literature review in a quantitative study

Archer Library

Quantitative research: literature review .

• Archer Library This link opens in a new window
• Research Resources handout This link opens in a new window
• Locating Books
• Library eBook Collections This link opens in a new window
• A to Z Database List This link opens in a new window
• Research & Statistics
• Literature Review Resources
• Citations & Reference

Exploring the literature review 

Literature review model: 6 steps.

Adapted from The Literature Review , Machi & McEvoy (2009, p. 13).

Your Literature Review

Step 2: search, boolean search strategies, search limiters, ★ ebsco & google drive.

1. Select a Topic

"All research begins with curiosity" (Machi & McEvoy, 2009, p. 14)

Selection of a topic, and fully defined research interest and question, is supervised (and approved) by your professor. Tips for crafting your topic include:

• Be specific. Take time to define your interest.
• Topic Focus. Fully describe and sufficiently narrow the focus for research.
• Academic Discipline. Learn more about your area of research & refine the scope.
• Avoid Bias. Be aware of bias that you (as a researcher) may have.
• Document your research. Use Google Docs to track your research process.
• Research apps. Consider using Evernote or Zotero to track your research.

Consider Purpose

What will your topic and research address?

In The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students , Ridley presents that literature reviews serve several purposes (2008, p. 16-17).  Included are the following points:

• Historical background for the research;
• Overview of current field provided by "contemporary debates, issues, and questions;"
• Theories and concepts related to your research;
• Introduce "relevant terminology" - or academic language - being used it the field;
• Connect to existing research - does your work "extend or challenge [this] or address a gap;" 
• Provide "supporting evidence for a practical problem or issue" that your research addresses.

★ Schedule a research appointment

At this point in your literature review, take time to meet with a librarian. Why? Understanding the subject terminology used in databases can be challenging. Archer Librarians can help you structure a search, preparing you for step two. How? Contact a librarian directly or use the online form to schedule an appointment. Details are provided in the adjacent Schedule an Appointment box.

2. Search the Literature

Collect & Select Data: Preview, select, and organize

Archer Library is your go-to resource for this step in your literature review process. The literature search will include books and ebooks, scholarly and practitioner journals, theses and dissertations, and indexes. You may also choose to include web sites, blogs, open access resources, and newspapers. This library guide provides access to resources needed to complete a literature review.

Books & eBooks: Archer Library & OhioLINK

Databases: Scholarly & Practitioner Journals

Review the Library Databases tab on this library guide, it provides links to recommended databases for Education & Psychology, Business, and General & Social Sciences.

Expand your journal search; a complete listing of available AU Library and OhioLINK databases is available on the Databases  A to Z list . Search the database by subject, type, name, or do use the search box for a general title search. The A to Z list also includes open access resources and select internet sites.

Databases: Theses & Dissertations

Review the Library Databases tab on this guide, it includes Theses & Dissertation resources. AU library also has AU student authored theses and dissertations available in print, search the library catalog for these titles.

Did you know? If you are looking for particular chapters within a dissertation that is not fully available online, it is possible to submit an ILL article request . Do this instead of requesting the entire dissertation.

Newspapers:  Databases & Internet

Consider current literature in your academic field. AU Library's database collection includes The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Wall Street Journal .  The Internet Resources tab in this guide provides links to newspapers and online journals such as Inside Higher Ed , COABE Journal , and Education Week .

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the nation’s largest newsroom dedicated to covering colleges and universities.  Source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators

The Chronicle features complete contents of the latest print issue; daily news and advice columns; current job listings; archive of previously published content; discussion forums; and career-building tools such as online CV management and salary databases. Dates covered: 1970-present.

Offers in-depth coverage of national and international business and finance as well as first-rate coverage of hard news--all from America's premier financial newspaper. Covers complete bibliographic information and also subjects, companies, people, products, and geographic areas. 

Comprehensive coverage back to 1984 is available from the world's leading financial newspaper through the ProQuest database. 

Newspaper Source provides cover-to-cover full text for hundreds of national (U.S.), international and regional newspapers. In addition, it offers television and radio news transcripts from major networks.

Provides complete television and radio news transcripts from CBS News, CNN, CNN International, FOX News, and more.

Search Strategies & Boolean Operators

There are three basic boolean operators:  AND, OR, and NOT.

Used with your search terms, boolean operators will either expand or limit results. What purpose do they serve? They help to define the relationship between your search terms. For example, using the operator AND will combine the terms expanding the search. When searching some databases, and Google, the operator AND may be implied.

Overview of boolean terms

About the example: Boolean searches were conducted on November 4, 2019; result numbers may vary at a later date. No additional database limiters were set to further narrow search returns.

Database Search Limiters

Database strategies for targeted search results.

Most databases include limiters, or additional parameters, you may use to strategically focus search results.  EBSCO databases, such as Education Research Complete & Academic Search Complete provide options to:

• Limit results to full text;
• Limit results to scholarly journals, and reference available;
• Select results source type to journals, magazines, conference papers, reviews, and newspapers
• Publication date

Keep in mind that these tools are defined as limiters for a reason; adding them to a search will limit the number of results returned.  This can be a double-edged sword.  How? 

• If limiting results to full-text only, you may miss an important piece of research that could change the direction of your research. Interlibrary loan is available to students, free of charge. Request articles that are not available in full-text; they will be sent to you via email.
• If narrowing publication date, you may eliminate significant historical - or recent - research conducted on your topic.
• Limiting resource type to a specific type of material may cause bias in the research results.

Use limiters with care. When starting a search, consider opting out of limiters until the initial literature screening is complete. The second or third time through your research may be the ideal time to focus on specific time periods or material (scholarly vs newspaper).

★ Truncating Search Terms

Expanding your search term at the root.

Truncating is often referred to as 'wildcard' searching. Databases may have their own specific wildcard elements however, the most commonly used are the asterisk (*) or question mark (?).  When used within your search. they will expand returned results.

Asterisk (*) Wildcard

Using the asterisk wildcard will return varied spellings of the truncated word. In the following example, the search term education was truncated after the letter "t."

Explore these database help pages for additional information on crafting search terms.

• EBSCO Connect: Basic Searching with EBSCO
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Boolean Operators
• EBSCO Connect: Searching with Wildcards and Truncation Symbols
• ProQuest Help: Search Tips
• ERIC: How does ERIC search work?

★ EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

Tips for saving research directly to Google drive.

Researching in an EBSCO database?

It is possible to save articles (PDF and HTML) and abstracts in EBSCOhost databases directly to Google drive. Select the Google Drive icon, authenticate using a Google account, and an EBSCO folder will be created in your account. This is a great option for managing your research. If documenting your research in a Google Doc, consider linking the information to actual articles saved in drive.

EBSCO Databases & Google Drive

EBSCOHost Databases & Google Drive: Managing your Research

This video features an overview of how to use Google Drive with EBSCO databases to help manage your research. It presents information for connecting an active Google account to EBSCO and steps needed to provide permission for EBSCO to manage a folder in Drive.

About the Video:  Closed captioning is available, select CC from the video menu.  If you need to review a specific area on the video, view on YouTube and expand the video description for access to topic time stamps.  A video transcript is provided below.

• EBSCOhost Databases & Google Scholar

Defining Literature Review

What is a literature review.

A definition from the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences .

A 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" (Reitz, 2014). 

A systemic review is "a literature review focused on a specific research question, which uses explicit methods to minimize bias in the identification, appraisal, selection, and synthesis of all the high-quality evidence pertinent to the question" (Reitz, 2014).

Recommended Reading

About this page

EBSCO Connect [Discovery and Search]. (2022). Searching with boolean operators. Retrieved May, 3, 2022 from https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

EBSCO Connect [Discover and Search]. (2022). Searching with wildcards and truncation symbols. Retrieved May 3, 2022; https://connect.ebsco.com/s/?language=en_US

Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2009). The literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: 

Reitz, J.M. (2014). Online dictionary for library and information science. ABC-CLIO, Libraries Unlimited . Retrieved from https://www.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_A.aspx

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Archer Librarians

Schedule an appointment.

Contact a librarian directly (email), or submit a request form. If you have worked with someone before, you can request them on the form.

• ★ Archer Library Help • Online Reqest Form
• Carrie Halquist • Reference & Instruction
• Jessica Byers • Reference & Curation
• Don Reams • Corrections Education & Reference
• Diane Schrecker • Education & Head of the IRC
• Tanaya Silcox • Technical Services & Business
• Sarah Thomas • Acquisitions & ATS Librarian
• << Previous: Research & Statistics
• Next: Literature Review Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 31, 2024 10:11 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ashland.edu/quantitative

Archer Library • Ashland University © Copyright 2023. An Equal Opportunity/Equal Access Institution.

University Libraries

• Research Guides
• Blackboard Learn
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms
• University of Arkansas

Literature Reviews

• Qualitative or Quantitative?
• Getting Started
• Finding articles
• Primary sources? Peer-reviewed?
• Review Articles/ Annual Reviews...?
• Books, ebooks, dissertations, book reviews

Qualitative researchers TEND to:

Researchers using qualitative methods tend to:

• t hink that social sciences cannot be well-studied with the same methods as natural or physical sciences
• feel that human behavior is context-specific; therefore, behavior must be studied holistically, in situ, rather than being manipulated
• employ an 'insider's' perspective; research tends to be personal and thereby more subjective.
• do interviews, focus groups, field research, case studies, and conversational or content analysis.

Image from https://www.editage.com/insights/qualitative-quantitative-or-mixed-methods-a-quick-guide-to-choose-the-right-design-for-your-research?refer-type=infographics

Qualitative Research (an operational definition)

Qualitative Research: an operational description

Purpose : explain; gain insight and understanding of phenomena through intensive collection and study of narrative data

Approach: inductive; value-laden/subjective; holistic, process-oriented

Hypotheses: tentative, evolving; based on the particular study

Lit. Review: limited; may not be exhaustive

Setting: naturalistic, when and as much as possible

Sampling : for the purpose; not necessarily representative; for in-depth understanding

Measurement: narrative; ongoing

Design and Method: flexible, specified only generally; based on non-intervention, minimal disturbance, such as historical, ethnographic, or case studies

Data Collection: document collection, participant observation, informal interviews, field notes

Data Analysis: raw data is words/ ongoing; involves synthesis

Data Interpretation: tentative, reviewed on ongoing basis, speculative

• Qualitative research with more structure and less subjectivity
• Increased application of both strategies to the same study ("mixed methods")
• Evidence-based practice emphasized in more fields (nursing, social work, education, and others).

Some Other Guidelines

• Guide for formatting Graphs and Tables
• Critical Appraisal Checklist for an Article On Qualitative Research

Quantitative researchers TEND to:

Researchers using quantitative methods tend to:

• think that both natural and social sciences strive to explain phenomena with confirmable theories derived from testable assumptions
• attempt to reduce social reality to variables, in the same way as with physical reality
• try to tightly control the variable(s) in question to see how the others are influenced.
• Do experiments, have control groups, use blind or double-blind studies; use measures or instruments.

Quantitative Research (an operational definition)

Quantitative research: an operational description

Purpose: explain, predict or control phenomena through focused collection and analysis of numberical data

Approach: deductive; tries to be value-free/has objectives/ is outcome-oriented

Hypotheses : Specific, testable, and stated prior to study

Lit. Review: extensive; may significantly influence a particular study

Setting: controlled to the degree possible

Sampling: uses largest manageable random/randomized sample, to allow generalization of results to larger populations

Measurement: standardized, numberical; "at the end"

Design and Method: Strongly structured, specified in detail in advance; involves intervention, manipulation and control groups; descriptive, correlational, experimental

Data Collection: via instruments, surveys, experiments, semi-structured formal interviews, tests or questionnaires

Data Analysis: raw data is numbers; at end of study, usually statistical

Data Interpretation: formulated at end of study; stated as a degree of certainty

This page on qualitative and quantitative research has been adapted and expanded from a handout by Suzy Westenkirchner. Used with permission.

Images from https://www.editage.com/insights/qualitative-quantitative-or-mixed-methods-a-quick-guide-to-choose-the-right-design-for-your-research?refer-type=infographics.

• << Previous: Books, ebooks, dissertations, book reviews
• Last Updated: Aug 1, 2024 4:37 PM
• URL: https://uark.libguides.com/litreview
• See us on Instagram
• Follow us on Twitter
• Phone: 479-575-4104

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates, and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models, and methods?
• Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

• Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 19, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Literature Review

What exactly is a literature review.

• Critical Exploration and Synthesis: It involves a thorough and critical examination of existing research, going beyond simple summaries to synthesize information.
• Reorganizing Key Information: Involves structuring and categorizing the main ideas and findings from various sources.
• Offering Fresh Interpretations: Provides new perspectives or insights into the research topic.
• Merging New and Established Insights: Integrates both recent findings and well-established knowledge in the field.
• Analyzing Intellectual Trajectories: Examines the evolution and debates within a specific field over time.
• Contextualizing Current Research: Places recent research within the broader academic landscape, showing its relevance and relation to existing knowledge.
• Detailed Overview of Sources: Gives a comprehensive summary of relevant books, articles, and other scholarly materials.
• Highlighting Significance: Emphasizes the importance of various research works to the specific topic of study.

How do Literature Reviews Differ from Academic Research Papers?

• Focus on Existing Arguments: Literature reviews summarize and synthesize existing research, unlike research papers that present new arguments.
• Secondary vs. Primary Research: Literature reviews are based on secondary sources, while research papers often include primary research.
• Foundational Element vs. Main Content: In research papers, literature reviews are usually a part of the background, not the main focus.
• Lack of Original Contributions: Literature reviews do not introduce new theories or findings, which is a key component of research papers.

Purpose of Literature Reviews

• Drawing from Diverse Fields: Literature reviews incorporate findings from various fields like health, education, psychology, business, and more.
• Prioritizing High-Quality Studies: They emphasize original, high-quality research for accuracy and objectivity.
• Serving as Comprehensive Guides: Offer quick, in-depth insights for understanding a subject thoroughly.
• Foundational Steps in Research: Act as a crucial first step in conducting new research by summarizing existing knowledge.
• Providing Current Knowledge for Professionals: Keep professionals updated with the latest findings in their fields.
• Demonstrating Academic Expertise: In academia, they showcase the writer’s deep understanding and contribute to the background of research papers.
• Essential for Scholarly Research: A deep understanding of literature is vital for conducting and contextualizing scholarly research.

A Literature Review is Not About:

• Merely Summarizing Sources: It’s not just a compilation of summaries of various research works.
• Ignoring Contradictions: It does not overlook conflicting evidence or viewpoints in the literature.
• Being Unstructured: It’s not a random collection of information without a clear organizing principle.
• Avoiding Critical Analysis: It doesn’t merely present information without critically evaluating its relevance and credibility.
• Focusing Solely on Older Research: It’s not limited to outdated or historical literature, ignoring recent developments.
• Isolating Research: It doesn’t treat each source in isolation but integrates them into a cohesive narrative.

Steps Involved in Conducting a Research Literature Review (Fink, 2019)

1. choose a clear research question., 2. use online databases and other resources to find articles and books relevant to your question..

• Google Scholar
• OSU Library
• ERIC. Index to journal articles on educational research and practice.
• PsycINFO . Citations and abstracts for articles in 1,300 professional journals, conference proceedings, books, reports, and dissertations in psychology and related disciplines.
• PubMed . This search system provides access to the PubMed database of bibliographic information, which is drawn primarily from MEDLINE, which indexes articles from about 3,900 journals in the life sciences (e.g., health, medicine, biology).
• Social Sciences Citation Index . A multidisciplinary database covering the journal literature of the social sciences, indexing more than 1,725 journals across 50 social sciences disciplines.

3. Decide on Search Terms.

• Pick words and phrases based on your research question to find suitable materials
• You can start by finding models for your literature review, and search for existing reviews in your field, using “review” and your keywords. This helps identify themes and organizational methods.
• Narrowing your topic is crucial due to the vast amount of literature available. Focusing on a specific aspect makes it easier to manage the number of sources you need to review, as it’s unlikely you’ll need to cover everything in the field.
• Use AND to retrieve a set of citations in which each citation contains all search terms.
• Use OR to retrieve citations that contain one of the specified terms.
• Use NOT to exclude terms from your search.
• Be careful when using NOT because you may inadvertently eliminate important articles. In Example 3, articles about preschoolers and academic achievement are eliminated, but so are studies that include preschoolers as part of a discussion of academic achievement and all age groups.

4. Filter out articles that don’t meet criteria like language, type, publication date, and funding source.

• Publication language Example. Include only studies in English.
• Journal Example. Include all education journals. Exclude all medical journals.
• Author Example. Include all articles by Andrew Hayes.
• Setting Example. Include all studies that take place in family settings. Exclude all studies that take place in the school setting.
• Participants or subjects Example. Include children that are younger than 6 years old.
• Program/intervention Example. Include all programs that are teacher-led. Exclude all programs that are learner-initiated.
• Research design Example. Include only longitudinal studies. Exclude cross-sectional studies.
• Sampling Example. Include only studies that rely on randomly selected participants.
• Date of publication Example. Include only studies published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023.
• Date of data collection Example. Include only studies that collected data from 2010 through 2023. Exclude studies that do not give dates of data collection.
• Duration of data collection Example. Include only studies that collect data for 12 months or longer.

5. Evaluate the methodological quality of the articles, including research design, sampling, data collection, interventions, data analysis, results, and conclusions.

• Maturation: Changes in individuals due to natural development may impact study results, such as intellectual or emotional growth in long-term studies.
• Selection: The method of choosing and assigning participants to groups can introduce bias; random selection minimizes this.
• History: External historical events occurring simultaneously with the study can bias results, making it hard to isolate the study’s effects.
• Instrumentation: Reliable data collection tools are essential to ensure accurate findings, especially in pretest-posttest designs.
• Statistical Regression: Selection based on extreme initial measures can lead to misleading results due to regression towards the mean.
• Attrition: Loss of participants during a study can bias results if those remaining differ significantly from those who dropped out.
• Reactive Effects of Testing: Pre-intervention measures can sensitize participants to the study’s aims, affecting outcomes.
• Interactive Effects of Selection: Unique combinations of intervention programs and participants can limit the generalizability of findings.
• Reactive Effects of Innovation: Artificial experimental environments can lead to uncharacteristic behavior among participants.
• Multiple-Program Interference: Difficulty in isolating an intervention’s effects due to participants’ involvement in other activities or programs.
• Simple Random Sampling : Every individual has an equal chance of being selected, making this method relatively unbiased.
• Systematic Sampling : Selection is made at regular intervals from a list, such as every sixth name from a list of 3,000 to obtain a sample of 500.
• Stratified Sampling : The population is divided into subgroups, and random samples are then taken from each subgroup.
• Cluster Sampling : Natural groups (like schools or cities) are used as batches for random selection, both at the group and individual levels.
• Convenience Samples : Selection probability is unknown; these samples are easy to obtain but may not be representative unless statistically validated.
• Study Power: The ability of a study to detect an effect, if present, is known as its power. Power analysis helps identify a sample size large enough to detect this effect.
• Test-Retest Reliability: High correlation between scores obtained at different times, indicating consistency over time.
• Equivalence/Alternate-Form Reliability: The degree to which two different assessments measure the same concept at the same difficulty level.
• Homogeneity: The extent to which all items or questions in a measure assess the same skill, characteristic, or quality.
• Interrater Reliability: Degree of agreement among different individuals assessing the same item or concept.
• Content Validity: Measures how thoroughly and appropriately a tool assesses the skills or characteristics it’s supposed to measure. Face Validity: Assesses whether a measure appears effective at first glance in terms of language use and comprehensiveness. Criterion Validity: Includes predictive validity (forecasting future performance) and concurrent validity (agreement with already valid measures). Construct Validity: Experimentally established to show that a measure effectively differentiates between people with and without certain characteristics.
• Relies on factors like the scale (categorical, ordinal, numerical) of independent and dependent variables, the count of these variables, and whether the data’s quality and characteristics align with the chosen statistical method’s assumptions.

6. Use a standard form for data extraction, train reviewers if needed, and ensure quality.

7. interpret the results, using your experience and the literature’s quality and content. for a more detailed analysis, a meta-analysis can be conducted using statistical methods to combine study results., 8. produce a descriptive review or perform a meta-analysis..

• Example: Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in higher education, 32(6), 693-710.
• Clarify the objectives of the analysis.
• Set explicit criteria for including and excluding studies.
• Describe in detail the methods used to search the literature.
• Search the literature using a standardized protocol for including and excluding studies.
• Use a standardized protocol to collect (“abstract”) data from each study regarding study purposes, methods, and effects (outcomes).
• Describe in detail the statistical method for pooling results.
• Report results, conclusions, and limitations.

• Example: Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effect of virtual reality technology use in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (8), 4956-4976.
• Essential and Multifunctional Bibliographic Software: Tools like EndNote, ProCite, BibTex, Bookeeper, Zotero, and Mendeley offer more than just digital storage for references; they enable saving and sharing search strategies, directly inserting references into reports and scholarly articles, and analyzing references by thematic content.
• Comprehensive Literature Reviews: Involve supplementing electronic searches with a review of references in identified literature, manual searches of references and journals, and consulting experts for both unpublished and published studies and reports.
• One of the most famous reporting checklists is the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ). CONSORT consists of a checklist and flow diagram. The checklist includes items that need to be addressed in the report.

References:

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review.  Studies in higher education ,  32 (6), 693-710.

Fink, A. (2019).  Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper . Sage publications.

Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effect of virtual reality technology use in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (8), 4956-4976.

• 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

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. 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

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

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
• J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

Systematic and other reviews: criteria and complexities

Robert t. sataloff.

1 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Voice, Philadephia, USA

2 Editor Emeritus, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Philadephia, USA

Matthew L. Bush

3 Assistant Editor, Otology & Neurotology, Lexington, USA

Rakesh Chandra

4 Editor-in-Chief, Ear, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Nashville, USA

Douglas Chepeha

5 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, Toronto, Canada

Brian Rotenberg

6 Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, London, Canada

Edward W. Fisher

7 Senior Editor, Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Birmingham, UK

David Goldenberg

8 Editor-in-Chief, Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Hershey, USA

Ehab Y. Hanna

9 Editor-in-Chief, Head & Neck, Houston, USA

Joseph E. Kerschner

10 Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Milwaukee, USA

Dennis H. Kraus

11 Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, New York, USA

John H. Krouse

12 Editor-in-Chief, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

13 Editor-in-Chief, OTO-Open, Philadelphia, USA

14 Editor-in-Chief, Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

15 Editor-in-Chief, World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Philadelphia, USA

Michael Link

16 Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, Rochester, USA

Lawrence R. Lustig

17 Editor-in-Chief, Otology & Neurotology, New York, USA

Samuel H. Selesnick

18 Editor-in-Chief, The Laryngoscope, New York, USA

Raj Sindwani

19 Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, Cleveland, USA

Richard J. Smith

20 Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Iowa City, USA

James Tysome

21 Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Otolaryngology, Cambridge, UK

Peter C. Weber

22 Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Otolaryngology, Boston, USA

D. Bradley Welling

23 Editor-in-Chief, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, Boston, USA

Review articles can be extremely valuable. They synthesize information for readers, often provide clarity and valuable insights into a topic; and good review articles tend to be cited frequently. Review articles do not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval if the data reviewed are public (including private and government databases) and if the articles reviewed have received IRB approval previously. However, some institutions require IRB review and exemption for review articles. So, authors should be familiar with their institution’s policy. In assessing and interpreting review articles, it is important to understand the article’s methodology, scholarly purpose and credibility. Many readers, and some journal reviewers, are not aware that there are different kinds of review articles with different definitions, criteria and academic impact [ 1 ]. In order to understand the importance and potential application of a review article, it is valuable for readers and reviewers to be able to classify review articles correctly.

Systematic reviews

Authors often submit articles that include the term “systematic” in the title without realizing that that term requires strict adherence to specific criteria. A systematic review follows explicit methodology to answer a well-defined research question by searching the literature comprehensively, evaluating the quantity and quality of research evidence rigorously, and analyzing the evidence to synthesize an answer to the research question. The evidence gathered in systematic reviews can be qualitative or quantitative. However, if adequate and comparable quantitative data are available then a meta-analysis can be performed to assess the weighted and summarized effect size of the studies included. Depending on the research question and the data collected, systematic reviews may or may not include quantitative meta-analyses; however, meta-analyses should be performed in the setting of a systematic review to ensure that all of the appropriate data were accessed. The components of a systematic review can be found in an important article by Moher et al. published in 2009 that defined requirements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ 2 ].

In order to optimize reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) statement at a meeting in 1996 that led to publication of the QUOROM statement in 1999 [ 3 ]. Moher et al. revised that document and re-named the guidelines the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The PRISMA statement included both meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and the authors incorporated definitions established by the Cochrane Collaboration [ 4 ]. The PRISMA statement established the current standard for systematic reviews. To qualify as a systematic review, the methods section should acknowledge use of the PRISMA guidelines, and all PRISMA components should be incorporated strictly in all facets of the paper from the research question to the discussion. The PRISMA statement includes a checklist of 27 items that must be included when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis [ 2 ]. A downloadable version of this checklist can be used by authors, reviewers, and journal editorial staff to ensure compliance with recommended components [ 5 ]. All 27 will not be listed in this brief editorial (although authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the article by Moher et al. and familiarize themselves with all items), but a few will be highlighted.

The research question, as reflected in the title, should be a hypothesis-based specific research inquiry. The introduction must describe the rationale for the review and provide a specific goal or set of goals to be addressed. The type of systematic review, according to the Cochrane Collaboration, is based on the research question being asked and may assess diagnostic test accuracy, review prognostic studies evidence, evaluate intervention effect, scrutinize research methodology, or summarize qualitative evidence [ 6 ].

In the methods section, the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design (PICOS) must be put forward. In addition to mentioning compliance with PRISMA, the methods section should state whether a review protocol exists and, if so, where it can be accessed (including a registration number). Systematic reviews are eligible for registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as established at the University of York (York, UK). When PROSPERO is used (it is available but not required for systematic reviews), registration should occur at the initial protocol stage of the review, and the final paper should direct to the information in the register. The methods section also must include specific study characteristics including databases used, years considered, languages of articles included, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies; and rationale for each criterion must be included. Which individuals specifically performed searches should be noted. Electronic search strategy (with a full description of at least one electronic search strategy sufficient to allow replication of the search), process for article selection, data variables sought, assumptions and simplifications, methods for assessing bias risk of each individual study (such as selective reporting in individual studies) and utilization of this information in data synthesis, principal summary measures (risk ratio, hazard ratio, difference in means, etc.), methods of data management and combining study results, outcome level assessment, and other information should be reported.

The results section should include the number of studies identified, screened, evaluated for eligibility (including rationale for exclusion), and those included in the final synthesis. A PRISMA flow diagram should be included to provide this information succinctly [ 7 ]. The results also should include the study characteristics, study results, risk of bias within and across studies, and a qualitative or quantitative synthesis of the results of the included studies. This level of rigor in acquiring and evaluating the evidence of each individual study is one of the criteria that distinguishes systematic reviews from other categories. If the systematic review involves studies with paired samples and quantitative data, a summary of data should be provided for each intervention group along with effect estimates and confidence intervals for all outcomes of each study. If a meta-analysis is performed, then synthesized effect size should be reported with confidence intervals and measures of consistency (i.e. – data heterogeneity such as I 2 ) for each meta-analysis, and assessment of bias risk across studies. A forest plot, which provides a graphical presentation of the meta-analysis results, should be included.

The discussion section should summarize the main findings commenting on the strength of evidence for each outcome, as well as relevance to healthcare providers, policymakers and other key stake-holders; limitations of the study and outcomes; and conclusions highlighting the interpretation of results in the context of other research, and implications for future research.

Without adhering to of all of these criteria and the others listed in the PRISMA statement and checklist, the review does not qualify to be classified as “systematic”.

Meta-analyses

Meta-analyses, when feasible based on available and comparable quantitative data, supplement a systematic review evaluation, by adding a secondary statistical analysis of the pooled weighted outcomes of similar studies. This adds a level of objectivity in the synthesis of the review’s findings. Meta-analyses are appropriate when at least 2 individual studies contain paired samples (experimental group and control group) and provide quantitative outcome data and sample size. Studies that lack a control group may over-estimate the effect size of the experimental intervention or condition being studied and are not ideal for meta-analyses [ 8 ]. It also should be remembered that the conclusions of a meta-analysis are only as valid as the data on which the analysis is based. If the articles included are flawed, then the conclusions of the meta-analysis also may be flawed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the most rigorous categories of review.

Other types of reviews

Mixed methods reviews.

Systematic reviews typically contain a single type of data, either qualitative or quantitative; however, mixed methods reviews bring together a combination of data types or study types. This approach may be utilized when quantitative data, in the setting of an intervention study, only provide a narrow perspective of the efficacy or effectiveness of the intervention. The addition of qualitative data or qualitative studies may provide a more complete picture of the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of clinicians, patients or researchers regarding that intervention. This type of review could involve collecting either the quantitative or the qualitative data using systematic review methodology, but often the qualitative data are gathered using a convenience sampling. Many qualitative studies provide useful insights into clinical management and/or implementation of research interventions; and incorporating them into a mixed methods review may provide valuable perspective on a wide range of literature. Mixed methods reviews are not necessarily systematic in nature; however, authors conducting mixed methods reviews should follow systematic review methodology, when possible.

Literature and narrative reviews

Literature reviews include peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, but also may include conference abstracts, books, graduate degree theses, and other non-peer reviewed publications. The methods used to identify and evaluate studies should be specified, but they are less rigorous and comprehensive than those required for systematic reviews. Literature reviews can evaluate a broad topic but do not specifically articulate a specific question, nor do they synthesize the results of included studies rigorously. Like mixed method reviews, they provide an overview of published information on the topic, although they may be less comprehensive than integrative reviews; and, unlike systematic reviews, they do not need to support evidence-based clinical or research practices, or highlight high-quality evidence for the reader. Narrative reviews are similar to literature reviews and evaluate the same scope of literature. The terms sometimes are used interchangeably, and author bias in article selection and data interpretation is a potential concern in literature and narrative reviews.

Umbrella reviews

An umbrella review integrates previously published, high-quality reviews such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Its purpose is to synthesize information in previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses into one convenient paper.

Rapid review

A rapid review uses systematic review methodology to evaluate existing research. It provides a quick synthesis of evidence and is used most commonly to assist in emergent decision-making such as that required to determine whether COVID-19 vaccines should receive emergent approval.

Scoping, mapping, and systematized reviews

If literature has not been reviewed comprehensively in a specific subject that is varied and complex, a mapping review (also called scoping review) may be useful to organize initial understanding of the topic and its available literature. While mapping reviews may be helpful in crystallizing research findings and may be published, they are particularly useful in helping to determine whether a topic is amenable to systematic review, and to help organize and direct the approach of the systematic review or other reviews of the subject. Systematized reviews are used most commonly by students. The systematized review provides initial assessment of a topic that is potentially appropriate for a systematic review, but a systematized review does not meet the rigorous criteria of a systematic review and has substantially more limited value. Additional types of reviews exist including critical review, state-of-the-art review, and others.

Reviews can be invaluable; but they also can be misleading. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide readers with the greatest confidence that rigorous efforts have attempted to eliminate bias and ensure validity, but even they have limitations based upon the strengths and weaknesses of the literature that they have assessed (and the skill and objectivity with which the authors have executed the review). Risks of bias, incomplete information and misinformation increase as the rigor of review methodology decreases. While review articles may summarize research related to a topic for readers, non-systematic reviews lack the rigor to answer adequately hypothesis-driven research questions that can influence evidence-based practice. Journal authors, reviewers, editorial staff, and should be cognizant of the strengths and weaknesses of review methodology and should consider them carefully as they assess the value of published review articles, particularly as they determine whether the information presented should alter their patient care.

Authors’ contributions

The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Declarations

The authors declare no competing interests.

This article is co-published in the following journals: Journal of Voice, Otology & Neurotology, Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Head & Neck, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base, Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Clinical Otolaryngology, American Journal of Otolaryngology, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology.

Publisher’s Note

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

• 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

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 21, Issue 4
• How to appraise quantitative research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

This article has a correction. Please see:

• Correction: How to appraise quantitative research - April 01, 2019

• Xabi Cathala 1 ,
• Calvin Moorley 2
• 1 Institute of Vocational Learning , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• 2 Nursing Research and Diversity in Care , School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Mr Xabi Cathala, Institute of Vocational Learning, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University London UK ; cathalax{at}lsbu.ac.uk and Dr Calvin Moorley, Nursing Research and Diversity in Care, School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK; Moorleyc{at}lsbu.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102996

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Some nurses feel that they lack the necessary skills to read a research paper and to then decide if they should implement the findings into their practice. This is particularly the case when considering the results of quantitative research, which often contains the results of statistical testing. However, nurses have a professional responsibility to critique research to improve their practice, care and patient safety. 1  This article provides a step by step guide on how to critically appraise a quantitative paper.

Title, keywords and the authors

The authors’ names may not mean much, but knowing the following will be helpful:

Their position, for example, academic, researcher or healthcare practitioner.

Their qualification, both professional, for example, a nurse or physiotherapist and academic (eg, degree, masters, doctorate).

This can indicate how the research has been conducted and the authors’ competence on the subject. Basically, do you want to read a paper on quantum physics written by a plumber?

The abstract is a resume of the article and should contain:

Introduction.

Research question/hypothesis.

Methods including sample design, tests used and the statistical analysis (of course! Remember we love numbers).

Main findings.

Conclusion.

The subheadings in the abstract will vary depending on the journal. An abstract should not usually be more than 300 words but this varies depending on specific journal requirements. If the above information is contained in the abstract, it can give you an idea about whether the study is relevant to your area of practice. However, before deciding if the results of a research paper are relevant to your practice, it is important to review the overall quality of the article. This can only be done by reading and critically appraising the entire article.

The introduction

Example: the effect of paracetamol on levels of pain.

My hypothesis is that A has an effect on B, for example, paracetamol has an effect on levels of pain.

My null hypothesis is that A has no effect on B, for example, paracetamol has no effect on pain.

My study will test the null hypothesis and if the null hypothesis is validated then the hypothesis is false (A has no effect on B). This means paracetamol has no effect on the level of pain. If the null hypothesis is rejected then the hypothesis is true (A has an effect on B). This means that paracetamol has an effect on the level of pain.

Background/literature review

The literature review should include reference to recent and relevant research in the area. It should summarise what is already known about the topic and why the research study is needed and state what the study will contribute to new knowledge. 5 The literature review should be up to date, usually 5–8 years, but it will depend on the topic and sometimes it is acceptable to include older (seminal) studies.

Methodology

In quantitative studies, the data analysis varies between studies depending on the type of design used. For example, descriptive, correlative or experimental studies all vary. A descriptive study will describe the pattern of a topic related to one or more variable. 6 A correlational study examines the link (correlation) between two variables 7  and focuses on how a variable will react to a change of another variable. In experimental studies, the researchers manipulate variables looking at outcomes 8  and the sample is commonly assigned into different groups (known as randomisation) to determine the effect (causal) of a condition (independent variable) on a certain outcome. This is a common method used in clinical trials.

There should be sufficient detail provided in the methods section for you to replicate the study (should you want to). To enable you to do this, the following sections are normally included:

Overview and rationale for the methodology.

Participants or sample.

Data collection tools.

Methods of data analysis.

Ethical issues.

Data collection should be clearly explained and the article should discuss how this process was undertaken. Data collection should be systematic, objective, precise, repeatable, valid and reliable. Any tool (eg, a questionnaire) used for data collection should have been piloted (or pretested and/or adjusted) to ensure the quality, validity and reliability of the tool. 9 The participants (the sample) and any randomisation technique used should be identified. The sample size is central in quantitative research, as the findings should be able to be generalised for the wider population. 10 The data analysis can be done manually or more complex analyses performed using computer software sometimes with advice of a statistician. From this analysis, results like mode, mean, median, p value, CI and so on are always presented in a numerical format.

The author(s) should present the results clearly. These may be presented in graphs, charts or tables alongside some text. You should perform your own critique of the data analysis process; just because a paper has been published, it does not mean it is perfect. Your findings may be different from the author’s. Through critical analysis the reader may find an error in the study process that authors have not seen or highlighted. These errors can change the study result or change a study you thought was strong to weak. To help you critique a quantitative research paper, some guidance on understanding statistical terminology is provided in  table 1 .

• View inline

Some basic guidance for understanding statistics

Quantitative studies examine the relationship between variables, and the p value illustrates this objectively.  11  If the p value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the hypothesis is accepted and the study will say there is a significant difference. If the p value is more than 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted then the hypothesis is rejected. The study will say there is no significant difference. As a general rule, a p value of less than 0.05 means, the hypothesis is accepted and if it is more than 0.05 the hypothesis is rejected.

The CI is a number between 0 and 1 or is written as a per cent, demonstrating the level of confidence the reader can have in the result. 12  The CI is calculated by subtracting the p value to 1 (1–p). If there is a p value of 0.05, the CI will be 1–0.05=0.95=95%. A CI over 95% means, we can be confident the result is statistically significant. A CI below 95% means, the result is not statistically significant. The p values and CI highlight the confidence and robustness of a result.

Discussion, recommendations and conclusion

The final section of the paper is where the authors discuss their results and link them to other literature in the area (some of which may have been included in the literature review at the start of the paper). This reminds the reader of what is already known, what the study has found and what new information it adds. The discussion should demonstrate how the authors interpreted their results and how they contribute to new knowledge in the area. Implications for practice and future research should also be highlighted in this section of the paper.

A few other areas you may find helpful are:

Limitations of the study.

Conflicts of interest.

Table 2 provides a useful tool to help you apply the learning in this paper to the critiquing of quantitative research papers.

Quantitative paper appraisal checklist

• 1. ↵ Nursing and Midwifery Council , 2015 . The code: standard of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf ( accessed 21.8.18 ).
• Gerrish K ,
• Moorley C ,
• Tunariu A , et al
• Shorten A ,

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent Not required.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Correction notice This article has been updated since its original publication to update p values from 0.5 to 0.05 throughout.

Linked Articles

• Miscellaneous Correction: How to appraise quantitative research BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and RCN Publishing Company Ltd Evidence-Based Nursing 2019; 22 62-62 Published Online First: 31 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1136/eb-2018-102996corr1

Read the full text or download the PDF:

How to Operate Literature Review Through Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Integration?

• Conference paper
• First Online: 05 May 2022
• Cite this conference paper

• Eduardo Amadeu Dutra Moresi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6058-3883 13 ,
• Isabel Pinho   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1714-8979 14 &
• António Pedro Costa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4644-5879 14  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 466))

Included in the following conference series:

• World Conference on Qualitative Research

532 Accesses

3 Citations

Usually, a literature review takes time and becomes a demanding step in any research project. The proposal presented in this article intends to structure this work in an organised and transparent way for all project participants and the structured elaboration of its report. Integrating qualitative and quantitative analysis provides opportunities to carry out a solid, practical, and in-depth literature review. The purpose of this article is to present a guide that explores the potentials of qualitative and quantitative analysis integration to develop a solid and replicable literature review. The paper proposes an integrative approach comprising six steps: 1) research design; 2) Data Collection for bibliometric analysis; 3) Search string refinement; 4) Bibliometric analysis; 5) qualitative analysis; and 6) report and dissemination of research results. These guidelines can facilitate the bibliographic analysis process and relevant article sample selection. Once the sample of publications is defined, it is possible to conduct a deep analysis through Content Analysis. Software tools, such as R Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, Gephi, yEd and webQDA, can be used for practical work during all collection, analysis, and reporting processes. From a large amount of data, selecting a sample of relevant literature is facilitated by interpreting bibliometric results. The specification of the methodology allows the replication and updating of the literature review in an interactive, systematic, and collaborative way giving a more transparent and organised approach to improving the literature review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews

Literature Reviews: An Overview of Systematic, Integrated, and Scoping Reviews

Pritchard, A.: Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Doc. 25 (4), 348–349 (1969)

Google Scholar  

Nalimov, V., Mulcjenko, B.: Measurement of Science: Study of the Development of Science as an Information Process. Foreign Technology Division, Washington DC (1971)

Hugar, J.G., Bachlapur, M.M., Gavisiddappa, A.: Research contribution of bibliometric studies as reflected in web of science from 2013 to 2017. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 1–13 (2019). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2319

Verma, M.K., Shukla, R.: Library herald-2008–2017: a bibliometric study. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 2–12 (2018). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1762

Pandita, R.: Annals of library and information studies (ALIS) journal: a bibliometric study (2002–2012). DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 33 (6), 493–497 (2013)

Article   Google Scholar  

Kannan, P., Thanuskodi, S.: Bibliometric analysis of library philosophy and practice: a study based on scopus database. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 1–13 (2019). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2300/

Marín-Marín, J.-A., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Dúo-Terrón, P., López-Belmonte, J.: STEAM in education: a bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. Int. J. STEM Educ. 8 (1) (2021). Article number 41

Khalife, M.A., Dunay, A., Illés, C.B.: Bibliometric analysis of articles on project management research. Periodica Polytechnica Soc. Manag. Sci. 29 (1), 70–83 (2021)

Pech, G., Delgado, C.: Screening the most highly cited papers in longitudinal bibliometric studies and systematic literature reviews of a research field or journal: widespread used metrics vs a percentile citation-based approach. J. Informet. 15 (3), 101161 (2021)

Das, D.: Journal of informetrics: a bibliometric study. Libr. Philos. Pract. (e-journal), 1–15 (2021). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5495/

Schmidt, F.: Meta-analysis: a constantly evolving research integration tool. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (1), 96–113 (2008)

Zupic, I., Cater, T.: Bibliometric methods in management organisation. Organ. Res. Methods 18 (3), 429–472 (2014)

Noyons, E., Moed, H., Luwel, M.: Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: a bibliometric study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50 , 115–131 (1999)

van Rann, A.: Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In: Moed, H., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U. (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, pp. 19–50. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2004)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Garfield, E.: Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178 , 417–479 (1972)

Hirsch, J.: An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102, pp. 16569–1657. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC (2005)

Cobo, M., López-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F.: Science mapping software tools: review, analysis and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62 , 1382–1402 (2011)

Noyons, E., Moed, H., van Rann, A.: Integrating research perfomance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics 46 , 591–604 (1999)

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., Lim, W.M.: How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133 , 285–296 (2021)

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C.: Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 11 (4), 959–975 (2017)

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C.: Package ‘bibliometrix’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bibliometrix/bibliometrix.pdf . Accessed 10 July 2021

Börner, K., Chen, C., Boyack, K.: Visualisingg knowledge domains. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 37 , 179–255 (2003)

Morris, S., van der Veer Martens, B.: Mapping research specialities. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 42 , 213–295 (2008)

Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., Bassecoulard, E.: Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: from cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics 63 (2), 373–401 (2005)

Li, L.L., Ding, G., Feng, N., Wang, M.-H., Ho, Y.-S.: Global stem cell research trend: bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics 80 (1), 9–58 (2009)

Ebrahim, A.N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Tanha, F.H., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S.M.: Visibility and citation impact. Int. Educ. Stud. 7 (4), 120–125 (2014)

Canas-Guerrero, I., Mazarrón, F.R., Calleja-Perucho, C., Pou-Merina, A.: Bibliometric analysis in the international context of the “construction & building technology” category from the web of science database. Constr. Build. Mater. 53 , 13–25 (2014)

Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M., Baier-Fuentes, H.: Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 140 , 194–220 (2019)

Heradio, R., Perez-Morago, H., Fernandez-Amoros, D., Javier Cabrerizo, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: A bibliometric analysis of 20 years of research on software product lines. Inf. Softw. Technol. 72 , 1–15 (2016)

Furstenau, L.B., et al.: Link between sustainability and industry 4.0: trends, challenges and new perspectives. IEEE Access 8 , 140079–140096 (2020). Article 9151934

van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L.: VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden (2021)

Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M.: Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Proceedings of the Third International ICWSM Conference, pp. 361–362. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, San Jose CA (2009)

Chen, C.: How to use CiteSpace. Leanpub, Victoria, British Columbia, CA (2019)

yWorks.: yEd Graph Editor Manual. https://yed.yworks.com/support/manual/index.html . Accessed 13 July 2020

Moresi, E.A.D., Pierozzi Júnior, I.: Representação do conhecimento para ciência e tecnologia: construindo uma sistematização metodológica. In: 16th International Conference on Information Systems and Technology Management, TECSI, São Paulo SP (2019). Article 6275

Moresi, E.A.D., Pinho, I.: Proposta de abordagem para refinamento de pesquisa bibliográfica. New Trends Qual. Res. 9 , 11–20 (2021)

Moresi, E.A.D., Pinho, I.: Como identificar os tópicos emergentes de um tema de investigação? New Trends Qual. Res. 9 , 46–55 (2021)

Chen, Y.H., Chen, C.Y., Lee, S.C.: Technology forecasting of new clean energy: the example of hydrogen energy and fuel cell. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 4 (7), 1372–1380 (2010)

Ernst, H.: The use of patent data for technological forecasting: the diffusion of CNC-technology in the machine tool industry. Small Bus. Econ. 9 (4), 361–381 (1997)

Chen, C.: Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2 (2), 1–40 (2017)

Prabhakaran, T., Lathabai, H.H., Changat, M.: Detection of paradigm shifts and emerging fields using scientific network: a case study of information technology for engineering. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 91 , 124–145 (2015)

Klavans, R., Boyack, K.W.: Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 57 (2), 251–263 (2006)

Kauffman, J., Kittas, A., Bennett, L., Tsoka, S.: DyCoNet: a Gephi plugin for community detection in dynamic complex networks. PLoS ONE 9 (7), e101357 (2014)

Grant, M.J., Booth, A.: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info. Libr. J. 26 (2), 91–108 (2009)

Costa, A.P., Soares, C.B., Fornari, L., Pinho, I.: Revisão da Literatura com Apoio de Software - Contribuição da Pesquisa Qualitativa. Ludomedia, Aveiro Portugal (2019)

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222 (2003)

Costa, A.P., Amado, J.: Content Analysis Supported by Software. Ludomedia, Oliveira de Azeméis - Aveiro - Portugal (2018)

Pinho, I., Leite, D.: Doing a literature review using content analysis - research networks review. In: Atas CIAIQ 2014 - Investigação Qualitativa em Ciências Sociais, vol. 3, pp. 377–378. Ludomedia, Aveiro Portugal (2014)

White, M.D., Marsh, E.E.: Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Libr. Trends 55 (1), 22–45 (2006)

Souza, F.N., Neri, D., Costa, A.P.: Asking questions in the qualitative research context. Qual. Rep. 21 (13), 6–18 (2016)

Pinho, I., Pinho, C., Rosa, M.J.: Research evaluation: mapping the field structure. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas) 25 , 546–574 (2020)

Costa, A., Moreira, A. de Souza, F.: webQDA - Qualitative Data Analysis (2019). www.webqda.net

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Catholic University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, 71966-700, Brazil

Eduardo Amadeu Dutra Moresi

University of Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

Isabel Pinho & António Pedro Costa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Amadeu Dutra Moresi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

António Pedro Costa

António Moreira

Department Didactics, Organization and Research Methods, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Maria Cruz Sánchez‑Gómez

Adventist University of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

Safary Wa-Mbaleka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Moresi, E.A.D., Pinho, I., Costa, A.P. (2022). How to Operate Literature Review Through Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Integration?. In: Costa, A.P., Moreira, A., Sánchez‑Gómez, M.C., Wa-Mbaleka, S. (eds) Computer Supported Qualitative Research. WCQR 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 466. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04680-3_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04680-3_13

Published : 05 May 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-04679-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-04680-3

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Griffith University

Popular sites

Home > Griffith Sciences > School of Environment and Science > Research > Systematic Quantitative Literature Review

Systematic Quantitative Literature Review

School of Environment and Science

• Learning and teaching

A smart and effective method for undertaking literature reviews particularly for research students and others new to a discipline.

Narrative methods that are commonly used in many research theses, rely on the expertise and experience of the author, making them challenging for novices. In contrast, the method we use and recommend involves systematically searching the literature using online database and other sources to find all relevant papers that fit specific criteria (systematically identifying the literature), entering information about each study into a personal database, then compiling tables that summarise the current status of the literature (quantifying the literature). The results are reliable, quantifiable and reproducible.

Using this method, it’s also possible to determine if there are suitable datasets for meta-analysis. By mapping the literature we can not only identify what is known, but also, but where there are gaps: a critical issue in advancing research and designing PhD research programs.

Reliable, quantifiable and reproducible

The method works well for specific topics, but also for summarising diverse inter-disciplinary research. Using this method many of our students and others have gone on to publish their reviews. Importantly for PhD students, the database can be updated during the PhD thesis allowing them to easily identify relevant papers and produce their final thesis without having to re-read all the literature.

• Slides from workshop on the method (PDF 4MB)
• Slides from the advanced workshop on the method (PDF 5MB)
• More resources on doing your PhD as a series of papers

The method and its benefits

• Pickering, C.M. and Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early career researchers. Higher Education Research and Development. 33: 534-548
• Pickering, C., Grignon, J., Steven, R., Guitart, D. and Byrne. J. (2015). Publishing not perishing: How research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews. Studies in Higher Education. 40:10, 1756-1769, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.914907. A pre-print copy of the paper is available here , or the final published version from the publisher's website.

Research study

Videos about the method

Overview of method

Being systematic

Creating your own review database

Writing the review

Why publish during your PhD?

Rochele Steven discusses using the method

Julien Grignon discusses using the method

Advanced SQLR 1 - Challenges in being systematic

Advanced SQLR 2 - Coding challenges

Advanced SQLR 3 - Advanced data analysis

Advanced SQLR 4 - Reviewers comments

Three circles for structuring a literature review

Eloise Stephenson - Ross River virus ecology

There are now hundreds of papers published using this method. A full list of them is available from google scholar.

Some select examples showing how they have been done, including searching strategies, ways to analysis the data and address some concerns regarding use/non-use of grey literature, factors affecting demand for, and supply of research by country etc, addressed in the advanced videos include:

• Guitart, D., Pickering, C.M. and Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 11: 364-373 — This was one of the original reviews using our methods. It highlights the importance of gap analysis and dealing with reviewing a very diverse literature including disciplines and methods used, and the capacity to review both quantitative and qualitative literature.
• Steven, R. Pickering, C.M. and Castley, G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management. 92: 2287-2294 — This early SQLR provides a detailed example of why gap analysis is important and ways of quantifying differences between the supply of literature and need for research by calculating bird diversity vs number of studies per region.
• Pickering, C.M., Rossi, S.D., Hernando, A. and Barros, A. (2018). Current knowledge and future research directions for monitoring and management of visitors in recreational and protected areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 21: 10-18 — This SQLR of abstracts from a conference, includes a detailed examination of factors affecting the supply of research including why research is often dominated by literature from North America and Europe, and why that can be an issue. It also includes more sophisticated ways to access the results by using multi-dimensional analysis.
• Verrall, B. and Pickering, C.M. (2020). Alpine vegetation in the context of climate change: A global review of past research and future directions. Science of the Total Environment. 748:141344 . This is an example of a bibliometric/scientometric literature review – an alternative method using vosViewer to visuals patterns in keywords over time in the literature and changes in who is publishing on a topic and where.
• Thomas, S. (2014). Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues and novel approaches — This review also uses Leximancer analysis (text analysis) of themes to map concepts in the literature based on keywords and phrases in the papers.
• Riebe, L., Girardi, A. and Whitsed, C. (2016). A systematic literature review of teamwork pedagogy in higher education. Small Group Research. 47: 619-664 — This paper from the education area includes an excellent example of how to use keywords and search terms in a stepped down way to identify a complex literature.
• Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., de Freitas Rocha Loures, E. and Ramos, L.F.P. (2017). Past, present and future of Industry 4.0- a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research. 55: 3609-3629 — This paper includes a good example about how to set out the justification for which papers to include and exclude including less clear-cut topics. It also includes an excellent way to quantify the disciplines represented by papers using well recognised (SCImago) data for each journal.
• Turner, J.A., Babcock, R.C., Hovey, R., and Kendrick, G.A. (2017). Deep thinking: a systematic review of mesophotic coral ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science — This review uses column diagrams to clearly illustrate how over time the methods used in the discipline and the types of analysis conducted become more complex as the literature develops.
• Pahlevan-Sharif, S. Mura, P., and Wijesinghe, S.N.R. (2019). A systematic review of systematic reviews in tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 39: 158.165 — This recent paper provides an overview review of other literature reviews. It highlights the types of methods used in reviews in tourism including recommendations for future reviews.
• Bezerra, M.F., Lacerda, L.D. and Lai, C-T. (2019). Trace metals and persistent organic pollutants contamination in batoids (Chondrichthyes: Batoidea): A systematic review. Environmental Pollution. 248: 684-695 — This recent review includes a broad SQLR and meta-analysis of a science/quantitative area.
• Nikulina, V., Simon, D., Ny, H. and Baumann, H. (2019). Context-adapted urban planning for rapid transitioning of personal mobility towards sustainability: A systematic literature review. Sustainability: 11: — This paper combines a SQLR, with narrative commentary on themes, and a bibliometric analysis.

Further resources and contacts

• Griffith University Research Centres
• Professor Catherine Pickering
• Pickering, C.M. (2012). Writing Ecology Research Papers. Environment Futures Research Centre. Griffith University, Gold Coast

Article in The Conversation:

• Pickering, C.M. and Byrne, J. (2014). How to find the knowns and unknowns in any research. The Conversation.

Important reference for how to report systematic literature reviews required by many journals:

• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 - with more details available here.
• Boote, B.N. and Beile P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher. 34: 3-15.
• Crisp, B.R. (2015) Systematic reviews: A social work perspective. Australian Social Work, 68:3, 284-295.
• Murray, R. (2011). How to Write a Thesis. McGraw Hill Open University Press. Maidenhead, England (Chapter on writing a literature reviews).
• Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, England.
• Randolph J.J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. 14: 1-13.

Here are examples of the types of excel databases used in some Systematic Quantitative Literature Reviews:

• Steven et al. 2011 database of papers on impacts nature based tourism on birds (XLSX 16KB)
• Ballantyne and Pickering In review databases of papers on environmental impacts of recreation trails (XLSX 32KB)
• Byrne and Portanger 2014 database of papers climate change, energy policy and justice (XLSX 48KB)

Some of the journals publishing SQLR include:

• Analyse und Kritik
• ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
• Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies
• Asian Journal of Criminology
• Austral Entomology
• Australian Social Work
• Behaviour Change
• Biological Conservation
• BMC Health Services Research
• CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology
• Climatic Change
• Conservation Biology
• Corruption in Sport: Causes, Consequences, and Reform
• Crop Protection
• Crystal Research and Technology
• Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural
• Cuadernos de Turismo
• Current Issues in Tourism
• Documents d'Analisi Geografica
• Ecologia Austral
• Ecological Economics
• Ecology and Society
• Education Sciences
• Educational Media International
• Energy and Buildings
• Environment International
• Environment Systems and Decisions
• Environmental Modelling and Software
• Environmental Pollution
• Environmental Science and Policy
• European Journal of Higher Education
• European Journal of Information Systems
• Evaluation and Program Planning
• Event Management
• Fish and Fisheries
• Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
• Global Environmental Change
• Habitat International
• Higher Education Research and Development
• ICES Journal of Marine Science
• IEEE Internet of Things Journal
• IFAC-PapersOnLine
• International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
• International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders
• International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
• International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
• International Journal of Production Research
• International Journal of the Commons
• International Journal of Tourism Research
• International Social Work
• Issues in Educational Research
• Journal of Business Research
• Journal of Cleaner Production
• Journal of Environmental Management
• Journal of Healthcare Leadership
• Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research
• Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management
• Journal of Information Technology in Construction
• Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism
• Journal of Place Management and Development
• Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
• Journal of Sustainable Tourism
• Journal of Technical Education and Training
• Journal of the Medical Library Association
• Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
• Journal of Urbanism
• Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
• Landscape and Urban Planning
• Local Environment
• Managing Sport and Leisure
• Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
• Nurse Education in Practice
• Ocean and Coastal Management
• Procedia CIRP
• Procedia Engineering
• Procedia Manufacturing
• Proceedings of AISB Annual Convention 2018
• Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning, ICEL
• Progress in Transplantation
• Reliability Engineering and System Safety
• Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
• Restoration Ecology
• Scientometrics
• Sex Education
• Small Group Research
• Solar Energy
• South African Computer Journal
• Speech, Language and Hearing
• Studies in Higher Education
• Sustainability (Switzerland)
• Teaching and Learning in Medicine
• Teaching and Teacher Education
• The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems
• Tourism Management
• Tourism Management Perspectives
• Training and Education in Professional Psychology
• Transportation Research Record
• Urban Ecosystems
• Urban Forestry and Urban Greening
• Water Research
• Wildlife Research
• Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
• World Leisure Journal

Connect with us

If you would like to work, study or collaborate with us, get in touch

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Progress in remote sensing and gis-based fdi research based on quantitative and qualitative analysis.

1. Introduction

2. research methods and data, 2.1. research methods, 2.2. data sources and screening, 2.3. data processing, 3. subject categories and publication trends, 3.1. subject evolution, 3.2. trends in the number and cited times of published papers, 4. the intellectual structure, 4.1. quantitative analysis, 4.2. qualitative analysis, 4.2.1. macro-environmental research at national, regional, and city scales, 4.2.2. global industrial development and layout, 4.2.3. research on global value chains, 4.2.4. micro-information geography of tncs, 4.2.5. internationalization and commercialization of geo-information industry, 4.2.6. multiple data and interdisciplinary approaches, 5. discussions and conclusions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Friedmann, J. The world city hypothesis. Dev. Chang. 1986 , 17 , 69–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sassen, S. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo ; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, A.J. Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory, D.; Johnston, R.; Pratt, G.; Watts, M.; Whatmore, S. The Dictionary of Human Geography ; Wiley-Blackwell: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 395–396, 771–772. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dicken, P. Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy , 7th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coe, N.M.; Hess, M.; Yeung, H.W.; Dicken, P.; Henderson, J. ‘Globalizing’regional development: A global production networks perspective. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2004 , 29 , 468–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baker, J.C.; Williamson, R.A. Satellite imagery activism: Sharpening the focus on tropical deforestation. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2006 , 27 , 4–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Charles, K.P.; Adolfo, C. Mascarenhas. Remote sensing in development. Science 1981 , 214 , 139–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torraco, R.J. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005 , 4 , 356–367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019 , 104 , 333–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torraco, R.J. Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2016 , 15 , 404–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Watson, R.T.; Webster, J. Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. J. Decis. Syst. 2020 , 29 , 129–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Leech, N.L.; Collins, K.M.T. Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qual. Rep. 2012 , 17 , 1–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, D.Z. GIS-based urban modelling: Practices, problems, and prospects. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1998 , 12 , 651–671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rozas, L.W.; Klein, W.C. The Value and Purpose of the Traditional Qualitative Literature Review. J. Evid.-Based Soc. Work. 2010 , 7 , 387–399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006 , 57 , 359–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C. Science map: A systematic review of the literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2017 , 2 , 1–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis, J.; Mengersen, K.; Bennett, S.; Mazerolle, L. Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus 2014 , 3 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Svensson, R.B.; Haggar, G.J.A.; Aurum, A.; Hooper, V.J. The application of geographical information systems to multinational finance corporations. Int. J. Bus. Syst. Res. 2009 , 3 , 437–455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weber, P.; Chapman, D. Investing in geography: A GIS to support inward investment. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2009 , 33 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horn, S.A.; Cross, A.R. Japanese production networks in India: Spatial distribution, agglomeration and industry effects. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2016 , 22 , 612–640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Özdoğan, M.; Baird, I.G.; Dwyer, M.B. The role of remote sensing for understanding large-scale rubber concession expansion in Southern Laos. Land 2018 , 7 , 55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Fu, C.; Zhang, X. Progress in urban metabolism research and hotspot analysis based on CiteSpace analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 281 , 125224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Hu, Z.; Liu, S.; Tseng, H. Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2012 , 12 , 593–608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seto, K.C.; Kaufmann, R.K.; Woodcock, C.E. Landsat reveals China’s farmland reserves, but they’re vanishing fast. Nature 2000 , 406 , 121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Seto, K.C.; Woodcock, C.E.; Song, C.; Huang, X.; Lu, J.; Kaufmann, R.K. Monitoring land-use change in the Pearl River Delta using Landsat TM. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2002 , 23 , 1985–2004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, M.; Li, X.; Li, S.; Xin, L.; Wang, X.; Li, Q.; Li, W.; Li, Y.; Xiang, W. Modeling population density based on nighttime light images and land use data in China. Appl. Geogr. 2018 , 90 , 239–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, M.; Cheng, W.; Zhou, C.; Li, M.; Huang, K.; Wang, N. Assessing spatiotemporal characteristics of urbanization dynamics in Southeast Asia using time series of DMSP/OLS nighttime light data. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, H.Y.; Tang, Y.K.; Chen, X.L.; Poznanska, J. The determinants of Chinese outward FDI in countries along “One Belt One Road”. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2017 , 53 , 1374–1387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, J.; Zhang, Y. Does one belt one road initiative promote Chinese overseas direct investment? China Econ. Rev. 2018 , 47 , 189–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duan, F.; Ji, Q.; Liu, B.Y.; Fan, Y. Energy investment risk assessment for nations along China’s Belt & Road Initiative. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 170 , 535–547. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, Y. Environmental risks and opportunities for countries along the Belt and Road: Location choice of China’s investment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 211 , 14–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, J.; Li, X.; Xu, C.; Zhao, C.; Liu, Y. Investment risk assessment of coal-fired power plants in countries along the Belt and Road initiative based on ANP-Entropy-TODIM method. Energy 2019 , 176 , 623–640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hussain, J.; Zhou, K.; Guo, S.; Khan, A. Investment risk and natural resource potential in “Belt & Road Initiative” countries: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 723 , 137981. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Hashemizadeh, A.; Ju, Y.; Bamakan, S.M.H.; Le, H.P. Renewable energy investment risk assessment in belt and road initiative countries under uncertainty conditions. Energy 2021 , 214 , 118923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dell’angelo, J.; D’odorico, P.; Rulli, M.C.; Marchand, P. The tragedy of the grabbed commons: Coercion and dispossession in the global land rush. World Dev. 2017 , 92 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Odorico, P.; Rulli, M.C.; Dell’Angelo, J.; Davis, K.F. New frontiers of land and water commodification: Socio-environmental controversies of large-scale land acquisitions. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017 , 28 , 2234–2244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davis, K.F.; Koo, H.I.; Dell’Angelo, J.; D’Odorico, P.; Estes, L.; Kehoe, L.J.; Kharratzadeh, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Machava, D.; Pais, A.d.J.R.; et al. Tropical forest loss enhanced by large-scale land acquisitions. Nat. Geosci. 2020 , 13 , 482–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, B.; Xue, D.; Zheng, S. Evolution and Influencing Factors of Manufacturing Production Space in the Pearl River Delta—Based on the Perspective of Global City-Region. Land 2023 , 12 , 419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tong, Y.; Zhou, H.; Jiang, L. Exploring the transition effects of foreign direct investment on the eco-efficiency of Chinese cities: Based on multi-source data and panel smooth transition regression models. Ecol. Indic. 2021 , 121 , 107073. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, G.; Bi, M.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Z.; He, B.J. Investigating the impact of multi-dimensional urbanization and FDI on carbon emissions in the belt and road initiative region: Direct and spillover effects. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 384 , 135608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zou, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cheng, Y. The impact of polycentric development on regional gap of energy efficiency: A Chinese provincial perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 224 , 838–851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schneider, A.; Seto, K.C.; Webster, D.R. Urban growth in Chengdu, Western China: Application of remote sensing to assess planning and policy outcomes. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2005 , 32 , 323–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Su, Y.; Lu, C.; Su, Y.; Wang, Z.; Huang, Y.; Yang, N. Spatio-temporal evolution of urban expansion based on a novel adjusted index and GEE: A case study of central plains urban agglomeration, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2023 , 33 , 736–750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, R.; Zhu, J.; Tu, W.; Li, Q.; Cao, J.; Liu, B.; Zhang, Q.; Qiu, G. Integrating aerial and street view images for urban land use classification. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 1553. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tu, W.; Hu, Z.; Li, L.; Cao, J.; Jiang, J.; Li, Q.; Li, Q. Portraying urban functional zones by coupling remote sensing imagery and human sensing data. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, D.; Wei, Y.D. Spatial data analysis of regional development in Greater Beijing, China, in a GIS environment. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2008 , 87 , 97–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, H.; Liu, J.; Chen, J.; Gao, J.; Wang, G.; Zhang, W. Spatiotemporal patterns of urban land use change in typical cities in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). Remote Sens. 2019 , 11 , 801. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krylov, V.A.; Kenny, E.; Dahyot, R. Automatic discovery and geotagging of objects from street view imagery. Remote Sens. 2018 , 10 , 661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, X.; Yang, J.; Li, J.; Wen, D. Urban functional zone mapping by integrating high spatial resolution nighttime light and daytime multi-view imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021 , 175 , 403–415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Müller, M.F.; Penny, G.; Niles, M.T.; Ricciardi, V.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Davis, K.F.; Dell’angelo, J.; D’odorico, P.; Rosa, L.; Rulli, M.C.; et al. Impact of transnational land acquisitions on local food security and dietary diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021 , 118 , e2020535118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, B.; Xue, D.; Tan, Y. Deciphering the manufacturing production space in global city-regions of developing countries—A case of Pearl River Delta, China. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 6850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, P.; Yang, X.; Chen, H.; Zhao, S. Matching relationship between urban service industry land expansion and economy growth in China. Land 2023 , 12 , 1139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cho, K.; Goldstein, B.; Gounaridis, D.; Newell, J.P. Hidden risks of deforestation in global supply chains: A study of natural rubber flows from Sri Lanka to the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 349 , 131275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, F.; Xu, H.; Hsu, W.L.; Lee, Y.C.; Zhu, J. Spatial pattern and influencing factors of outward foreign direct investment enterprises in the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China. Information 2021 , 12 , 381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yin, Y.; Liu, Y. Investment suitability assessment based on B&R symbiotic system theory: Location choice of China’s OFDI. Systems 2022 , 10 , 195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Yan, S. Transnational technology transfer network in China: Spatial dynamics and its determinants. J. Geogr. Sci. 2022 , 32 , 2383–2414. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Zuo, X.L. Technology roadmapping of geo-spatial information and application services industry in China. Forum Sci. Technol. China 2016 , 4 , 30–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson, D.K.R.; Mazzucato, M. The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector. Res. Policy 2019 , 48 , 936–948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Auque, F. The space industry in the context of the European aeronautics and defence sector. Air Space Eur. 2000 , 2 , 22–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• George, K.W. The economic impacts of the commercial space industry. Space Policy 2019 , 47 , 181–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• von Maurich, O.; Golkar, A. Data authentication, integrity and confidentiality mechanisms for federated satellite systems. Acta Astronaut. 2018 , 149 , 61–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zelnio, R.J. Whose jurisdiction over the US commercial satellite industry? Factors affecting international security and competition. Space Policy 2007 , 23 , 221–233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naqvi, S.A.A.; Naqvi, R.Z. Geographical information systems (GIS) in industry 4.0: Revolution for sustainable development. In Handbook of Smart Materials, Technologies, and Devices: Applications of Industry 4.0 ; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleemann, J.; Baysal, G.; Bulley, H.N.N.; Fürst, C. Assessing driving forces of land use and land cover change by a mixed-method approach in north-eastern Ghana, West Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 196 , 411–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, W.; Huang, H.; Dong, J.; Zhang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Yang, Z. Social functional mapping of urban green space using remote sensing and social sensing data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2018 , 146 , 436–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seto, K.C.; Kaufmann, R.K. Modeling the drivers of urban land use change in the Pearl River Delta, China: Integrating remote sensing with socioeconomic data. Land Econ. 2003 , 79 , 106–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Li, Z. Progress in Remote Sensing and GIS-Based FDI Research Based on Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Land 2024 , 13 , 1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081313

Li Z. Progress in Remote Sensing and GIS-Based FDI Research Based on Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Land . 2024; 13(8):1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081313

Li, Zifeng. 2024. "Progress in Remote Sensing and GIS-Based FDI Research Based on Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis" Land 13, no. 8: 1313. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081313

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 15 August 2024

The impact of adverse childhood experiences on multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Dhaneesha N. S. Senaratne 1 ,
• Bhushan Thakkar 1 ,
• Blair H. Smith 1 ,
• Tim G. Hales 2 ,
• Louise Marryat 3 &
• Lesley A. Colvin 1  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  315 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

590 Accesses

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been implicated in the aetiology of a range of health outcomes, including multimorbidity. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify, synthesise, and quantify the current evidence linking ACEs and multimorbidity.

We searched seven databases from inception to 20 July 2023: APA PsycNET, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We selected studies investigating adverse events occurring during childhood (< 18 years) and an assessment of multimorbidity in adulthood (≥ 18 years). Studies that only assessed adverse events in adulthood or health outcomes in children were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool. Meta-analysis of prevalence and dose–response meta-analysis methods were used for quantitative data synthesis. This review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023389528).

From 15,586 records, 25 studies were eligible for inclusion (total participants = 372,162). The prevalence of exposure to ≥ 1 ACEs was 48.1% (95% CI 33.4 to 63.1%). The prevalence of multimorbidity was 34.5% (95% CI 23.4 to 47.5%). Eight studies provided sufficient data for dose–response meta-analysis (total participants = 197,981). There was a significant dose-dependent relationship between ACE exposure and multimorbidity ( p  < 0.001), with every additional ACE exposure contributing to a 12.9% (95% CI 7.9 to 17.9%) increase in the odds for multimorbidity. However, there was heterogeneity among the included studies ( I 2  = 76.9%, Cochran Q  = 102, p  < 0.001).

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the literature on ACEs and multimorbidity, showing a dose-dependent relationship across a large number of participants. It consolidates and enhances an extensive body of literature that shows an association between ACEs and individual long-term health conditions, risky health behaviours, and other poor health outcomes.

Peer Review reports

In recent years, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been identified as factors of interest in the aetiology of many conditions [ 1 ]. ACEs are potentially stressful events or environments that occur before the age of 18. They have typically been considered in terms of abuse (e.g. physical, emotional, sexual), neglect (e.g. physical, emotional), and household dysfunction (e.g. parental separation, household member incarceration, household member mental illness) but could also include other forms of stress, such as bullying, famine, and war. ACEs are common: estimates suggest that 47% of the UK population have experienced at least one form, with 12% experiencing four or more [ 2 ]. ACEs are associated with poor outcomes in a range of physical health, mental health, and social parameters in adulthood, with greater ACE burden being associated with worse outcomes [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Over a similar timescale, multimorbidity has emerged as a significant heath challenge. It is commonly defined as the co-occurrence of two or more long-term conditions (LTCs), with a long-term condition defined as any physical or mental health condition lasting, or expected to last, longer than 1 year [ 9 ]. Multimorbidity is both common and age-dependent, with a global adult prevalence of 37% that rises to 51% in adults over 60 [ 10 , 11 ]. Individuals living with multimorbidity face additional challenges in managing their health, such as multiple appointments, polypharmacy, and the lack of continuity of care [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Meanwhile, many healthcare systems struggle to manage the additional cost and complexity of people with multimorbidity as they have often evolved to address the single disease model [ 15 , 16 ]. As global populations continue to age, with an estimated 2.1 billion adults over 60 by 2050, the pressures facing already strained healthcare systems will continue to grow [ 17 ]. Identifying factors early in the aetiology of multimorbidity may help to mitigate the consequences of this developing healthcare crisis.

Many mechanisms have been suggested for how ACEs might influence later life health outcomes, including the risk of developing individual LTCs. Collectively, they contribute to the idea of ‘toxic stress’; cumulative stress during key developmental phases may affect development [ 18 ]. ACEs are associated with measures of accelerated cellular ageing, including changes in DNA methylation and telomere length [ 19 , 20 ]. ACEs may lead to alterations in stress-signalling pathways, including changes to the immune, endocrine, and cardiovascular systems [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. ACEs are also associated with both structural and functional differences in the brain [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. These diverse biological changes underpin psychological and behavioural changes, predisposing individuals to poorer self-esteem and risky health behaviours, which may in turn lead to increased risk of developing individual LTCs [ 1 , 2 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. A growing body of evidence has therefore led to an increased focus on developing trauma-informed models of healthcare, in which the impact of negative life experiences is incorporated into the assessment and management of LTCs [ 33 ].

Given the contributory role of ACEs in the aetiology of individual LTCs, it is reasonable to suspect that ACEs may also be an important factor in the development of multimorbidity. Several studies have implicated ACEs in the aetiology of multimorbidity, across different cohorts and populations, but to date no meta-analyses have been performed to aggregate this evidence. In this review, we aim to summarise the state of the evidence linking ACEs and multimorbidity, to quantify the strength of any associations through meta-analysis, and to highlight the challenges of research in this area.

Search strategy and selection criteria

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 25 January 2023 (ID: CRD42023389528) and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

We developed a search strategy based on previously published literature reviews and refined it following input from subject experts, an academic librarian, and patient and public partners (Additional File 1: Table S1). We searched the following seven databases from inception to 20 July 2023: APA PsycNET, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search results were imported into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), which automatically identified and removed duplicate entries. Two reviewers (DS and BT) independently performed title and abstract screening and full text review. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (LC).

Reports were eligible for review if they included adults (≥ 18 years), adverse events occurring during childhood (< 18 years), and an assessment of multimorbidity or health status based on LTCs. Reports that only assessed adverse events in adulthood or health outcomes in children were excluded.

The following study designs were eligible for review: randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, and review articles with meta-analysis. Editorials, case reports, and conference abstracts were excluded. Systematic reviews without a meta-analysis and narrative synthesis review articles were also excluded; however, their reference lists were screened for relevant citations.

Data analysis

Two reviewers (DS and BT) independently performed data extraction into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, USA) using a pre-agreed template. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion with a third reviewer (LC). Data extracted from each report included study details (author, year, study design, sample cohort, sample size, sample country of origin), patient characteristics (age, sex), ACE information (definition, childhood cut-off age, ACE assessment tool, number of ACEs, list of ACEs, prevalence), multimorbidity information (definition, multimorbidity assessment tool, number of LTCs, list of LTCs, prevalence), and analysis parameters (effect size, model adjustments). For meta-analysis, we extracted ACE groups, number of ACE cases, number of multimorbidity cases, number of participants, odds ratios or regression beta coefficients, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Where data were partially reported or missing, we contacted the study authors directly for further information.

Two reviewers (DS and BT) independently performed risk of bias assessments of each included study using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool [ 34 ]. The ROBINS-E tool assesses the risk of bias for the study outcome relevant to the systematic review question, which may not be the primary study outcome. It assesses risk of bias across seven domains; confounding, measurement of the exposure, participant selection, post-exposure interventions, missing data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. The overall risk of bias for each study was determined using the ROBINS-E algorithm. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion.

All statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.2.2 using the RStudio integrated development environment (RStudio Team, Boston, USA). To avoid repetition of participant data, where multiple studies analysed the same patient cohort, we selected the study with the best reporting of raw data for meta-analysis and the largest sample size. Meta-analysis of prevalence was performed with the meta package [ 35 ], using logit transformations within a generalised linear mixed model, and reporting the random-effects model [ 36 ]. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed and reported using the I 2 statistic, Cochran Q statistic, and Cochran Q p -value. Dose–response meta-analysis was performed using the dosresmeta package [ 37 ] following the method outlined by Greenland and Longnecker (1992) [ 38 , 39 ]. Log-linear and non-linear (restricted cubic spline, with knots at 5%, 35%, 65%, and 95%) random effects models were generated, and goodness of fit was evaluated using a Wald-type test (denoted by X 2 ) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) [ 39 ].

Patient and public involvement

The Consortium Against Pain Inequality (CAPE) Chronic Pain Advisory Group (CPAG) consists of individuals with lived experiences of ACEs, chronic pain, and multimorbidity. CPAG was involved in developing the research question. The group has experience in systematic review co-production (in progress).

The search identified 15,586 records, of which 25 met inclusion criteria for the systematic review (Fig.  1 ) [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. The summary characteristics can be found in Additional File 1: Table S2. Most studies examined European ( n  = 11) or North American ( n  = 9) populations, with a few looking at Asian ( n  = 3) or South American ( n  = 1) populations and one study examining a mixed cohort (European and North American populations). The total participant count (excluding studies performed on the same cohort) was 372,162. Most studies had a female predominance (median 53.8%, interquartile range (IQR) 50.9 to 57.4%).

Flow chart of selection of studies into the systematic review and meta-analysis. Flow chart of selection of studies into the systematic review and meta-analysis. ACE, adverse childhood experience; MM, multimorbidity; DRMA, dose–response meta-analysis

All studies were observational in design, and so risk of bias assessments were performed using the ROBINS-E tool (Additional File 1: Table S3) [ 34 ]. There were some consistent risks observed across the studies, especially in domain 1 (risk of bias due to confounding) and domain 3 (risk of bias due to participant selection). In domain 1, most studies were ‘high risk’ ( n  = 24) as they controlled for variables that could have been affected by ACE exposure (e.g. smoking status) [ 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. In domain 3, some studies were ‘high risk’ ( n  = 7) as participant selection was based on participant characteristics that could have been influenced by ACE exposure (e.g. through recruitment at an outpatient clinic) [ 45 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 58 ]. The remaining studies were deemed as having ‘some concerns’ ( n  = 18) as participant selection occurred at a time after ACE exposure, introducing a risk of survivorship bias [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ].

Key differences in risk of bias were seen in domain 2 (risk of bias due to exposure measurement) and domain 5 (risk of bias due to missing data). In domain 2, some studies were ‘high risk’ as they used a narrow or atypical measure of ACEs ( n  = 8) [ 40 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 55 , 56 , 60 , 64 ]; others were graded as having ‘some concerns’ as they used a broader but still incomplete measure of ACEs ( n  = 8) [ 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 62 ]; the remainder were ‘low risk’ as they used an established or comprehensive list of ACE questions [ 41 , 47 , 51 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 ]. In domain 5, some studies were ‘high risk’ as they failed to acknowledge or appropriately address missing data ( n  = 7) [ 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 51 , 53 , 60 ]; others were graded as having ‘some concerns’ as they had a significant amount of missing data (> 10% for exposure, outcome, or confounders) but mitigated for this with appropriate strategies ( n  = 6) [ 41 , 50 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 64 ]; the remainder were ‘low risk’ as they reported low levels of missing data ( n  = 12) [ 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 ].

Most studies assessed an exposure that was ‘adverse childhood experiences’ ( n  = 10) [ 41 , 42 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 63 , 64 ], ‘childhood maltreatment’ ( n  = 6) [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 59 ], or ‘childhood adversity’ ( n  = 3) [ 47 , 54 , 62 ]. The other exposures studied were ‘birth phase relative to World War Two’ [ 40 ], ‘childhood abuse’ [ 43 ], ‘childhood disadvantage’ [ 56 ], ‘childhood racial discrimination’ [ 55 ], ‘childhood trauma’ [ 52 ], and ‘quality of childhood’ (all n  = 1) [ 60 ]. More than half of studies ( n  = 13) did not provide a formal definition of their exposure of choice [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 64 ]. The upper age limit for childhood ranged from < 15 to < 18 years with the most common cut-off being < 18 years ( n  = 9). The median number of ACEs measured in each study was 7 (IQR 4–10). In total, 58 different ACEs were reported; 17 ACEs were reported by at least three studies, whilst 33 ACEs were reported by only one study. The most frequently reported ACEs were physical abuse ( n  = 19) and sexual abuse ( n  = 16) (Table  1 ). The exposure details for each study can be found in Additional File 1: Table S4.

Thirteen studies provided sufficient data to allow for a meta-analysis of the prevalence of exposure to ≥ 1 ACE; the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI 33.4 to 63.1%, I 2  = 99.9%, Cochran Q  = 18,092, p  < 0.001) (Fig.  2 ) [ 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 63 ]. Six studies provided sufficient data to allow for a meta-analysis of the prevalence of exposure to ≥ 4 ACEs; the pooled prevalence was 12.3% (95% CI 3.5 to 35.4%, I 2  = 99.9%, Cochran Q  = 9071, p  < 0.001) (Additional File 1: Fig. S1) [ 46 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 59 , 63 ].

Meta-analysis of prevalence of exposure to ≥ 1 adverse childhood experiences. Meta-analysis of prevalence of exposure to ≥ 1 adverse childhood experience. ACE, adverse childhood experience; CI, confidence interval

Thirteen studies explicitly assessed multimorbidity as an outcome, and all of these defined the threshold for multimorbidity as the presence of two or more LTCs [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 ]. The remaining studies assessed comorbidities, morbidity, or disease counts [ 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 63 ]. The median number of LTCs measured in each study was 14 (IQR 12–21). In total, 115 different LTCs were reported; 36 LTCs were reported by at least three studies, whilst 63 LTCs were reported by only one study. Two studies did not report the specific LTCs that they measured [ 51 , 53 ]. The most frequently reported LTCs were hypertension ( n  = 22) and diabetes ( n  = 19) (Table  2 ). Fourteen studies included at least one mental health LTC. The outcome details for each study can be found in Additional File 1: Table S5.

Fifteen studies provided sufficient data to allow for a meta-analysis of the prevalence of multimorbidity; the pooled prevalence was 34.5% (95% CI 23.4 to 47.5%, I 2  = 99.9%, Cochran Q  = 24,072, p  < 0.001) (Fig.  3 ) [ 40 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 63 ].

Meta-analysis of prevalence of multimorbidity. Meta-analysis of prevalence of multimorbidity. CI, confidence interval; LTC, long-term condition; MM, multimorbidity

All studies reported significant positive associations between measures of ACE and multimorbidity, though they varied in their means of analysis and reporting of the relationship. Nine studies reported an association between the number of ACEs (variably considered as a continuous or categorical parameter) and multimorbidity [ 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 56 , 57 , 61 , 64 ]. Eight studies reported an association between the number of ACEs and comorbidity counts in specific patient populations [ 45 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 58 , 59 , 63 ]. Six studies reported an association between individual ACEs or ACE subgroups and multimorbidity [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 55 , 62 ]. Two studies incorporated a measure of frequency within their ACE measurement tool and reported an association between this ACE score and multimorbidity [ 52 , 54 ]. Two studies reported an association between proxy measures for ACEs and multimorbidity; one reported ‘birth phase relative to World War Two’, and the other reported a self-report on the overall quality of childhood [ 40 , 60 ].

Eight studies, involving a total of 197,981 participants, provided sufficient data (either in the primary text, or following author correspondence) for quantitative synthesis [ 41 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 57 , 58 ]. Log-linear (Fig.  4 ) and non-linear (Additional File 1: Fig. S2) random effects models were compared for goodness of fit: the Wald-type test for linearity was non-significant ( χ 2  = 3.7, p  = 0.16) and the AIC was lower for the linear model (− 7.82 vs 15.86) indicating that the log-linear assumption was valid. There was a significant dose-dependent relationship between ACE exposure and multimorbidity ( p  < 0.001), with every additional ACE exposure contributing to a 12.9% (95% CI 7.9 to 17.9%) increase in the odds for multimorbidity ( I 2  = 76.9%, Cochran Q  = 102, p  < 0.001).

Dose–response meta-analysis of the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and multimorbidity. Dose–response meta-analysis of the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and multimorbidity. Solid black line represents the estimated relationship; dotted black lines represent the 95% confidence intervals for this estimate. ACE, adverse childhood experience

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised the literature on ACEs and multimorbidity and showed a dose-dependent relationship across a large number of participants. Each additional ACE exposure contributed to a 12.9% (95% CI 7.9 to 17.9%) increase in the odds for multimorbidity. This adds to previous meta-analyses that have shown an association between ACEs and individual LTCs, health behaviours, and other health outcomes [ 1 , 28 , 31 , 65 , 66 ]. However, we also identified substantial inter-study heterogeneity that is likely to have arisen due to variation in the definitions, methodology, and analysis of the included studies, and so our results should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

Although 25 years have passed since the landmark Adverse Childhood Experiences Study by Felitti et al. [ 3 ], there is still no consistent approach to determining what constitutes an ACE. This is reflected in this review, where fewer than half of the 58 different ACEs ( n  = 25, 43.1%) were reported by more than one study and no study reported more than 15 ACEs. Even ACE types that are commonly included are not always assessed in the same way [ 67 ], and furthermore, the same question can be interpreted differently in different contexts (e.g. physical punishment for bad behaviour was socially acceptable 50 years ago but is now considered physical abuse in the UK). Although a few validated questionnaires exist, they often focus on a narrow range of ACEs; for example, the childhood trauma questionnaire demonstrates good reliability and validity but focuses on interpersonal ACEs, missing out on household factors (e.g. parental separation), and community factors (e.g. bullying) [ 68 ]. Many studies were performed on pre-existing research cohorts or historic healthcare data, where the study authors had limited or no influence on the data collected. As a result, very few individual studies reported on the full breadth of potential ACEs.

ACE research is often based on ACE counts, where the types of ACEs experienced are summed into a single score that is taken as a proxy measure of the burden of childhood stress. The original Adverse Childhood Experiences Study by Felitti et al. took this approach [ 3 ], as did 17 of the studies included in this review and our own quantitative synthesis. At the population level, there are benefits to this: ACE counts provide quantifiable and comparable metrics, they are easy to collect and analyse, and in many datasets, they are the only means by which an assessment of childhood stress can be derived. However, there are clear limitations to this method when considering experiences at the individual level, not least the inherent assumptions that different ACEs in the same person are of equal weight or that the same ACE in different people carries the same burden of childhood stress. This limitation was strongly reinforced by our patient and public involvement group (CPAG). Two studies in this review incorporated frequency within their ACE scoring system [ 52 , 54 ], which adds another dimension to the assessment, but this is insufficient to understand and quantify the ‘impact’ of an ACE within an epidemiological framework.

The definitions of multimorbidity were consistent across the relevant studies but the contributory long-term conditions varied. Fewer than half of the 115 different LTCs ( n  = 52, 45.2%) were reported by more than one study. Part of the challenge is the classification of healthcare conditions. For example, myocardial infarction is commonly caused by coronary heart disease, and both are a form of heart disease. All three were reported as LTCs in the included studies, but which level of pathology should be reported? Mental health LTCs were under-represented within the condition list, with just over half of the included studies assessing at least one ( n  = 14, 56.0%). Given the strong links between ACEs and mental health, and the impact of mental health on quality of life, this is an area for improvement in future research [ 31 , 32 ]. A recent Delphi consensus study by Ho et al. may help to address these issues: following input from professionals and members of the public they identified 24 LTCs to ‘always include’ and 35 LTCs to ‘usually include’ in multimorbidity research, including nine mental health conditions [ 9 ].

As outlined in the introduction, there is a strong evidence base supporting the link between ACEs and long-term health outcomes, including specific LTCs. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate this association to ACEs and multimorbidity, though to our knowledge, the pathophysiological processes that link the two have not been precisely identified. However, similar lines of research are being independently followed in both fields and these areas of overlap may suggest possible mechanisms for a relationship. For example, both ACEs and multimorbidity have been associated with markers of accelerated epigenetic ageing [ 69 , 70 ], mitochondrial dysfunction [ 71 , 72 ], and inflammation [ 22 , 73 ]. More work is required to better understand how these concepts might be linked.

This review used data from a large participant base, with information from 372,162 people contributing to the systematic review and information from 197,981 people contributing to the dose–response meta-analysis. Data from the included studies originated from a range of sources, including healthcare settings and dedicated research cohorts. We believe this is of a sufficient scale and variety to demonstrate the nature and magnitude of the association between ACEs and multimorbidity in these populations.

However, there are some limitations. Firstly, although data came from 11 different countries, only two of those were from outside Europe and North America, and all were from either high- or middle-income countries. Data on ACEs from low-income countries have indicated a higher prevalence of any ACE exposure (consistently > 70%) [ 74 , 75 ], though how well this predicts health outcomes in these populations is unknown.

Secondly, studies in this review utilised retrospective participant-reported ACE data and so are at risk of recall and reporting bias. Studies utilising prospective assessments are rare and much of the wider ACE literature is open to a similar risk of bias. To date, two studies have compared prospective and retrospective ACE measurements, demonstrating inconsistent results [ 76 , 77 ]. However, these studies were performed in New Zealand and South Africa, two countries not represented by studies in our review, and had relatively small sample sizes (1037 and 1595 respectively). It is unclear whether these are generalisable to other population groups.

Thirdly, previous research has indicated a close relationship between ACEs and childhood socio-economic status (SES) [ 78 ] and between SES and multimorbidity [ 10 , 79 ]. However, the limitations of the included studies meant we were unable to separate the effect of ACEs from the effect of childhood SES on multimorbidity in this review. Whilst two studies included childhood SES as covariates in their models, others used measures from adulthood (such as adulthood SES, income level, and education level) that are potentially influenced by ACEs and therefore increase the risk of bias due to confounding (Additional File 1: Table S3). Furthermore, as for ACEs and multimorbidity, there is no consistently applied definition of SES and different measures of SES may produce different apparent effects [ 80 ]. The complex relationships between ACEs, childhood SES, and multimorbidity remain a challenge for research in this field.

Fourthly, there was a high degree of heterogeneity within included studies, especially relating to the definition and measurement of ACEs and multimorbidity. Whilst this suggests that our results should be interpreted with caution, it is reassuring to see that our meta-analysis of prevalence estimates for exposure to any ACE (48.1%) and multimorbidity (34.5%) are in line with previous estimates in similar populations [ 2 , 11 ]. Furthermore, we believe that the quantitative synthesis of these relatively heterogenous studies provides important benefit by demonstrating a strong dose–response relationship across a range of contexts.

Our results strengthen the evidence supporting the lasting influence of childhood conditions on adult health and wellbeing. How this understanding is best incorporated into routine practice is still not clear. Currently, the lack of consistency in assessing ACEs limits our ability to understand their impact at both the individual and population level and poses challenges for those looking to incorporate a formalised assessment. Whilst most risk factors for disease (e.g. blood pressure) are usually only relevant within healthcare settings, ACEs are relevant to many other sectors (e.g. social care, education, policing) [ 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ], and so consistency of assessment across society is both more important and more challenging to achieve.

Some have suggested that the evidence for the impact of ACEs is strong enough to warrant screening, which would allow early identification of potential harms to children and interventions to prevent them. This approach has been implemented in California, USA [ 85 , 86 , 87 ]. However, this is controversial, and others argue that screening is premature with the current evidence base [ 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Firstly, not everyone who is exposed to ACEs develops poor health outcomes, and it is not clear how to identify those who are at highest risk. Many people appear to be vulnerable, with more adverse health outcomes following ACE exposure than those who are not exposed, whilst others appear to be more resilient, with good health in later life despite multiple ACE exposures [ 91 ] It may be that supportive environments can mitigate the long-term effects of ACE exposure and promote resilience [ 92 , 93 ]. Secondly, there are no accepted interventions for managing the impact of an identified ACE. As identified above, different ACEs may require input from different sectors (e.g. healthcare, social care, education, police), and so collating this evidence may be challenging. At present, ACEs screening does not meet the Wilson-Jungner criteria for a screening programme [ 94 ].

Existing healthcare systems are poorly designed to deal with the complexities of addressing ACEs and multimorbidity. Possibly, ways to improve this might be allocating more time per patient, prioritising continuity of care to foster long-term relationships, and greater integration between different healthcare providers (most notably primary vs secondary care teams, or physical vs mental health teams). However, such changes often demand additional resources (e.g. staff, infrastructure, processes), which are challenging to source when existing healthcare systems are already stretched [ 95 , 96 ]. Nevertheless, increasing the spotlight on ACEs and multimorbidity may help to focus attention and ultimately bring improvements to patient care and experience.

ACEs are associated with a range of poor long-term health outcomes, including harmful health behaviours and individual long-term conditions. Multimorbidity is becoming more common as global populations age, and it increases the complexity and cost of healthcare provision. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the literature on ACEs and multimorbidity, showing a statistically significant dose-dependent relationship across a large number of participants, albeit with a high degree of inter-study heterogeneity. This consolidates and enhances an increasing body of data supporting the role of ACEs in determining long-term health outcomes. Whilst these observational studies do not confirm causality, the weight and consistency of evidence is such that we can be confident in the link. The challenge for healthcare practitioners, managers, policymakers, and governments is incorporating this body of evidence into routine practice to improve the health and wellbeing of our societies.

Availability of data and materials

No additional data was generated for this review. The data used were found in the referenced papers or provided through correspondence with the study authors.

Abbreviations

Adverse childhood experience

Akaike information criterion

CONSORTIUM Against pain inequality

Confidence interval

Chronic pain advisory group

Interquartile range

Long-term condition

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures

Socio-economic status

Hughes K, Bellis MA, Hardcastle KA, Sethi D, Butchart A, Mikton C, et al. The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2:e356–66.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bellis MA, Lowey H, Leckenby N, Hughes K, Harrison D. Adverse childhood experiences: retrospective study to determine their impact on adult health behaviours and health outcomes in a UK population. J Public Health Oxf Engl. 2014;36:81–91.

Article   Google Scholar  

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:245–58.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Maniglio R. The impact of child sexual abuse on health: a systematic review of reviews. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29:647–57.

Yu J, Patel RA, Haynie DL, Vidal-Ribas P, Govender T, Sundaram R, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and premature mortality through mid-adulthood: a five-decade prospective study. Lancet Reg Health - Am. 2022;15:100349.

Wang Y-X, Sun Y, Missmer SA, Rexrode KM, Roberts AL, Chavarro JE, et al. Association of early life physical and sexual abuse with premature mortality among female nurses: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2023;381: e073613.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rogers NT, Power C, Pereira SMP. Child maltreatment, early life socioeconomic disadvantage and all-cause mortality in mid-adulthood: findings from a prospective British birth cohort. BMJ Open. 2021;11: e050914.

Hardcastle K, Bellis MA, Sharp CA, Hughes K. Exploring the health and service utilisation of general practice patients with a history of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): an observational study using electronic health records. BMJ Open. 2020;10: e036239.

Ho ISS, Azcoaga-Lorenzo A, Akbari A, Davies J, Khunti K, Kadam UT, et al. Measuring multimorbidity in research: Delphi consensus study. BMJ Med. 2022;1:e000247.

Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Lond Engl. 2012;380:37–43.

Chowdhury SR, Das DC, Sunna TC, Beyene J, Hossain A. Global and regional prevalence of multimorbidity in the adult population in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine. 2023;57:101860.

Noël PH, Chris Frueh B, Larme AC, Pugh JA. Collaborative care needs and preferences of primary care patients with multimorbidity. Health Expect. 2005;8:54–63.

Chau E, Rosella LC, Mondor L, Wodchis WP. Association between continuity of care and subsequent diagnosis of multimorbidity in Ontario, Canada from 2001–2015: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16: e0245193.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nicholson K, Liu W, Fitzpatrick D, Hardacre KA, Roberts S, Salerno J, et al. Prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy among adults and older adults: a systematic review. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2024;5:e287–96.

Albreht T, Dyakova M, Schellevis FG, Van den Broucke S. Many diseases, one model of care? J Comorbidity. 2016;6:12–20.

Soley-Bori M, Ashworth M, Bisquera A, Dodhia H, Lynch R, Wang Y, et al. Impact of multimorbidity on healthcare costs and utilisation: a systematic review of the UK literature. Br J Gen Pract. 2020;71:e39-46.

World Health Organization (WHO). Ageing and health. 2022. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health . Accessed 23 Apr 2024.

Franke HA. Toxic stress: effects, prevention and treatment. Children. 2014;1:390–402.

Parade SH, Huffhines L, Daniels TE, Stroud LR, Nugent NR, Tyrka AR. A systematic review of childhood maltreatment and DNA methylation: candidate gene and epigenome-wide approaches. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:1–33.

Ridout KK, Levandowski M, Ridout SJ, Gantz L, Goonan K, Palermo D, et al. Early life adversity and telomere length: a meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;23:858–71.

Elwenspoek MMC, Kuehn A, Muller CP, Turner JD. The effects of early life adversity on the immune system. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;82:140–54.

Danese A, Baldwin JR. Hidden wounds? Inflammatory links between childhood trauma and psychopathology. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68:517–44.

Brindle RC, Pearson A, Ginty AT. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) relate to blunted cardiovascular and cortisol reactivity to acute laboratory stress: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;134: 104530.

Teicher MH, Samson JA, Anderson CM, Ohashi K. The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function and connectivity. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17:652–66.

McLaughlin KA, Weissman D, Bitrán D. Childhood adversity and neural development: a systematic review. Annu Rev Dev Psychol. 2019;1:277–312.

Koyama Y, Fujiwara T, Murayama H, Machida M, Inoue S, Shobugawa Y. Association between adverse childhood experiences and brain volumes among Japanese community-dwelling older people: findings from the NEIGE study. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;124: 105456.

Antoniou G, Lambourg E, Steele JD, Colvin LA. The effect of adverse childhood experiences on chronic pain and major depression in adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2023;130:729–46.

Huang H, Yan P, Shan Z, Chen S, Li M, Luo C, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2015;64:1408–18.

Lopes S, Hallak JEC, de Machado Sousa JP, de Osório F L. Adverse childhood experiences and chronic lung diseases in adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2020;11:1720336.

Hu Z, Kaminga AC, Yang J, Liu J, Xu H. Adverse childhood experiences and risk of cancer during adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2021;117: 105088.

Tan M, Mao P. Type and dose-response effect of adverse childhood experiences in predicting depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2023;139: 106091.

Zhang L, Zhao N, Zhu M, Tang M, Liu W, Hong W. Adverse childhood experiences in patients with schizophrenia: related factors and clinical implications. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1247063.

Emsley E, Smith J, Martin D, Lewis NV. Trauma-informed care in the UK: where are we? A qualitative study of health policies and professional perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:1164.

ROBINS-E Development Group (Higgins J, Morgan R, Rooney A, Taylor K, Thayer K, Silva R, Lemeris C, Akl A, Arroyave W, Bateson T, Berkman N, Demers P, Forastiere F, Glenn B, Hróbjartsson A, Kirrane E, LaKind J, Luben T, Lunn R, McAleenan A, McGuinness L, Meerpohl J, Mehta S, Nachman R, Obbagy J, O’Connor A, Radke E, Savović J, Schubauer-Berigan M, Schwingl P, Schunemann H, Shea B, Steenland K, Stewart T, Straif K, Tilling K, Verbeek V, Vermeulen R, Viswanathan M, Zahm S, Sterne J). Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposure (ROBINS-E). Launch version, 20 June 2023. https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robins-e-tool . Accessed 20 Jul 2023.

Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22:153–60.

Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ, Rücker G. Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10:476–83.

Crippa A, Orsini N. Multivariate dose-response meta-analysis: the dosresmeta R Package. J Stat Softw. 2016;72:1–15.

Greenland S, Longnecker MP. Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1301–9.

Shim SR, Lee J. Dose-response meta-analysis: application and practice using the R software. Epidemiol Health. 2019;41: e2019006.

Arshadipour A, Thorand B, Linkohr B, Rospleszcz S, Ladwig K-H, Heier M, et al. Impact of prenatal and childhood adversity effects around World War II on multimorbidity: results from the KORA-Age study. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:115.

Atkinson L, Joshi D, Raina P, Griffith LE, MacMillan H, Gonzalez A. Social engagement and allostatic load mediate between adverse childhood experiences and multimorbidity in mid to late adulthood: the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Psychol Med. 2021;53(4):1–11.

Chandrasekar R, Lacey RE, Chaturvedi N, Hughes AD, Patalay P, Khanolkar AR. Adverse childhood experiences and the development of multimorbidity across adulthood—a national 70-year cohort study. Age Ageing. 2023;52:afad062.

Cromer KR, Sachs-Ericsson N. The association between childhood abuse, PTSD, and the occurrence of adult health problems: moderation via current life stress. J Trauma Stress. 2006;19:967–71.

England-Mason G, Casey R, Ferro M, MacMillan HL, Tonmyr L, Gonzalez A. Child maltreatment and adult multimorbidity: results from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Can J Public Health. 2018;109:561–72.

Godin O, Leboyer M, Laroche DG, Aubin V, Belzeaux R, Courtet P, et al. Childhood maltreatment contributes to the medical morbidity of individuals with bipolar disorders. Psychol Med. 2023;53(15):1–9.

Hanlon P, McCallum M, Jani BD, McQueenie R, Lee D, Mair FS. Association between childhood maltreatment and the prevalence and complexity of multimorbidity: a cross-sectional analysis of 157,357 UK Biobank participants. J Comorbidity. 2020;10:2235042X1094434.

Henchoz Y, Seematter-Bagnoud L, Nanchen D, Büla C, von Gunten A, Démonet J-F, et al. Childhood adversity: a gateway to multimorbidity in older age? Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;80:31–7.

Hosang GM, Fisher HL, Uher R, Cohen-Woods S, Maughan B, McGuffin P, et al. Childhood maltreatment and the medical morbidity in bipolar disorder: a case–control study. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2017;5:30.

Hosang GM, Fisher HL, Hodgson K, Maughan B, Farmer AE. Childhood maltreatment and adult medical morbidity in mood disorders: comparison of unipolar depression with bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213:645–53.

Lin L, Wang HH, Lu C, Chen W, Guo VY. Adverse childhood experiences and subsequent chronic diseases among middle-aged or older adults in China and associations with demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4: e2130143.

Mendizabal A, Nathan CL, Khankhanian P, Anto M, Clyburn C, Acaba-Berrocal A, et al. Adverse childhood experiences in patients with neurologic disease. Neurol Clin Pract. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001134 .

Noteboom A, Have MT, De Graaf R, Beekman ATF, Penninx BWJH, Lamers F. The long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on adult chronic physical disorders. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;136:87–94.

Patterson ML, Moniruzzaman A, Somers JM. Setting the stage for chronic health problems: cumulative childhood adversity among homeless adults with mental illness in Vancouver. British Columbia BMC Public Health. 2014;14:350.

Post RM, Altshuler LL, Leverich GS, Frye MA, Suppes T, McElroy SL, et al. Role of childhood adversity in the development of medical co-morbidities associated with bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2013;147:288–94.

Reyes-Ortiz CA. Racial discrimination and multimorbidity among older adults in Colombia: a national data analysis. Prev Chronic Dis. 2023;20:220360.

Sheikh MA. Coloring of the past via respondent’s current psychological state, mediation, and the association between childhood disadvantage and morbidity in adulthood. J Psychiatr Res. 2018;103:173–81.

Sinnott C, Mc Hugh S, Fitzgerald AP, Bradley CP, Kearney PM. Psychosocial complexity in multimorbidity: the legacy of adverse childhood experiences. Fam Pract. 2015;32:269–75.

Sosnowski DW, Feder KA, Astemborski J, Genberg BL, Letourneau EJ, Musci RJ, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and comorbidity in a cohort of people who have injected drugs. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:986.

Stapp EK, Williams SC, Kalb LG, Holingue CB, Van Eck K, Ballard ED, et al. Mood disorders, childhood maltreatment, and medical morbidity in US adults: an observational study. J Psychosom Res. 2020;137: 110207.

Tomasdottir MO, Sigurdsson JA, Petursson H, Kirkengen AL, Krokstad S, McEwen B, et al. Self reported childhood difficulties, adult multimorbidity and allostatic load. A cross-sectional analysis of the Norwegian HUNT study. PloS One. 2015;10:e0130591.

Vásquez E, Quiñones A, Ramirez S, Udo T. Association between adverse childhood events and multimorbidity in a racial and ethnic diverse sample of middle-aged and older adults. Innov Aging. 2019;3:igz016.

Yang L, Hu Y, Silventoinen K, Martikainen P. Childhood adversity and trajectories of multimorbidity in mid-late life: China health and longitudinal retirement study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021;75:593–600.

Zak-Hunter L, Carr CP, Tate A, Brustad A, Mulhern K, Berge JM. Associations between adverse childhood experiences and stressful life events and health outcomes in pregnant and breastfeeding women from diverse racial and ethnic groups. J Womens Health. 2023;32:702–14.

Zheng X, Cui Y, Xue Y, Shi L, Guo Y, Dong F, et al. Adverse childhood experiences in depression and the mediating role of multimorbidity in mid-late life: A nationwide longitudinal study. J Affect Disord. 2022;301:217–24.

Liu M, Luong L, Lachaud J, Edalati H, Reeves A, Hwang SW. Adverse childhood experiences and related outcomes among adults experiencing homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6:e836–47.

Petruccelli K, Davis J, Berman T. Adverse childhood experiences and associated health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2019;97: 104127.

Bethell CD, Carle A, Hudziak J, Gombojav N, Powers K, Wade R, et al. Methods to assess adverse childhood experiences of children and families: toward approaches to promote child well-being in policy and practice. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17(7 Suppl):S51-69.

Bernstein DP, Stein JA, Newcomb MD, Walker E, Pogge D, Ahluvalia T, et al. Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl. 2003;27:169–90.

Kim K, Yaffe K, Rehkopf DH, Zheng Y, Nannini DR, Perak AM, et al. Association of adverse childhood experiences with accelerated epigenetic aging in midlife. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6:e2317987.

Jain P, Binder A, Chen B, Parada H, Gallo LC, Alcaraz J, et al. The association of epigenetic age acceleration and multimorbidity at age 90 in the Women’s Health Initiative. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2023;78:2274–81.

Zang JCS, May C, Hellwig B, Moser D, Hengstler JG, Cole S, et al. Proteome analysis of monocytes implicates altered mitochondrial biology in adults reporting adverse childhood experiences. Transl Psychiatry. 2023;13:31.

Mau T, Blackwell TL, Cawthon PM, Molina AJA, Coen PM, Distefano G, et al. Muscle mitochondrial bioenergetic capacities are associated with multimorbidity burden in older adults: the Study of Muscle, Mobility and Aging (SOMMA). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2024;79(7):glae101.

Friedman E, Shorey C. Inflammation in multimorbidity and disability: an integrative review. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2019;38:791–801.

Google Scholar  

Satinsky EN, Kakuhikire B, Baguma C, Rasmussen JD, Ashaba S, Cooper-Vince CE, et al. Adverse childhood experiences, adult depression, and suicidal ideation in rural Uganda: a cross-sectional, population-based study. PLoS Med. 2021;18: e1003642.

Amene EW, Annor FB, Gilbert LK, McOwen J, Augusto A, Manuel P, et al. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences in sub-Saharan Africa: a multicounty analysis of the Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys (VACS). Child Abuse Negl. 2023;150:106353.

Reuben A, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Belsky DW, Harrington H, Schroeder F, et al. Lest we forget: comparing retrospective and prospective assessments of adverse childhood experiences in the prediction of adult health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57:1103–12.

Naicker SN, Norris SA, Mabaso M, Richter LM. An analysis of retrospective and repeat prospective reports of adverse childhood experiences from the South African Birth to Twenty Plus cohort. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0181522.

Walsh D, McCartney G, Smith M, Armour G. Relationship between childhood socioeconomic position and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73:1087–93.

Ingram E, Ledden S, Beardon S, Gomes M, Hogarth S, McDonald H, et al. Household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021;75:232–41.

Darin-Mattsson A, Fors S, Kåreholt I. Different indicators of socioeconomic status and their relative importance as determinants of health in old age. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16:173.

Bateson K, McManus M, Johnson G. Understanding the use, and misuse, of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) in trauma-informed policing. Police J. 2020;93:131–45.

Webb NJ, Miller TL, Stockbridge EL. Potential effects of adverse childhood experiences on school engagement in youth: a dominance analysis. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:2096.

Stewart-Tufescu A, Struck S, Taillieu T, Salmon S, Fortier J, Brownell M, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and education outcomes among adolescents: linking survey and administrative data. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:11564.

Frederick J, Spratt T, Devaney J. Adverse childhood experiences and social work: relationship-based practice responses. Br J Soc Work. 2021;51:3018–34.

University of California ACEs Aware Family Resilience Network (UCAAN). acesaware.org. ACEs Aware. https://www.acesaware.org/about/ . Accessed 6 Oct 2023.

Watson CR, Young-Wolff KC, Negriff S, Dumke K, DiGangi M. Implementation and evaluation of adverse childhood experiences screening in pediatrics and obstetrics settings. Perm J. 2024;28:180–7.

Gordon JB, Felitti VJ. The importance of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in all medical encounters. AJPM Focus. 2023;2: 100131.

Finkelhor D. Screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs): Cautions and suggestions. Child Abuse Negl. 2018;85:174–9.

Cibralic S, Alam M, Mendoza Diaz A, Woolfenden S, Katz I, Tzioumi D, et al. Utility of screening for adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in children and young people attending clinical and healthcare settings: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12: e060395.

Gentry SV, Paterson BA. Does screening or routine enquiry for adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) meet criteria for a screening programme? A rapid evidence summary. J Public Health Oxf Engl. 2022;44:810–22.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Morgan CA, Chang Y-H, Choy O, Tsai M-C, Hsieh S. Adverse childhood experiences are associated with reduced psychological resilience in youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Basel Switz. 2021;9:27.

Narayan AJ, Lieberman AF, Masten AS. Intergenerational transmission and prevention of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;85: 101997.

VanBronkhorst SB, Abraham E, Dambreville R, Ramos-Olazagasti MA, Wall M, Saunders DC, et al. Sociocultural risk and resilience in the context of adverse childhood experiences. JAMA Psychiat. 2024;81:406–13.

Wilson JM, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organisation; 1968.

Huo Y, Couzner L, Windsor T, Laver K, Dissanayaka NN, Cations M. Barriers and enablers for the implementation of trauma-informed care in healthcare settings: a systematic review. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:49.

Foo KM, Sundram M, Legido-Quigley H. Facilitators and barriers of managing patients with multiple chronic conditions in the community: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:273.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the members of the CAPE CPAG patient and public involvement group for providing insights gained from relevant lived experiences.

The authors are members of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) supported by UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), Versus Arthritis, and Eli Lilly. DS is a fellow on the Multimorbidity Doctoral Training Programme for Health Professionals, which is supported by the Wellcome Trust [223499/Z/21/Z]. BT, BS, and LC are supported by an APDP grant as part of the Partnership for Assessment and Investigation of Neuropathic Pain: Studies Tracking Outcomes, Risks and Mechanisms (PAINSTORM) consortium [MR/W002388/1]. TH and LC are supported by an APDP grant as part of the Consortium Against Pain Inequality [MR/W002566/1]. The funding bodies had no role in study design, data collection/analysis/interpretation, report writing, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chronic Pain Research Group, Division of Population Health & Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK

Dhaneesha N. S. Senaratne, Bhushan Thakkar, Blair H. Smith & Lesley A. Colvin

Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, Division of Systems Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

Tim G. Hales

School of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

Louise Marryat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DS and LC contributed to review conception and design. DC, BT, BS, TH, LM, and LC contributed to search strategy design. DS and BT contributed to study selection and data extraction, with input from LC. DS and BT accessed and verified the underlying data. DS conducted the meta-analyses, with input from BT, BS, TH, LM, and LC. DS drafted the manuscript, with input from DC, BT, BS, TH, LM, and LC. DC, BT, BS, TH, LM, and LC read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dhaneesha N. S. Senaratne .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have 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

12916_2024_3505_moesm1_esm.docx.

Additional File 1: Tables S1-S5 and Figures S1-S2. Table S1: Search strategy, Table S2: Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review, Table S3: Risk of bias assessment (ROBINS-E), Table S4: Exposure details (adverse childhood experiences), Table S5: Outcome details (multimorbidity), Figure S1: Meta-analysis of prevalence of exposure to ≥4 adverse childhood experiences, Figure S2: Dose-response meta-analysis of the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and multimorbidity (using a non-linear/restricted cubic spline model).

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.

Senaratne, D.N.S., Thakkar, B., Smith, B.H. et al. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 22 , 315 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03505-w

Download citation

Received : 01 December 2023

Accepted : 14 June 2024

Published : 15 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03505-w

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

• Adverse childhood experiences
• Childhood adversity
• Chronic disease
• Long-term conditions
• Multimorbidity

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]