."

Literature Review Types/Typologies, Taxonomies

Grant, M. J., and A. Booth. "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."  Health Information and Libraries Journal  26.2 (2009): 91-108.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x  Link

Munn, Zachary, et al. “Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology , vol. 18, no. 1, Nov. 2018, p. 143. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. Link

Sutton, A., et al. "Meeting the Review Family: Exploring Review Types and Associated Information Retrieval Requirements."  Health Information and Libraries Journal  36.3 (2019): 202-22.  DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276  Link

• << Previous: Home
• Next: The Systematic Review Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 2, 2024 4:56 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/literature_review

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

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." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of 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. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

• Planning the Review
• The Research Question
• Choosing Where to Search
• Organizing the Review
• Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

• Sage Research Methods Core This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods.  Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

  John Dudovskiy

Research Methods

• Getting Started
• Literature Review Research
• Research Design
• Research Design By Discipline
• SAGE Research Methods
• Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is NOT a Literature Review?
• Purposes of a Literature Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
• Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

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:

• Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
• Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
• Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

• Help gather ideas or information
• Keep up to date in current trends and findings
• Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Helps focus your own research questions or problems
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
• Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
• Indicates potential directions for future research.

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

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

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:

• clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• explicit, reproducible methodology
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
• assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
• systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

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.

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started

Selecting a Review Type

Defining the scope of your review, four common types of reviews.

• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

More Review Types

This article by Sutton & Booth (2019) explores 48 distinct types of Literature Reviews:

Which Review is Right for You?

The  Right Review tool  has questions about your lit review process and plans. It offers a qualitative and quantitative option. At completion, you are given a lit review type recommendation.

You'll want to think about the kind of review you are doing. Is it a selective or comprehensive review? Is the review part of a larger work or a stand-alone work ?

For example, if you're writing the Literature Review section of a journal article, that's a selective review which is part of a larger work. Alternatively, if you're writing a review article, that's a comprehensive review which is a stand-alone work. Thinking about this will help you develop the scope of the review.

This exercise will help define the scope of your Literature Review, setting the boundaries for which literature to include and which to exclude.

A FEW GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DEFINING SCOPE

• Which populations to investigate — this can include gender, age, socio-economic status, race, geographic location, etc., if the research area includes humans.
• What years to include — if researching the legalization of medicinal cannabis, you might only look at the previous 20 years; but if researching dolphin mating practices, you might extend many more decades.
• Which subject areas — if researching artificial intelligence, subject areas could be computer science, robotics, or health sciences
• How many sources  — a selective review for a class assignment might only need ten, while a comprehensive review for a dissertation might include hundreds. There is no one right answer.
• There will be many other considerations that are more specific to your topic. 

Most databases will allow you to limit years and subject areas, so look for those tools while searching. See the Searching Tips tab for information on how use these tools.

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Often used as a generic term to describe any type of review
• More precise definition:  Published materials that provide an examination of published literature . Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness.
• Identifies gaps in research, explains importance of topic, hypothesizes future work, etc.
• Usually written as part of a larger work like a journal article or dissertation

SCOPING REVIEW

• Conducted to address broad research questions with the goal of understanding the extent of research that has been conducted.
• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) 
• Doesn't assess the quality of the literature gathered (i.e. presence of literature on a topic shouldn’t be conflated w/ the quality of that literature)
• " Preparing scoping reviews for publication using methodological guides and reporting standards " is a great article to read on Scoping Reviews

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

• Common in the health sciences ( Taubman Health Sciences Library guide to Systematic Reviews )
• Goal: collect all literature that meets specific criteria (methodology, population, treatment, etc.) and then appraise its quality and synthesize it
• Follows strict protocol for literature collection, appraisal and synthesis
• Typically performed by research teams 
• Takes 12-18 months to complete
• Often written as a stand alone work

META-ANALYSIS

• Goes one step further than a systematic review by statistically combining the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. 
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 3:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages

Types of Literature Reviews

• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

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, opinions, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 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 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.

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, phenomenon 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 analyze 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, phenomenon. 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 is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

• << Previous: Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Next: Departmental Differences >>
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• Research Guides
• University Libraries
• Advanced Research Topics

Common Paper Types

• Literature Review
• Scoping Review
• Systematic Review
• Author Profile

Understanding Literature Reviews 

I.  Getting Started with a Workshop Video  (Highly recommended!)

• Searching for Literature Reviews: Before You Write, You Have to Find   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9la5ytz9MmM

          A lecture by the Writing Center, TAMU.

II.  What is a Literature Review?

• Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles. <http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/ReviewofLiterature.html>  
•  A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. 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. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.  < http://writingcenter.unc.edu/resources/handouts-demos/specific-writing-assignments/literature-reviews >  
•  A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic...Its ultimate goal is to bring the reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms the basis for another goal, such as future research that may be needed in the area. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_review>

III.  What Major Steps Literature Reviews Require?

• 1. Develop a review protocol. Protocols define the scope of studies that will be reviewed, the process through which studies will be identified, and the outcomes that will be examined. Protocols also specify the time period during which relevant studies will have been conducted, the outcomes to be examined in the review, and keyword strategies for the literature search. 2. Identify relevant studies, often through a systematic search of the literature. 3. Screen studies for relevance and the adequacy of study design, implementation, and reporting. 4. Retrieve and summarize information on the intervention studied, the study characteristics, and the study findings. 5. Combine findings within studies and across studies when relevant. < http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf>  
• The basic stages in a typical research project are: i) identify your topic of interest, ii) perform a literature review, iii) generate related questions, iv) state your unsolved problem or hypothesis, v) find or develop a solution, and vi) document your results.  
• The four stages required: Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature < http://library.ucsc.edu/help/howto/write-a-literature-review#components >

IV.    What Basic Elements Comprise a Literature Review?   

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• Explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research    

          < http://library.ucsc.edu/help/howto/write-a-literature-review#components > V.    Which Citation Tool Are You Going to Use to Manage the Search Results?

•   Choose your citation tool before conducing your literature reviews. If you decide to use  RefWorks , the information can be found at  http://tamu.libguides.com/refworks .          

VII. Other Useful Guides

• Literature Reviews (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It
• How to Write a Literature Review  (UCSC)
• Learn how to write a review of literature  (WISC)
• Reviewing the Literature
• Next: Scoping Review >>
• Last Updated: Aug 5, 2024 7:43 AM
• URL: https://tamu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1415100

Literature Reviews: Types of Literature

• Library Basics
• 1. Choose Your Topic
• How to Find Books
• Types of Clinical Study Designs

Types of Literature

• 3. Search the Literature
• 4. Read & Analyze the Literature
• 5. Write the Review
• Keeping Track of Information
• Style Guides
• Books, Tutorials & Examples

Different types of publications have different characteristics.

Primary Literature Primary sources means original studies, based on direct observation, use of statistical records, interviews, or experimental methods, of actual practices or the actual impact of practices or policies. They are authored by researchers, contains original research data, and are usually published in a peer-reviewed journal. Primary literature may also include conference papers, pre-prints, or preliminary reports. Also called empirical research .

Secondary Literature Secondary literature consists of interpretations and evaluations that are derived from or refer to the primary source literature. Examples include review articles (such as meta-analysis and systematic reviews) and reference works. Professionals within each discipline take the primary literature and synthesize, generalize, and integrate new research.

Tertiary Literature Tertiary literature consists of a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, and guidebooks or handbooks. The purpose of tertiary literature is to provide an overview of key research findings and an introduction to principles and practices within the discipline.

Adapted from the Information Services Department of the Library of the Health Sciences-Chicago , University of Illinois at Chicago.

Types of Scientific Publications

These examples and descriptions of publication types will give you an idea of how to use various works and why you would want to write a particular kind of paper.

• Scholarly article aka empirical article
• Review article
• Conference paper

Scholarly (aka empirical) article -- example

Empirical studies use data derived from observation or experiment. Original research papers (also called primary research articles) that describe empirical studies and their results are published in academic journals.  Articles that report empirical research contain different sections which relate to the steps of the scientific method.

      Abstract - The abstract provides a very brief summary of the research.

     Introduction - The introduction sets the research in a context, which provides a review of related research and develops the hypotheses for the research.

     Method - The method section describes how the research was conducted.

     Results - The results section describes the outcomes of the study.

     Discussion - The discussion section contains the interpretations and implications of the study.

     References - A references section lists the articles, books, and other material cited in the report.

Review article -- example

A review article summarizes a particular field of study and places the recent research in context. It provides an overview and is an excellent introduction to a subject area. The references used in a review article are helpful as they lead to more in-depth research.

Many databases have limits or filters to search for review articles. You can also search by keywords like review article, survey, overview, summary, etc.

Conference proceedings, abstracts and reports -- example

Conference proceedings, abstracts and reports are not usually peer-reviewed.  A conference article is similar to a scholarly article insofar as it is academic. Conference articles are published much more quickly than scholarly articles. You can find conference papers in many of the same places as scholarly articles.

How Do You Identify Empirical Articles?

To identify an article based on empirical research, look for the following characteristics:

     The article is published in a peer-reviewed journal .

     The article includes charts, graphs, or statistical analysis .

     The article is substantial in size , likely to be more than 5 pages long.

     The article contains the following parts (the exact terms may vary): abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, references .

• << Previous: Types of Clinical Study Designs
• Next: 3. Search the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Dec 29, 2023 11:41 AM
• URL: https://research.library.gsu.edu/litrev

• Duke NetID Login
• 919.660.1100
• Duke Health Badge: 24-hour access
• Accounts & Access
• Databases, Journals & Books
• Request & Reserve
• Training & Consulting
• Request Articles & Books
• Renew Online
• Reserve Spaces
• Reserve a Locker
• Study & Meeting Rooms
• Course Reserves
• Pay Fines/Fees
• Recommend a Purchase
• Access From Off Campus
• Building Access
• Computers & Equipment
• Wifi Access
• My Accounts
• Mobile Apps
• Known Access Issues
• Report an Access Issue
• All Databases
• Article Databases
• Basic Sciences
• Clinical Sciences
• Dissertations & Theses
• Drugs, Chemicals & Toxicology
• Grants & Funding
• Interprofessional Education
• Non-Medical Databases
• Search for E-Journals
• Search for Print & E-Journals
• Search for E-Books
• Search for Print & E-Books
• E-Book Collections
• Biostatistics
• Global Health
• MBS Program
• Medical Students
• MMCi Program
• Occupational Therapy
• Path Asst Program
• Physical Therapy
• Researchers
• Community Partners

Conducting Research

• Archival & Historical Research
• Black History at Duke Health
• Data Analytics & Viz Software
• Data: Find and Share
• Evidence-Based Practice
• NIH Public Access Policy Compliance
• Publication Metrics
• Qualitative Research
• Searching Animal Alternatives

Systematic Reviews

• Test Instruments

Using Databases

• JCR Impact Factors
• Web of Science

Finding & Accessing

• COVID-19: Core Clinical Resources
• Health Literacy
• Health Statistics & Data
• Library Orientation

Writing & Citing

• Creating Links
• Getting Published
• Reference Mgmt
• Scientific Writing

Meet a Librarian

• Request a Consultation
• Find Your Liaisons
• Register for a Class
• Request a Class
• Self-Paced Learning

Search Services

• Literature Search
• Systematic Review
• Animal Alternatives (IACUC)
• Research Impact

Citation Mgmt

• Other Software

Scholarly Communications

• About Scholarly Communications
• Publish Your Work
• Measure Your Research Impact
• Engage in Open Science
• Libraries and Publishers
• Directions & Maps
• Floor Plans

Library Updates

• Annual Snapshot
• Conference Presentations
• Contact Information
• Gifts & Donations
• What is a Systematic Review?

Types of Reviews

• Manuals and Reporting Guidelines
• Our Service
• 1. Assemble Your Team
• 2. Develop a Research Question
• 3. Write and Register a Protocol
• 4. Search the Evidence
• 5. Screen Results
• 6. Assess for Quality and Bias
• 7. Extract the Data
• 8. Write the Review
• Additional Resources
• Finding Full-Text Articles

Review Typologies

There are many types of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews as well as others. The selection of review type is wholly dependent on the research question. Not all research questions are well-suited for systematic reviews.

• Review Typologies (from LITR-EX) This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable.

Review the table to peruse review types and associated methodologies. Librarians can also help your team determine which review type might be appropriate for your project. 

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108.  doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: What is a Systematic Review?
• Next: Manuals and Reporting Guidelines >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 9:41 AM
• URL: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview
• Duke Health
• Duke University
• Duke Libraries
• Medical Center Archives
• Duke Directory
• Seeley G. Mudd Building
• 10 Searle Drive
• [email protected]

A Guide to Literature Reviews

• Importance of a Good Literature Review
• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style

Types of Literature Reviews

• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements
• Argumentative
• Integrative
• Methodological
• Theoretical
• Scoping & Systematic

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 the Systematic Review tab].

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.

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.

A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but on 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 that you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

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.

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.

• Covidence: The difference between a systematic review & scoping review
• PRISMA Guidelines for Scoping Reviews The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted.
• PROSPERO: international registry of systematic reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analysis (Online Course) Online course from the Campbell Collaboration and the Open Learning Initiative.
• University of Waterloo: Public Health & Kinesiology Research Guide - Systematic Reviews Comprehensive list of resources for systematic and scoping reviews.

Resource Books from the Library

• << Previous: Structure and Writing Style
• Next: How do I Cite? >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

Different Types of Literature Review: Which One Fits Your Research?

By Laura Brown on 13th October 2023

You might not have heard that there are multiple kinds of literature review. However, with the progress in your academic career you will learn these classifications and may need to use different types of them. However, there is nothing to worry if you aren’t aware of them now, as here we are going to discuss this topic in detail.

There are approximately 14 types of literature review on the basis of their specific objectives, methodologies, and the way they approach and analyse existing literature in academic research. Of those 14, there are 4 major types. But before we delve into the details of each one of them and how they are useful in academics, let’s first understand the basics of literature review.

What is Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical and systematic summary and evaluation of existing research. It is an essential component of academic and research work, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field.

In easy words, a literature review is like making a big, organised summary of all the important research and smart books or articles about a particular topic or question. It’s something scholars and researchers do, and it helps everyone see what we already know about that topic. It’s kind of like taking a snapshot of what we understand right now in a certain field.

It serves with some specific purpose in the research.

• Provides a comprehensive understanding of existing research on a topic.
• Identifies gaps, trends, and inconsistencies in the literature.
• Contextualise your own research within the broader academic discourse.
• Supports the development of theoretical frameworks or research hypotheses.

4 Major Types Of Literature Review

The four major types include, Narrative Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Scoping Review. These are known as the major ones because they’re like the “go-to” methods for researchers in academic and research circles. Think of them as the classic tools in the researcher’s toolbox. They’ve earned their reputation because they have a unique style for literature review introduction , clear steps and specific qualities that make them super handy for different research needs.

1. Narrative Review

Narrative reviews present a well-structured narrative that reads like a cohesive story, providing a comprehensive overview of a specific topic. These reviews often incorporate historical context and offer a broad understanding of the subject matter, making them valuable for researchers looking to establish a foundational understanding of their area of interest. They are particularly useful when a historical perspective or a broad context is necessary to comprehend the current state of knowledge in a field.

2. Systematic Review

Systematic reviews are renowned for their methodological rigour. They involve a meticulously structured process that includes the systematic selection of relevant studies, comprehensive data extraction, and a critical synthesis of their findings. This systematic approach is designed to minimise bias and subjectivity, making systematic reviews highly reliable and objective. They are considered the gold standard for evidence-based research as they provide a clear and rigorous assessment of the available evidence on a specific research question.

3. Meta Analysis

Meta analysis is a powerful method for researchers who prefer a quantitative and statistical perspective. It involves the statistical synthesis of data from various studies, allowing researchers to draw more precise and generalisable conclusions by combining data from multiple sources. Meta analyses are especially valuable when the aim is to quantitatively measure the effect size or impact of a particular intervention, treatment, or phenomenon.

4. Scoping Review

Scoping reviews are invaluable tools, especially for researchers in the early stages of exploring a topic. These reviews aim to map the existing literature, identifying gaps and helping clarify research questions. Scoping reviews provide a panoramic view of the available research, which is particularly useful when researchers are embarking on exploratory studies or trying to understand the breadth and depth of a subject before conducting more focused research.

Different Types Of Literature review In Research

There are some more approaches to conduct literature review. Let’s explore these classifications quickly.

5. Critical Review

Critical reviews provide an in-depth evaluation of existing literature, scrutinising sources for their strengths, weaknesses, and relevance. They offer a critical perspective, often highlighting gaps in the research and areas for further investigation.

6. Theoretical Review

Theoretical reviews are centred around exploring and analysing the theoretical frameworks, concepts, and models present in the literature. They aim to contribute to the development and refinement of theoretical perspectives within a specific field.

7. Integrative Review

Integrative reviews synthesise a diverse range of studies, drawing connections between various research findings to create a comprehensive understanding of a topic. These reviews often bridge gaps between different perspectives and provide a holistic overview.

8. Historical Review

Historical reviews focus on the evolution of a topic over time, tracing its development through past research, events, and scholarly contributions. They offer valuable context for understanding the current state of research.

9. Methodological Review

Among the different kinds of literature reviews, methodological reviews delve into the research methods and methodologies employed in existing studies. Researchers assess these approaches for their effectiveness, validity, and relevance to the research question at hand.

10. Cross-Disciplinary Review

Cross-disciplinary reviews explore a topic from multiple academic disciplines, emphasising the diversity of perspectives and insights that each discipline brings. They are particularly useful for interdisciplinary research projects and uncovering connections between seemingly unrelated fields.

11. Descriptive Review

Descriptive reviews provide an organised summary of existing literature without extensive analysis. They offer a straightforward overview of key findings, research methods, and themes present in the reviewed studies.

12. Rapid Review

Rapid reviews expedite the literature review process, focusing on summarising relevant studies quickly. They are often used for time-sensitive projects where efficiency is a priority, without sacrificing quality.

13. Conceptual Review

Conceptual reviews concentrate on clarifying and developing theoretical concepts within a specific field. They address ambiguities or inconsistencies in existing theories, aiming to refine and expand conceptual frameworks.

14. Library Research

Library research reviews rely primarily on library and archival resources to gather and synthesise information. They are often employed in historical or archive-based research projects, utilising library collections and historical documents for in-depth analysis.

Each type of literature review serves distinct purposes and comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, allowing researchers to choose the one that best suits their research objectives and questions.

Choosing the Ideal Literature Review Approach in Academics

In order to conduct your research in the right manner, it is important that you choose the correct type of review for your literature. Here are 8 amazing tips we have sorted for you in regard to literature review help so that you can select the best-suited type for your research.

• Clarify Your Research Goals: Begin by defining your research objectives and what you aim to achieve with the literature review. Are you looking to summarise existing knowledge, identify gaps, or analyse specific data?
• Understand Different Review Types: Familiarise yourself with different kinds of literature reviews, including systematic reviews, narrative reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and integrative reviews. Each serves a different purpose.
• Consider Available Resources: Assess the resources at your disposal, including time, access to databases, and the volume of literature on your topic. Some review types may be more resource-intensive than others.
• Alignment with Research Question: Ensure that the chosen review type aligns with your research question or hypothesis. Some types are better suited for answering specific research questions than others.
• Scope and Depth: Determine the scope and depth of your review. For a broad overview, a narrative review might be suitable, while a systematic review is ideal for an in-depth analysis.
• Consult with Advisors: Seek guidance from your academic advisors or mentors. They can provide valuable insights into which review type best fits your research goals and resources.
• Consider Research Field Standards: Different academic fields have established standards and preferences for different forms of literature review. Familiarise yourself with what is common and accepted in your field.
• Pilot Review: Consider conducting a small-scale pilot review of the literature to test the feasibility and suitability of your chosen review type before committing to a larger project.

Bonus Tip: Crafting an Effective Literature Review

Now, since you have learned all the literature review types and have understood which one to prefer, here are some bonus tips for you to structure a literature review of a dissertation .

• Clearly Define Your Research Question: Start with a well-defined and focused research question to guide your literature review.
• Thorough Search Strategy: Develop a comprehensive search strategy to ensure you capture all relevant literature.
• Critical Evaluation: Assess the quality and credibility of the sources you include in your review.
• Synthesise and Organise: Summarise the key findings and organise the literature into themes or categories.
• Maintain a Systematic Approach: If conducting a systematic review, adhere to a predefined methodology and reporting guidelines.
• Engage in Continuous Review: Regularly update your literature review to incorporate new research and maintain relevance.

Some Useful Tools And Resources For You

Effective literature reviews demand a range of tools and resources to streamline the process.

• Reference management software like EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley helps organise, store, and cite sources, saving time and ensuring accuracy.
• Academic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly articles, with advanced search and citation tracking features.
• Research guides from universities and libraries offer tips and templates for structuring reviews.
• Research networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu facilitate collaboration and access to publications. Literature review templates and research workshops provide additional support.

Some Common Mistakes To Avoid

Avoid these common mistakes when crafting literature reviews.

• Unclear research objectives result in unfocused reviews, so start with well-defined questions.
• Biased source selection can compromise objectivity, so include diverse perspectives.
• Never miss on referencing; proper citation and referencing are essential for academic integrity.
• Don’t overlook older literature, which provides foundational insights.
• Be mindful of scope creep, where the review drifts from the research question; stay disciplined to maintain focus and relevance.

While Summing Up On Various Types Of Literature Review

As we conclude this classification of fourteen distinct approaches to conduct literature reviews, it’s clear that the world of research offers a multitude of avenues for understanding, analysing, and contributing to existing knowledge.

Whether you’re a seasoned scholar or a student beginning your academic journey, the choice of review type should align with your research objectives and the nature of your topic. The versatility of these approaches empowers you to tailor your review to the demands of your project.

Remember, your research endeavours have the potential to shape the future of knowledge, so choose wisely and dive into the world of literature reviews with confidence and purpose. Happy reviewing!

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

• My Playlists
• Media Upload

• How To Use Media Hopper Create
• How To Use Media Hopper Create In Learn
• Creative Commons
• All Channels

Literature reviews: functions, types and methods

Related media.

When we think of a literature review, we often forget to consider the different types of reviews and the different roles or functions that literature reviews can have.

In this short presentation I will first discuss some functions of literature reviews, and then make some points about how the function or purpose of your review should inform the type that you choose to do, and the methods that you employ.

The Cowles Library website will be unavailable on Tuesday, Aug. 6th from 1:00 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. due to a scheduled migration to a new platform. You can reach our list of Research Databases at https://library.drake.edu/az/databases

• Research, Study, Learning
• Archives & Special Collections

• Cowles Library

In This Section:

• Find Journal Articles
• Find Articles in Related Disciplines
• Find Streaming Video

Conducting a Literature Review

• Organizations, Associations, Societies
• For Faculty

What is a Literature Review?

Description.

A literature review, also called a review article or review of literature, surveys the existing research on a topic. The term "literature" in this context refers to published research or scholarship in a particular discipline, rather than "fiction" (like American Literature) or an individual work of literature. In general, literature reviews are most common in the sciences and social sciences.

Literature reviews may be written as standalone works, or as part of a scholarly article or research paper. In either case, the purpose of the review is to summarize and synthesize the key scholarly work that has already been done on the topic at hand. The literature review may also include some analysis and interpretation. A literature review is  not  a summary of every piece of scholarly research on a topic.

Why are literature reviews useful?

Literature reviews can be very helpful for newer researchers or those unfamiliar with a field by synthesizing the existing research on a given topic, providing the reader with connections and relationships among previous scholarship. Reviews can also be useful to veteran researchers by identifying potentials gaps in the research or steering future research questions toward unexplored areas. If a literature review is part of a scholarly article, it should include an explanation of how the current article adds to the conversation. (From: https://library.drake.edu/englit/criticism)

How is a literature review different from a research article?

Research articles: "are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question....they are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion." Source: https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/litrev.pdf)

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a Literature Search

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles . In SuperSearch and most databases, you may find it helpful to select the Advanced Search mode and include "literature review" or "review of the literature" in addition to your other search terms.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed. Most of the databases you will need are linked to from the Cowles Library Psychology Research guide .

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail. You may want to use a Citation Manager to help you keep track of the citations you have found. 

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a  summary style  in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft. (note: this step is only if you are using the literature review to write a research paper. Many times the literature review is an end unto itself).

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

These steps were taken from: https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html#6.-Incorporate-the-literature-r

• << Previous: Find Streaming Video
• Next: Organizations, Associations, Societies >>
• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 2:32 PM

Borrow & Request

Use materials placed on reserve by your instructors

Borrow books directly from other Iowa academic library partners

Borrow material from libraries around the world

Ask the library to purchase books or other research materials

Collections

Drake history and Iowa political papers

Online access to unique items from the University Archives

Books, eBooks, and videos we highlight throughout the year

Research Support

Handpicked by experts for your area of study

Schedule a one-on-one session with a librarian

A guide to the research process

Librarians who specialize in your area of study

Find, organize, and use your citations

Writing Center, Speaking Center, and other Tutoring

Tools & resources to help develop your study skills

Teaching Support

What we teach and how we can help in your courses

Connect with a librarian

Put material on reserve for your courses

Help with course material adoptions and textbook alternatives

Explore, adopt, adapt, and create open educational resources

Resources to help you publish your research

Collections & Exhibits

Research & teaching, records management, about the archives.

What we do and why

Hours, directions, and guidelines for your Archives visit

Reach, follow, and support the Archives

Guides, tutorials, and library expertise to help you succeed as a scholar

Borrowing materials, finding a study space, locating services

Library services and support directed toward Drake Online and other off-campus students

Provide feedback or resolve a problem with the library

Faculty & Staff

Resources and information literacy expertise to support your teaching

Ask a Question

Cowles Library faculty and staff profiles

What's happening at Cowles Library

Student employment at Cowles Library

Where we are and when we're open

Services for Drake alumni and visitors

Library Spaces

Navigate the library

Check availability and reserve a room

Technology in the library

Mission & Planning

Cowles Library mission and vision

Policies governing use of library resources, space, and services

Library support for diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice

• 2507 University Avenue
• Des Moines, IA 50311
• (515) 271-2111

Trouble finding something? Try searching , or check out the Get Help page.

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Finding and Reading Journal Articles

• Journal Articles: Why You Use Them

Why are articles so important to research?

• Subject Databases: Organizing Research Conversations
• Databases We Recommend For You
• Sources in the Disciplines
• Reading in the Disciplines

Journal articles are the academic's stock in trade, t he basic means of communicating research findings to an audience of one’s peers. That holds true across the disciplinary spectrum, so no matter where you land as a concentrator, you can expect to rely on them heavily. 

Regardless of the discipline, moreover,  journal articles perform an important knowledge-updating function .

Textbooks and handbooks and manuals will have a secondary function for chemists and physicists and biologists, of course. But in the sciences, articles are the standard and  preferred publication form. 

In the social sciences and humanities , where knowledge develops a little less rapidly or is driven less by issues of time-sensitivity , journal articles and books are more often used together.

Not all important and influential ideas warrant book-length studies, and some inquiry is just better suited to the size and scope and concentrated discussion that the article format offers.

Journal articles sometimes just present the most  appropriate  solution for communicating findings or making a convincing argument.  A 20-page article may perfectly fit a researcher's needs.  Sustaining that argument for 200 pages might be unnecessary -- or impossible.

The quality of a research article and the legitimacy of its findings are verified by other scholars, prior to publication, through a rigorous evaluation method called peer-review . This seal of approval by other scholars doesn't mean that an article is the best, or truest, or last word on a topic. If that were the case, research on lots of things would cease. Peer review simply means other experts believe the methods, the evidence, the conclusions of an article have met important standards of legitimacy, reliability, and intellectual honesty.

Searching the journal literature is part of being a responsible researcher at any level: professor, grad student, concentrator, first-year. Knowing why academic articles matter will help you make good decisions about what you find -- and what you choose to rely on in your work.

Think of journal articles as the way you tap into the ongoing scholarly conversation , as a way of testing the currency of  a finding, analysis, or argumentative position, and a way of bolstering the authority (or plausibility) of explanations you'll offer in the papers and projects you'll complete at Harvard. 

• Next: Subject Databases: Organizing Research Conversations >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 06 August 2024

Sedentary behaviors and physical activity of the working population measured by accelerometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Sungwon Park 1 , 2 ,
• Sueyeon Lee 3 ,
• Seoyoon Woo 4 ,
• Katelyn Webster-Dekker 5 ,
• Weiyun Chen 6 ,
• Philip Veliz 1 &
• Janet L. Larson 1  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2123 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Too much sedentary behavior (SB) and too little physical activity (PA) place adult workers at risk for chronic illness. It remains unclear which occupations and subgroups within occupations have the highest and lowest SB and PA, and little is known about the effects of organizational factors on these behaviors and metrics. Thus, our main aims were to review and summarize evidence describing daily SB and PA collected using accelerometry across various occupations and to identify organizational factors influencing SB and PA.

A literature search of six databases was performed for relevant studies published through March 2023. Eligible studies were in English, targeted working populations, had a sample size > 75, and objectively measured both SB and PA for seven consecutive days using accelerometers. Following PRISMA guidelines, 5,197 studies were identified, and 19 articles met our inclusion criteria. Five of these studies were included in a meta-analysis comparing time spent in SB, light PA (LPA), and moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) across occupations. Methodological quality was assessed using a Joanna Briggs Institute tool.

We found that 63% of the studies reported daily time spent in SB and in MVPA, but fewer reported LPA, moderate PA, and vigorous PA. The average time spent in SB was 553.34 min/day, in LPA was 299.77 min/day, and in MVPA was 33.87 min/day. In occupational subgroup analysis, we observed that office workers had 2.3 h more SB, 2.4 less hours LPA, and 14 min less MVPA per day than nurses. However, most studies either did not specify workers’ occupations or grouped occupations. Shift work and workplace facilities significantly influenced SB and PA, but organizational factors affecting these behaviors were not sufficiently investigated (e.g., occupation type, work environment and workplace facilities, and shift work).

Conclusions

More research is needed to explore SB and PA patterns within occupational subgroups. Additionally, it is important to explore work-related individual (e.g., job task), interpersonal (e.g., social support from colleagues), organizational (e.g., work policy), and environmental factors influencing SB and PA. Future studies should also investigate the association of these factors with SB and PA.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Too much sedentary behavior (SB) and too little physical activity (PA) place adult workers at risk for chronic illness [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. SB is defined as “any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs), while in a sitting, reclining or lying posture [ 4 ], and PA is defined as body movements facilitated by skeletal muscles that lead to energy expenditure [ 5 ]. High SB is positively associated with all-cause mortality, including death from cancer and other chronic disease [ 6 ], while PA provides health benefits to reduce mortality [ 7 ]. Nevertheless, 46% of U.S. adults aged 18 to 64 years did not meet aerobic-activity or muscle-strengthening PA guidelines for Americans in 2020 [ 8 ]. Also, a recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report showed that over 25% of Americans aged ≥ 18 years were physically inactive [ 9 ]. Because adult workers spend a significant amount of time working, work-related patterns of SB and PA contribute significantly to total SB and PA [ 10 , 11 ], but the relationship between work related SB and PA and total SB and PA is complex. People with physically active occupations can be highly sedentary during non-working hours, thereby offsetting the potential health benefits derived from the PA accumulated during working hours, the PA paradox [ 12 ]. Thus, the combined patterns of SB and PA must be understood to better manage workers’ health.

Sedentary work is on the rise, contributing to increased SB among workers and reduced overall PA levels [ 10 , 13 ]. For occupational settings, there is currently no standard definition of sedentary work based on energy expenditure [ 14 , 15 ]. In addition, SB and PA are often considered polar opposites [ 5 ], but this is not reflected by studies. For example, occupation types with the lowest reported SB are food preparation and sewing and farming, fishing, and forestry, but working groups showing the highest moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) are healthcare support and community and social service [ 16 ]. Thus, it remains unclear which occupations and subgroups within occupations have the highest and lowest SB and PA, and how organizational factors affect these measures. To address this gap, our review focuses on studies that capture both measures.

Office work is generally classified as sedentary [ 13 , 16 ] and is considered a high-SB occupation; however, the occupational groups with the highest PA levels have varied in different studies [ 13 , 16 ]. In addition, only a few organizational factors that influence SB and PA have been identified, namely the work environment [ 17 ], benefits of social support in workplace [ 18 ], worksite culture [ 19 ], and worker characteristics. This lack of information makes it difficult to understand whether workers’ lifestyles, workplace behaviors, and environments are barriers or motivators for SB and PA.

Although previous studies have described SB and PA in adult workers, most of their results have been based on self-reported measures or on measurement of SB or PA but not both [ 11 , 17 ]. Moreover, the accelerometry studies that have been conducted had challenges in terms of being representative of each occupation due to a small sample size [ 20 ]. Because estimates of SB and PA have differed significantly depending on whether they were self-reported or accelerometer-measured [ 21 ], we focused our study on SB and PA outcomes measured in larger samples by accelerometry only to maximize the accuracy of our findings. The aims of this review were as follows:

Summarize the evidence of daily SB and PA measured by accelerometry for different occupations in large-scale studies.

Identify organizational factors influencing SB and PA

Search strategy

The comprehensive literature search for this systematic review and meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines [ 22 ]. Through April 25, 2024, six databases were searched for relevant literature: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete EBSCO, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus EBSCO, and Web of Science. Search terms were selected to focus on studies addressing exercise or SB and PA in working populations (see Appendix A). A reference librarian was consulted for the selection of databases and the development of search terms. In addition to the database search, we manually reviewed the reference lists of the included studies in an attempt to identify other relevant studies.

Study selection and data extraction

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) primary research published in English in peer-reviewed journals, (b) studies specifically targeting the working population, and (c) sample sizes > 75, (d) objective measurement of both SB and PA for seven consecutive days using accelerometry following National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey PA monitoring guidelines [ 19 , 20 ], (d) inclusion of at least 3 valid days of accelerometer data, and I reporting of time spent in SB and PA as means with standard deviations (SDs) or confidence intervals (CIs) to allow consistent comparison of outcome variables.

Because appropriate sample sizes for feasibility and pilot studies range from 10 to 75 [ 23 ], our review targeted studies with samples > 75 to obtain reliable and valid results that would adequately reflect variations across occupational groups. We chose the sample threshold of 75 to capture studies that potentially had more heterogeneous samples within occupational groups; this choice was based on Teresi et al.’s (2023) recommendation that sample sizes of 70 to 100 per group should be required for detection of group differences in pilot studies [ 24 ]. Also, although 4 valid days of accelerometer data are desirable [ 25 ], we set our inclusion criterion at 3 valid days to maximize the number of large-sample studies included [ 26 ].

We excluded studies of the general population when working status was only described as part of the demographic characteristics; measured only SB or PA because there is a known strong negative relationship between SB and LPA [ 27 ]; reported outcomes as percentages, METs, or step-counts; or reported outcomes as median and/or interquartile range.

This review was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic and meta-analysis reviews (CRD42022374343). The search yielded 682 articles in CINAHL, 1,164 in Embase, 931 in PubMed, 1,297 in Scopus, 384 in SPORTDiscus EBSCO, and 1,318 in Web of Science (Fig.  1 ). We removed 2,831 duplicates using EndNote 20 [ 28 ]. The first author screened titles and abstracts using EndNote, and 2,492 articles were excluded. The remaining 171 articles were independently examined by three authors (SP, SL, KW) [ 29 ] and 19 articles met criteria for inclusion (see Fig.  1 ). We extracted publication information, sample characteristics, research design, measurements of the two main outcomes (i.e., total time/day in SB and in PA), and relevant findings (see Supplementary Table 1). Completeness and accuracy of the data extracted were assessed and double-checked by four authors (SP, SL, SW, KW). The corresponding/first authors of three articles were contacted for additional information, and two responded. All main outcomes were reported as min/day.

PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram of Study Selection Process for Systematic Review

Risk of bias in selected studies

The risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) critical appraisal tools. We used the appropriate JBI tool for each research design (see Fig.  2 ): cohort (11 questions) [ 30 ], cross-sectional (8 questions) [ 30 ], quasi-experimental (9 questions), and randomized controlled trial (13 questions) [ 32 ]. Each question was rated using four categories: “Yes,” “No,” “Unclear,” or “Not applicable.”

Risk of Bias Summary by JBI

Two authors (SL and SW) independently assessed the quality of the selected studies and resolved any disagreements through discussion. If disagreements remained unresolved, a third author (SP) was consulted to reach a consensus. There is no established guideline for determining scoring values using the JBI tool [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Therefore, we calculated the proportion of “Yes” divided by the total number of questions excluding “Not applicable” in each study. We evaluated the degree of risk (i.e., low, moderate, and high risk of bias) [ 33 , 34 ].

Meta-analysis

For the meta-analysis, two authors (SP and KW) prepared a coding list of variables of interest based on Supplementary Table 1 (i.e., study number, publication year, sample size, occupation, SB, and PA levels). Given that most study designs were cross-sectional, we selected the baseline outcome values for studies with multiple outcomes at various time points [ 35 , 36 ]. After double-checking the variables for consistency, a senior biostatistician (PV) verified the list [ 37 ]. Ten studies examined time spent in both SB and PA across the total study sample using a combination of working days and non-working days [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ]. For studies reporting multiple outcomes at various time points, we selected the baseline outcome values for consideration. [ 45 , 47 ]. Seven of the 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis; they all used hip/waist-mounted Actigraph accelerometers. The other three were excluded because one reported data from a wrist-worn device that produces higher estimates of PA [ 44 ] and the others used an accelerometer (Actical [ 48 ] and AX3 [ 46 ]) that does not produce data comparable to Actigraph data [ 49 , 50 ].

We used Stata version 18.0 for the meta-analysis [ 51 ], employing the mean values and standard errors (SEs) for daily SB and daily PA. SDs and CIs were converted into SEs [ 52 ]. Based on Cochrane’s guideline [ 52 ], SDs were calculated using the formula SE \(\times \sqrt{sample size}\) , and CIs were calculated using the formula SD \(= \sqrt{sample size} \times (upper limit-lower limit)/ 3.92\)  (given the 95% CI range). To calculate the pooled SD for two groups [ 45 , 47 ], we used the formula [ 53 ] SD pooled \(=\sqrt{\frac{\left(n1-1\right)\left(SD1\right)({\text{SD}}1)+\left(n2-1\right)\left(SD2\right)(SD2)}{n1+n2-2}}\) . A random-effects model was applied for the analysis due to expected variations across occupational groups in the meta-analysis [ 54 ].

The research purpose, design, sample size and characteristics, measures, main outcomes (i.e., time spent in daily SB and daily PA [min/day]), and other relevant findings for each selected study are summarized in Supplementary Table 1. Of the 19 selected studies, 14 were cross-sectional, two were quasi-experimental, two were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and one was a cohort study. The sample size varied from 78 to 3,513 workers, and mean ages ranged from the mid-30s to early 50s. Four studies were conducted in Japan, and three studies each in the USA, and Canada. Two studies were conducted in Finland and one study each in Sweden, New Zealand, the UK, Thailand, Taiwan, South Africa, and Singapore. During our review, we classified the occupation types reported in the studies into four groups: (1) office workers [ 36 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 47 ,  55 ], (2) occupation not specified (typically referred to only as “worker/employee”) [ 38 , 48 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], (3) grouped occupations (combinations of several occupations such as workers in banking services and at amusement parks) [ 35 , 39 , 44 , 60 ], and (4) nurses [ 40 , 43 ]. These classifications are further discussed under “Organizational Factors Related to SB and PA” below.

Most of the 19 studies reviewed were conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but data were collected for three studies [ 45 , 46 , 60 ] during the pandemic. Among these three studies [ 45 , 46 , 60 ], only Fujii et al.’s study compared SB and PA before and during COVID-19; they reported that office workers showed increased SB and reduced PA both on weekdays and weekends after the pandemic compared to before it [ 60 ].

Regarding measurement devices for SB and PA, 10 studies used the ActiGraph (53%); four [ 55 , 56 , 58 , 60 ] used the Active style Pro HJA; and one each used the Fitbit [ 44 ], Actical [ 48 ], AX3 [ 46 ], Hookie AM [ 35 ], and UKK RM42 [ 59 ]. Two studies [ 36 , 42 ] that applied the ActiGraph also used the activPAL to assess SB in greater detail. The device wear location was most commonly the waist or hip (79%; 15 of 19 studies); three [ 44 , 46 , 57 ] studies employed a wrist-worn device, and one [ 56 ] did not identify the wear location. Twelve studies [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 ,  56 ,  57 , 59 ] reported 7 consecutive days of monitoring. Of 19 studies, the number of required valid days of data varied: ≥ 4 days in 10 studies [ 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 ,  57 , 58 , 59 ], ≥ 3 days in one study [ 39 ], and 14 days in one study [ 44 ]. Additional seven studies included data for a mix of working and weekend days such as 3 working days and 1 non-working day [ 36 , 56 ], 2 working days and 1 non-working day [ 42 , 55 , 60 ], and 3 working days only [ 35 , 45 ]. Most studies reported using 60-s epochs [ 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 55 , 57 , 60 ].

No studies showed a high risk of bias. Most studies had a low risk (16 of 19 studies) [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ,  46 , 47 , 48 ,  55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ], and three [ 40 , 45 , 56 ] had a moderate risk of bias (see Fig.  2 – Figs.  2 a-d). Two of the studies [ 40 , 56 ] with a moderate risk of bias were cross-sectional and raised concerns related to a lack of clear selection criteria. In addition, one RCT study [ 45 ] posed concerns regarding the blind assignment of treatment; it was unclear how blinding could have been maintained for each participant and researcher and how to avoid cross-contamination between control and intervention groups.

Profiles of total daily SB and PA time

Both daily SB and MVPA during waking hours were reported in 12 (63%) of the 19 studies [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ,  57 ]. For profile calculations, we excluded Hajo et al.’s study [ 40 ] because it employed the same dataset as was used in Reed et al.’s study [ 40 ]. Across seven of these studies employing a waist-worn ActiGraph and a total of 3,176 workers [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ,  45 , 47 ], the mean SB time was 553.34 min/day (SD 91.54 min/day), and the mean MVPA time was 33.87 min/day (SD 21.68 min/day) [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ,  47 ]. Also, our review revealed that relatively low proportions of studies reported LPA, moderate PA, and vigorous PA: only 42% [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ,  57 ] reported LPA, and 16% [ 40 , 43 , 44 ] reported both moderate PA and vigorous PA. Across four studies with waist-worn ActiGraph and a total of 957 workers, the mean LPA was 299.77 min/day (SD 74.96 min/day) [ 41 , 42 , 43 ,  45 ].

The main outcomes, time in daily SB and PA, were not consistently reported (Supplementary Table 1). Studies reported results based on commute mode [ 39 ], work shifts [ 48 , 57 ], or sample characteristics [ 36 , 41 , 47 , 59 ], such as sex.

SB and PA by specific timeframe

Eight of 19 studies reported SB and PA according to specific timeframes such as working days, working hours during working days, and non-working days (see Supplementary Table 2) [ 35 , 36 , 42 , 45 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 60 ], but results were inconsistently reported across those studies. Only one [ 42 ] reported detailed outcomes for all three categories: working days (also addressing working vs non-working hours), non-working days, and mixed days (encompassing both working and non-working days). An additional seven studies addressed only one or two of these categories in their outcomes (see Supplementary Table 2).

During our review, we observed no consistent trends in SB or PA intensity between working days and non-working days across studies. For example, in two studies [ 36 , 42 ], detailed SB and PA outcomes for a total of 158 workers were obtained using both the activPAL (for SB) and ActiGraph (for PA). In those studies [ 36 , 42 ], workers showed more SB and less PA on working days. Specifically, they had 49 min/day more SB, 29 min/day less LPA, and 3.34 min/day less MVPA on working days than on non-working days [ 36 , 42 ]. However, different outcomes were reported by three studies [ 55 , 56 , 58 ] using an HJA device; those studies involved totals of 629 workers on working days [ 56 , 58 ] and 1,663 workers on non-working days [ 55 , 56 ]. Across these studies [ 55 , 56 , 58 ], workers had 1,019.5 min/day less SB on working days but were more physically active on non-working days, showing 149.95 min/day more LPA and 19.3 min/day more MVPA than on working days.

Meta-analysis of SB and PA

Seven studies with a total of 3,176 workers were included in the meta-analysis [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ,  45 , 47 ]. Occupation type was the only common factor among them, and so we conducted a subgroup analysis by occupation (see Fig.  3 ). Workers studied included nurses in one study ( n  = 410) [ 43 ], office workers in four studies ( n  = 913) [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 ], workers with occupation not specified in one study ( n  = 1,313) [ 38 ], and workers with grouped occupations in one study ( n  = 540) [ 39 ].

Forest Plots in Total Time in SB, LPA, and MVPA. a . Forest Plot in Total Time in SB ( n  = 7). b . Forest Plot in Total Time in LPA ( n  = 4). c . Forest Plot in Total Time in MVPA ( n  = 7)

The time spent in SB across all seven studies [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ,  45 , 47 ] averaged 553.34 min/day (95% CI 505.63 – 601.05., p  < 0.001., Fig.  3 -a). Based on subgroup analysis, nurses [ 43 ] had the lowest SB (mean = 445 min/day, 95% CI 433.77 – 456.22), followed by workers with occupation not specified [ 38 ] (mean = 507.20 min/day, 95% CI 501.59 – 512.81), and workers with grouped occupations [ 39 ] (mean = 580.60 min/day, 95% CI 574.48 – 586.72). Office workers [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 ] had the highest SB (mean = 585.33 min/day, 95% CI 528.02 – 642.64., p  < 0.001).

As shown in Fig.  3 -b, the mean time spent in LPA was 299.77 min/day (95% CI 218.63 – 380.90., p  < 0.001) [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 ]. For subgroup analysis, only two occupations were used: Office workers [ 41 , 42 , 45 ] had lower LPA (mean = 263.86 min/day, 95% CI 215.76—311.96., p  < 0.001) than nurses [ 43 ] (mean = 408 min/day, 95% CI 400.35—415.65). In addition to all workers, the average time spent in MVPA [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ,  45 , 47 ] was 33.87 min/day (95% CI 25.49 – 42.25., p  < 0.001., see Fig.  3 -c). Office workers had the lowest MVPA (mean = 26.72 min/day, 95% CI 21.15 – 32.30., p  < 0.001), followed by those with occupation not specified (mean = 32.80 min/day, 95% CI 31.57 – 34.03) and nurses (mean = 41.10 min/day, 95% CI 39.13 – 43.07). Workers with grouped occupations had the highest MVPA (mean = 52.90 min/day, 95% CI 50.48 – 55.32). Compared to office workers (lowest MVPA), workers with grouped occupations (highest MVPA) had 26.18 min/day higher MVPA.

Organizational factors related to SB and PA

Organizational factors influencing SB and PA were insufficiently addressed in the 19 studies, as the only organizational factor considered in every study was occupation type. The most common occupation type was office workers [ 36 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 47 ,  55 ]. Other occupation types were nurses [ 40 , 43 ], workers with occupations not specified [ 38 , 48 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], and workers with grouped occupations [ 35 , 39 , 44 , 60 ].

The organizational factors most commonly found to influence SB and PA were on-site work environment and facilities [ 35 , 38 , 43 , 47 ] and shift work [ 40 , 43 , 48 , 57 ]. Regarding on-site work environment and facilities [ 35 , 38 , 43 , 47 ], two studies [ 35 , 47 ] involved interventions that adjusted the work environment to promote decreased SB and increased PA. For instance, Deery et al. [ 46 ] reported that PA calorie expenditure labels implemented in worksite cafeterias slightly reduced SB and increased PA [ 47 ]. As for shift work, shift work type [ 43 , 48 , 57 ], shift length [ 43 ], and shift work disorders [ 40 ] were reported as influencing SB and PA, and specific shift conditions influenced SB and PA differently. For example, rotating shift workers had less SB and more LPA than day shift workers [ 57 ]. In addition, other organizational factors influencing SB and PA were absenteeism [ 40 ], work performance efficiency [ 58 ], and commute mode and commute distance [ 39 ]. Although unit-peer support was included as one component of the intervention addressed by Aitassalo et al., [ 35 ] no significant influence of social support on SB or PA was reported in their study or in any others.

Having estimated daily SB and PA using accelerometry, our review indicates that adult workers average 9.22 h per day in SB, 5 h per day in LPA, and 0.56 h per day in MVPA. Also, our review revealed that the only common organizational factor influencing SB and PA was occupation type. Notably, we found that insufficient organizational factors were examined in terms of their influence on SB and PA.

Our review highlighted two specific occupations (nurses and office workers), suggesting that estimating SB and PA based on workers’ individual characteristics, such as occupation and age, helps capture these parameters more meaningfully than estimating them for working adults as a whole. Compared to a previous review [ 13 ] that included studies employing a combination of various devices to measure SB and PA and varied sample sizes of working adults, our waist-worn Actigraph-derived SB and PA estimates were based on larger samples. However, we obtained similar findings: a 12.46-min lower SB and a 9.53-min lower LPA, but a 19-min greater MVPA. In addition, we compared our outcomes with previous studies [ 64 , 65 ] examining a large sample of the general adult population included in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which like our study employed waist-worn Actigraph data. In comparison with those studies [ 64 , 65 ], we found that workers (in our review) had more SB, less LPA [ 64 ], and more MVPA than in Kim and Kang’s [ 64 ] study [ 65 ] but less MVPA than in Fishman et al.’s [ 63 ] study [ 64 ]. These differences in outcomes may be due to the age range of the sample. Previous studies [ 64 , 65 ] included older adults aged 65 or more. Approximately 50% of the studies (10 of 19) either did not clearly classify occupations within groups or used workers whose occupations could not be differentiated when reporting SB and PA. Despite these limitations, our review highlighted findings for two specific occupations: office workers and nurses. For office workers, our results support previous studies’ [ 13 , 16 ] findings that office workers had the highest SB. With respect to PA, however, we found that office workers showed the lowest MVPA, whereas a prior review [ 13 ] reported that office workers had more MVPA than other occupations. Notably, the term “office worker” was typically not defined in past studies [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. To better understand the profiles of office workers and create tailored strategies to increase their PA and decrease their SB, subgroups of office workers need to be defined and classified. One way to do so is to use occupational codes such as the Standard Occupational Classification System (e.g., 43–0000 for Office and Administrative Support Occupations) [ 70 ] and/or the North American Industry Classification System (e.g., 561,110 for Office Administrative Services) [ 71 ]. To achieve greater consistency in research reporting, these occupational codes can be converted using “autocoder” software applications [ 72 ]. As for the nursing occupation, a previous study targeting nurses [ 73 ] has reported findings similar to ours. In that research, nurses showed lower SB (mean = 445 min/day) [ 73 ] and higher MVPA compared to other healthcare occupations. To better understand the facets of multiple occupations across industries, we recommend that future studies investigate specific occupations and groups of occupations and measure each outcome for different occupations within specific industries.

Moreover, our review did not find sufficient organizational factors that influence SB and PA, with our key findings being limited to the effects of shift work and onsite-work facilities on work performance and benefits to the company (e.g., work performance efficiency, absenteeism). In general, the reviewed studies neglected to examine social organizational factors such as social support and workplace climate, workplace benefits (e.g., a PA work wellness program), mental stress caused by the job, and individual organizational factors (e.g., job task and home office work environment). Nevertheless, we did find that a few studies reported on partial organizational factors such as workplace facilities. The dominant organizational factors that we identified as influencing SB and PA, namely occupation types, may not fully capture the evolving nature of how job tasks are impacted by technological advancement [ 74 ]. Therefore, it is essential that more studies explore diverse occupational changes (e.g., job characteristics [job task] and workplace [home-office]) and micro–macro level factors that influence SB and PA. Such studies may eventually enhance work climate and policy support, thereby reducing SB and increasing PA for workers.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, workers have reported increased SB and reduced PA [ 75 ], with remote workers in particular having experienced a significant increase in SB and decrease in PA [ 76 , 77 ]. However, those studies were based on self-reported data. Brusaca et al.’s [ 77 ] study, which used accelerometry, supported the finding that sitting time was higher in remote workers than in on-site workers [ 78 ]. There findings were also supported by our review: among the 19 studies we reviewed, Fujii et al.’s [ 59 ] study [ 60 ] reported that office workers had more SB and less PA after the pandemic than before. To mitigate these negative trends in SB and PA, a combination of home working environment modifications and behavior-changing strategies have been recommended. Indeed, these changes have proven effective in improving remote workers’ mental health, reducing their SB, and enhancing their work performance [ 79 ]. These outcomes reflect the importance of designing workplaces, be it remote or traditional, that promote worker health and well-being. They also highlight the growing need to facilitate healthy remote work environments and establish a supportive organizational culture [ 77 ]. On the whole, future research should comprehensively examine the impact of home and traditional work arrangements and their associated environments on SB and PA.

Strengths and limitations

One of the strengths of this review is its emphasis on objectively measured SB and PA using accelerometry. It helps to overcome the inherent bias in self-reported SB and PA, overestimation of PA and under-estimation of SB [ 21 ]. In addition, our meta-analysis compared SB and PA in four working groups (i.e., workers with grouped occupations, nurses, office workers, and workers with occupation not specified), thereby supporting results from the systematic review and enhancing the rigor and validity of our findings.

The study findings are subject to a number of limitations. First, due to our stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, our study could not capture SB and PA across the range of occupations. For example, in the meta-analysis, we could compare only two identifiable occupation types—office workers and nurses. For studies that aggregated data and grouped results for multiple groups, we were unable to separate results by occupation. However, we believe that our approach was justified in providing a synthesis of the most reliable data available. Second, although most of the reviewed studies showed a low risk of bias, our findings regarding factors significantly influencing SB and PA should be interpreted with caution because several of the studies were cross-sectional, and we included those outcomes. Third, methodological differences among the reviewed studies made it challenging to synthesize their results. Studies used different devices; different device placements (waist/hip vs wrist); and different timeframes such as working days, non-working days, and a combination of the two. As an example of the issues arising from these differences, we did not include results based on data from wrist-worn devices [ 44 , 57 ] because they have no standard cut points [ 80 , 81 ]. To minimize outcome variances, our meta-analysis results for SB and PA are based solely on data generated by ActiGraph devices worn on the waist/hip [ 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Finally, because the aim of the review was to assess evidence regarding total daily SB and PA, we did not explicitly consider posture-specific accelerator measurements such as standing vs. sitting.

Our review indicates that adult workers average 9.22 h per day in SB, 5 h per day in LPA, and 0.56 h per day in MVPA. Our review supports earlier reports of office workers having higher SB and lower PA than other groups of workers. Nurses had the lowest SB and highest PA. To better detect occupational subgroup differences using accelerometry, we suggest that future studies specify outcomes from grouped occupations and/or specific occupations from different industry categories.

There is limited evidence identifying organizational factors that influence SB and PA along with SB and PA outcomes. To more comprehensively understand SB and PA in working adults, it is essential to explore work-related individual (e.g., job task), interpersonal (e.g., social support from colleagues), organizational (e.g., work policy and work culture), and environmental factors (e.g., office facilities) influencing SB and PA and their associations with SB and PA outcomes. Specifically, we suggest that future studies investigate the impact of redesigning workplaces, as social support and interaction at work have been shown to influence SB and PA.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Confidential intervals

Cumulative index of nursing and allied health literature complete EBSCO

The excerpta medica database

Joanna Briggs Institute

Light physical activity

Metabolic equivalents

Moderate to vigorous physical activity

Physical activity

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Randomized controlled trial

Sedentary behavior

Standard deviation

Standard error

Smith L, McCourt O, Sawyer A, et al. A review of occupational physical activity and sedentary behaviour correlates. Occup Med (Lond). 2016;66(3):185–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv164 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, et al. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19):2020–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14854 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Brief Summary of Findings on The Association between Physical Inactivity And Severe COVID-19 Outcomes. Accessed May 10, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Brief-Summary-of-Findings-on-the-Association-Between-Physical-Inactivity-and-Severe-COVID-19-Outcomes.pdf

Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, et al. Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8 .

Thivel D, Tremblay A, Genin PM, Panahi S, Rivière D, Duclos M. Physical activity, inactivity, and sedentary behaviors: definitions and implications in occupational health. Front Public Health. 2018;6:288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00288 .

Powell KE, King AC, Buchner DM, et al. The scientific foundation for the physical activity guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition. J Phys Act Health. 2018:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0618

Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.

Elgaddal N, Kramarow EA, Reuben C. Physical activity among adults aged 18 and over: United States, 2020. NCHS Data Brief, no 443. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2022. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc:120213 .

U.S. CDC.. Adult Physical Inactivity Outside of Work. U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated 2024 February 1. Accessed May 30, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity/php/data/inactivity-maps.html

Lusa S, Punakallio A, Mänttäri S, et al. Interventions to promote work ability by increasing sedentary workers’ physical activity at workplaces - a scoping review. Appl Ergon. 2020;82:102962.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102962 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Prince SA, Rasmussen CL, Biswas A, et al. The effect of leisure time physical activity and sedentary behaviour on the health of workers with different occupational physical activity demands: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01166-z .

van Tienoven TP, Deyaert J, Harms T, Weenas D, Minnen J, Glorieux I. Active work, passive leisure? Associations between occupational and non-occupational physical activity on weekdays. Soc Sci Res. 2018;76:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.08.012 .

Prince SA, Elliott CG, Scott K, Visintini S, Reed JL. Device-measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic health and fitness across occupational groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0790-9 .

Labor Do. Division of Federal Employees' Compensation Procedure Manual. Accessed June 1, 2023. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/FECA/regs/compliance/DFECfolio/FECA-PT2/group3

Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1451–62. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955 .

Steeves JA, Tudor-Locke C, Murphy RA, et al. Daily physical activity by occupational classification in US adults: NHANES 2005–2006. J Phys Act Health. 2018;15(12):900–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0465 .

Zhu X, Yoshikawa A, Qiu L, Lu Z, Lee C, Ory M. Healthy workplaces, active employees: a systematic literature review on impacts of workplace environments on employees’ physical activity and sedentary behavior. Build Environ. 2020;168:106455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106455 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Lafrenz A, Lust T, Cleveland M, et al. Association between psychosocial and organizational factors and objectively measured sedentary behavior in desk-dependent office workers. Occup Health Sci. 2018;2(4):323–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-018-0028-2 .

Mullane SL, Toledo MJL, Rydell SA, et al. Social ecological correlates of workplace sedentary behavior. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0576-x .

Gilson ND, Hall C, Holtermann A, et al. Sedentary and physical activity behavior in “Blue-Collar” workers: a systematic review of accelerometer studies. J Phys Act Health. 2019;16(11):1060–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0607 .

Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical activity in U.S. adults: compliance with the physical activity guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(4):454–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.016 .

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .

Lewis M, Bromley K, Sutton CJ, McCray G, Myers HL, Lancaster GA. Determining sample size for progression criteria for pragmatic pilot RCTs: the hypothesis test strikes back! Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7(1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00770-x .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Teresi JA, Yu X, Stewart AL, Hays RD. Guidelines for designing and evaluating feasibility pilot studies. Med Care. 2022;60(1):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000001664 .

Shim J, Fleisch E, Barata F. Wearable-based accelerometer activity profile as digital biomarker of inflammation, biological age, and mortality using hierarchical clustering analysis in NHANES 2011–2014. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):9326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36062-y .

Migueles JH, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Ekelund U, et al. Accelerometer data collection and processing criteria to assess physical activity and other outcomes: a systematic review and practical considerations. Sports Med. 2017;47(9):1821–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0716-0 .

Mansoubi M, Pearson N, Biddle SJH, Clemes S. The relationship between sedentary behaviour and physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2014;69:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.08.028 .

EndNote [Computer software]. Version: 20. Philadelphia: Clarivate; 2013.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al. Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. JBI Manual for evidence synthesis. JBI; 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global

Barker TH, Habibi N, Aromataris E, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies. JBI Evid Synth. 2024;22(3):378–88. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-23-00268 .

Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):494–506.

Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2127–33. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00099 .

Fernandez R, Sikhosana N, Green H, et al. Anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic umbrella review of the global evidence. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e054528. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054528

Aittasalo M, Livson M, Lusa S, et al. Moving to business - changes in physical activity and sedentary behavior after multilevel intervention in small and medium-size workplaces. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):319. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4229-4 .

Bergman F, Wahlström V, Stomby A, et al. Treadmill workstations in office workers who are overweight or obese: a randomised controlled trial. Article. Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(11):e523–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30163-4 .

Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. 5th ed. Inc.: SAGE Publications; 2017.

Crespo NC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, et al. Worksite physical activity policies and environments in relation to employee physical activity. Am J Health Promot. 2011;25(4):264–71. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.081112-QUAN-280 .

Ferrer HB, Cooper A, Audrey S. Associations of mode of travel to work with physical activity, and individual, interpersonal, organisational, and environmental characteristics. J Transp Health. 2018;9:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.01.009 .

Hajo S, Reed JL, Hans H, Tulloch HE, Reid RD, Prince SA. Physical activity, sedentary time and sleep and associations with mood states, shift work disorder and absenteeism among nurses: an analysis of the cross-sectional champlain nurses’ study. Peerj. 2020;8:e8464. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8464 .

Huang WC, Chang SH, Hsueh MC, Liao Y. Relationship of sleep regularity with device-based sedentary behavior time and physical activity time in working adults. Article. Sleep Health. 2023;9(1):86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2022.10.002 .

Keown MK, Skeaff CM, Perry TL, Haszard JJ, Peddie MC. Device-measured sedentary behavior patterns in office-based university ennployees. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(12):1150–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001467 .

Reed JL, Prince SA, Pipe AL, et al. Influence of the workplace on physical activity and cardiometabolic health: results of the multi-centre cross-sectional champlain nurses’ study. Int J Nurs Stud. M 2018;81:49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.02.001 .

Rykov Y, Thach TQ, Dunleavy G, et al. Activity tracker-based metrics as digital markers of cardiometabolic health in working adults: cross-sectional study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(1):e16409. https://doi.org/10.2196/16409 .

Akksilp K, Koh JJE, Tan V, et al. The physical activity at work (PAW) study: a cluster randomised trial of a multicomponent short-break intervention to reduce sitting time and increase physical activity among office workers in Thailand. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia. 2023;8:100086.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lansea.2022.100086 .

Phaswana M, Gordon NF, Gradidge PJL. Sedentary behavior, physical activity patterns, and cardiometabolic risk factors in South African office-based workers. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276231210479 .

Deery CB, Hales D, Viera L, et al. Physical Activity Calorie Expenditure (PACE) labels in worksite cafeterias: effects on physical activity. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1596. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7960-1 .

Neil-Sztramko SE, Gotay CC, Demers PA, Campbell KL. Physical activity, physical fitness, and body composition of Canadian shift workers. Article. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(1):94–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000574 .

Duncan S, Stewart T, Bo Schneller M, Godbole S, Cain K, Kerr J. Convergent validity of ActiGraph and Actical accelerometers for estimating physical activity in adults. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0198587.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198587 .

De Craemer M, Verbestel V. Comparison of outcomes derived from the ActiGraph GT3X+ and the Axivity AX3 accelerometer to objectively measure 24-hour movement behaviors in adults: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(1):271.

Stata Statistical Software. Release 18. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.; 2023.

Google Scholar  

Higgins JP LT, Deeks JJ (editors). Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 63 (updated February 2022). Cochrane; 2022 updated February 2022.

Chi K-Y, Li M-Y, Chen C, Kang E, Cochrane T. Ten circumstances and solutions for finding the sample mean and standard deviation for meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02217-1 .

Dettori JR, Norvell DC, Chapman JR. Fixed-effect vs Random-effects models for meta-analysis: 3 points to consider. Glob Spine J. 2022;12(7):1624–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221110527 .

Kitano N, Kai Y, Jindo T, Fujii Y, Tsunoda K, Arao T. Association of domain-specific physical activity and sedentary behavior with cardiometabolic health among office workers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022;32(8):1224–35.

Kurosawa S, Shibata A, Ishii K, Koohsari MJ, Oka K. Accelerometer-measured diurnal patterns of sedentary behavior among Japanese workers: a descriptive epidemiological study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11):3814. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113814 .

Loprinzi PD. The effects of shift work on free-living physical activity and sedentary behavior. Prev Med. 2015;76:43–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.025 .

Ma J, Ma D, Kim J, Wang Q, Kim H. Effects of substituting types of physical activity on body fat mass and work efficiency among workers. Article. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105101 .

Husu P, Tokola K, Vähä-Ypyä H, Sievänen H, Vasankari T. Accelerometer-measured physical behavior and cardiorespiratory fitness as indicators of work ability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(7) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075414

Fujii Y, Kitano N, Kai Y, Jindo T, Arao T. Changes in accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary behavior from before to after COVID-19 outbreak in workers. J Epidemiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20230023 .

Clemes SA, O’Connell SE, Edwardson CL. Office workers’ objectively measured sedentary behavior and physical activity during and outside working hours. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(3):298–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000000101 .

Wu Y, Petterson JL, Bray NW, Kimmerly DS, O’Brien MW. Validity of the activPAL monitor to measure stepping activity and activity intensity: a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2022;97:165–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.08.002 .

Veronica V-M, Orlagh OS, James AK, et al. Cross-sectional surveillance study to phenotype lorry drivers’ sedentary behaviours, physical activity and cardio-metabolic health. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e013162.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013162 .

Fishman EI, Steeves JA, Zipunnikov V, et al. Association between objectively measured physical activity and mortality in NHANES. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(7):1303–11. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000000885 .

Kim H, Kang M. Sedentary behavior and metabolic syndrome in physically active adults: national health and nutrition examination survey 2003–2006. Am J Hum Biol. 2019;31(2):e23225.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23225 .

World Health Organization. Health Topics. Accessed September 27, 2023. https://www.who.int/health-topics/

Internationl Labour Organization. Topics. Accessed September 27, 2023. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/lang--en/index.htm

U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Accessed Sepember 27, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/index.htm

U.S Department of Labor. Accessed September 27, 2023. https://www.dol.gov/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Standard Occupational Classification. Accessed September 27, 2023. https://www.bls.gov/soc/

U.S. Census Bureau. North American Industry Classification System. Accessed September 27, 2023. https://www.census.gov/naics/

U.S. NIOSH. Collecting and Using Industry and Occupation Data. Accessed November 11, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/coding/code.html

Prince SA, Reid RD, Bernick J, Clarke AE, Reed JL. Single versus multi-item self-assessment of sedentary behaviour: a comparison with objectively measured sedentary time in nurses. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(9):925–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.018 .

Peng G, Wang Y, Han G. Information technology and employment: the impact of job tasks and worker skills. J Ind Relat. 2018;60(2):201–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185617741924 .

Ráthonyi G, Kósa K, Bács Z, et al. Changes in workers’ physical activity and sedentary behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability. 2021;13(17):9524.

Wilms P, Schröder J, Reer R, Scheit L. The impact of "Home Office" work on physical activity and sedentary behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912344

Tomonaga R, Watanabe Y, Jiang Y, Nakagawa T, Yamato H. Comparison of physical activity and sedentary behavior between work-in-office and work-from-home: a self-controlled study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 9900: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000003061 . https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000003061

Brusaca LA, Hallman DM, Januario LB, Gupta N, Oliveira AB, Mathiassen SE. Working at the office or from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of temporal patterns of sitting and non-sitting among normal-weight and overweight Brazilian office workers. J Act Sedentary Sleep Behav. 2023;2(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44167-023-00038-0 .

Falk GE, Mailey EL, Okut H, et al. Effects of sedentary behavior interventions on mental well-being and work performance while working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(11) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116401

U.S. CDC. 2013-2014 Examination Data - Continuous NHANES. Accessed September 27, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2013-2014/manuals/2014-Physicial-Activity-Monitor-Procedures-Manual-508.pdf

Liu F, Wanigatunga AA, Schrack JA. Assessment of physical activity in adults using wrist accelerometers. Epidemiol Rev. 2022;43(1):65–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxab004 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express their thanks to Mr. Jon Mann, Academic Specialist, University of Illinois at Chicago, for his editorial contributions to the paper, and to Dr. Richard Neitzel, the Director for Center for Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, University of Michigan (UM), for his valuable insights in defining the terminologies used. Also, we appreciate Ms. Kate Saylor, a health sciences informationist at UM, for her help in building the rigorous search terms in each database.

This study was supported by the first author (SP)’s research fund from the start-up fund from the School of Nursing, University of Michigan. KW was supported by NIH T32 NR018407.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, University of Michigan, 400 North Ingalls Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

Sungwon Park, Philip Veliz & Janet L. Larson

Michigan Society of Fellows, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Sungwon Park

Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Sueyeon Lee

School of Nursing, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

Seoyoon Woo

School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Katelyn Webster-Dekker

School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Weiyun Chen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SP and JL conceptualized and designed the study. SP, SL, SW, and KW participated in the data screening procedure. SP, SL, and SW conducted the risk of bias. SP, KW, and PV were participated in the meta-analysis procedure. SP drafted the manuscript under the guidance of JL. SP prepared all figures and supplementary files. All authors contributed to reviewing the manuscript and editing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sungwon Park .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Park, S., Lee, S., Woo, S. et al. Sedentary behaviors and physical activity of the working population measured by accelerometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 24 , 2123 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19449-y

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2024

Accepted : 11 July 2024

Published : 06 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19449-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sedentary Behavior
• Occupational Health
• Occupational Groups

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Free water surface constructed wetlands: review of pollutant removal performance and modeling approaches

• Gaballah, Mohamed S.
• Yousefyani, Hooshyar
• Karami, Mohammadjavad
• Lammers, Roderick W.

Free water surface constructed wetlands (FWSCWs) for the treatment of various wastewater types have evolved significantly over the last few decades. With an increasing need and interest in FWSCWs applications worldwide due to their cost-effectiveness and other benefits, this paper reviews recent literature on FWSCWs' ability to remove different types of pollutants such as nutrients (i.e., TN, TP, NH 4 -N), heavy metals (i.e., Fe, Zn, and Ni), antibiotics (i.e., oxytetracycline, ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, sulfamethazine, and ofloxacin), and pesticides (i.e., Atrazine, S-Metolachlor, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, diuron 3,4-dichloroanilin, Simazine, and Atrazine) that may co-exist in wetland inflow, and discusses approaches for simulating hydraulic and pollutant removal processes. A bibliometric analysis of recent literature reveals that China has the highest number of publications, followed by the USA. The collected data show that FWSCWs can remove an average of 61.6%, 67.8%, 54.7%, and 72.85% of inflowing nutrients, heavy metals, antibiotics, and pesticides, respectively. Optimizing each pollutant removal process requires specific design parameters. Removing heavy metal requires the lowest hydraulic retention time (HRT) (average of 4.78 days), removing pesticides requires the lowest water depth (average of 0.34 m), and nutrient removal requires the largest system size. Vegetation, especially Typha spp. and Phragmites spp., play an important role in FWSCWs' system performance, making significant contributions to the removal process. Various modeling approaches (i.e., black-box and process-based) were comprehensively reviewed, revealing the need for including the internal process mechanisms related to the biological processes along with plants spp., that supported by a further research with field study validations. This work presents a state-of-the-art, systematic, and comparative discussion on the efficiency of FWSCWs in removing different pollutants, main design factors, the vegetation, and well-described models for performance prediction.

• Nutrients removal;
• Antibiotics removal;
• Pesticides removal;
• Heavy metals removal;

Violence against women and children in Yemen: A mixed-methods systematic review

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Samana Shreedhar
• ORCID record for Sayali Arvind Chavan
• ORCID record for Marwah Al-Zumair
• ORCID record for Mirna Naccache
• ORCID record for Priya Shreedhar
• ORCID record for Lauren Maxwell
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• Info/History
• Supplementary material
• Preview PDF

Violence against women and children (VAWC) is a significant health and human rights issue closely tied to multiple Sustainable Development Goals. While VAWC is prevalent in all countries, the severity and incidence of VAWC increase during wars, natural disasters, economic crises, and pandemics, all of which have affected Yemen in recent years. This systematic review synthesizes evidence from qualitative and quantitative studies on the types, prevalence, perpetrators of, and risk factors for VAWC in Yemen. Before initiating the search, the protocol and search strategy were registered to PROSPERO (CRD42021237855). We systematically searched four biomedical databases and grey literature sources and used reverse snowball sampling to identify eligible studies. The 31 studies included in the analysis depicted a range of forms of VAWC, encompassing honor violence, female genital mutilation and cutting, early and very early marriage, tourist marriage, family and intimate partner violence, and gender inequities in access to food, education, and medical care. Included studies reported a high prevalence of many forms of violence, including corporal punishment in schools and intimate partner violence. We reviewed study quality and how studies addressed ethical concerns in VAWC-related research. We found that several studies did not report ethics review or interviewer training and no studies discussed safety planning or addressing the mental health needs of participants in VAWC research. This systematic review provides a much-needed synthesis of existing research on VAWC in Yemen. Since the start of the 2014 war, Yemen has become the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with the highest rate of maternal mortality and gender inequality in the world. We only identified one study initiated after the recent war in Yemen. This deficiency represents a missed opportunity to understand how the ongoing war has reversed prior gains in reducing the prevalence of child and very early child marriage and introduced new forms of gender-based violence, including tourist marriage.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021237855

Funding Statement

MAZ received funding support from the Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftung within the Heidelberg Institute for Global Health at Universitaetsklinikum Heidelberg for one year of her work on this project (Award Number D10053008). The Heidelberg University Library supported the open-access fee for this article. The Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftung had no role in the study's design, conduct or reporting.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All data generated in this systematic review are available in the article or its appendices.

View the discussion thread.

Supplementary Material

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Subject Area

• Public and Global Health
• Addiction Medicine (336)
• Allergy and Immunology (658)
• Anesthesia (177)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2577)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (310)
• Dermatology (218)
• Emergency Medicine (390)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (915)
• Epidemiology (12099)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (744)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4003)
• Geriatric Medicine (376)
• Health Economics (667)
• Health Informatics (2581)
• Health Policy (993)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (961)
• Hematology (357)
• HIV/AIDS (826)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13579)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (783)
• Medical Education (396)
• Medical Ethics (107)
• Nephrology (424)
• Neurology (3769)
• Nursing (207)
• Nutrition (560)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (720)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (689)
• Oncology (1963)
• Ophthalmology (572)
• Orthopedics (233)
• Otolaryngology (301)
• Pain Medicine (248)
• Palliative Medicine (72)
• Pathology (469)
• Pediatrics (1090)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (453)
• Primary Care Research (442)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3359)
• Public and Global Health (6435)
• Radiology and Imaging (1367)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (793)
• Respiratory Medicine (861)
• Rheumatology (394)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (401)
• Sports Medicine (336)
• Surgery (434)
• Toxicology (51)
• Transplantation (185)
• Urology (164)