what are the 4 major types of literature reviews

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

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

Types of literature reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the difference between reviews?

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

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

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

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

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

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

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

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:25 AM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

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

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

The Impact of Visual Abstracts on Boosting Citations

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

Types of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  John Dudovskiy

Literature Reviews

• Types of reviews
• Getting started

Types of reviews and examples

Choosing a review type.

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

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

• Meta-analysis
• Systematized

Definition:

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

Characteristics:

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more about the method:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more about the methods :

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

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

Example : 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree.
• LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews) with practical tips about strengths and weaknesses of different methods.
• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: 1. Define your research question >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 10:06 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

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

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

Systematic Reviews: Types of literature review, methods, & resources

• Types of literature review, methods, & resources
• Protocol and registration
• Search strategy
• Medical Literature Databases to search
• Study selection and appraisal
• Data Extraction/Coding/Study characteristics/Results
• Reporting the quality/risk of bias
• Manage citations using RefWorks This link opens in a new window
• GW Box file storage for PDF's This link opens in a new window

Analytical reviews

GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO CARRY OUT AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. (Tracking and listing over 550 reporting guidelines for various different study types including Randomised trials, Systematic reviews, Study protocols, Diagnostic/prognostic studies, Case reports, Clinical practice guidelines, Animal pre-clinical studies, etc). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

When comparing therapies :

PRISMA (Guideline on how to perform and write-up a systematic review and/or meta-analysis of the outcomes reported in multiple clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. PRISMA  replaces the previous QUORUM statement guidelines ):  Liberati, A,, Altman, D,, Moher, D, et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.  Plos Medicine, 6 (7):e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 

When comparing diagnostic methods :

Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). CLAIM is modeled after the STARD guideline and has been extended to address applications of AI in medical imaging that include classification, image reconstruction, text analysis, and workflow optimization. The elements described here should be viewed as a “best practice” to guide authors in presenting their research. Reported in Mongan, J., Moy, L., & Kahn, C. E., Jr (2020). Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): A Guide for Authors and Reviewers.  Radiology. Artificial intelligence ,  2 (2), e200029. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2020200029

STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) Statement. (Reporting guidelines for writing up a study comparing the accuracy of competing diagnostic methods)  http://www.stard-statement.org/

When evaluating clinical practice guidelines :

AGREE Research Trust (ART) (2013).  Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE-II) . (A 23-item instrument for as sessing th e quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Used internationally for evaluating or deciding which guidelines could be recommended for use in practice or to inform health policy decisions.)

National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument (2019). (A 15-item instrument using scales of 1-5 to evaluate a guideline's adherence to the Institute of Medicine's standard for trustworthy guidelines. It has good external validity among guideline developers and good interrater reliability across trained reviewers.)

When you need to re-analyze individual participant data

If you wish to collect, check, and re-analyze individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials addressing a particular research question, you should follow the  PRISMA-IPD  guidelines as reported in  Stewart, L.A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., et al. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA, 313(16):1657-1665. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 .

When comparing Randomized studies involving animals, livestock, or food:

O’Connor AM, et al. (2010).  The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety by modifying the CONSORT statement.  Zoonoses Public Health. 57(2):95-104. Epub 2010/01/15. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01311.x. PubMed PMID: 20070653.

Sargeant JM, et al. (2010).  The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration.  Zoonoses Public Health. 57(2):105-36. Epub 2010/01/15. doi: JVB1312 [pii] 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01312.x. PubMed PMID: 20070652.

GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO WRITE UP FOR PUBLICATION THE RESULTS OF ONE QUANTITATIVE CLINICAL TRIAL

When reporting the results of a Randomized Controlled Trial :

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. (2010 reporting guideline for writing up a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial).  http://www.consort-statement.org . Since updated in 2022, see Butcher, M. A., et al. (2022). Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension . JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association, 328(22), 2252–2264. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.21022

Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biology, 8(6), e1000412–e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 (A 20-item checklist, following the CONSORT approach, listing the information that published articles reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used; details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods used to reduce bias.)

Narrative reviews

GUIDELINES  FOR HOW TO CARRY OUT  A  NARRATIVE REVIEW / QUALITATIVE RESEARCH /  OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

Campbell, M. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ, 368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890  (guideline on how to analyse evidence for a narrative review, to provide a recommendation based on heterogenous study types).

Community Preventive Services Task Force (2021).  The Methods Manual for Community Guide Systematic Reviews . (Public Health Prevention systematic review guidelines)

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. (Tracking and listing over 550 reporting guidelines for various different study types including Observational studies, Qualitative research, Quality improvement studies, and Economic evaluations). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. (2019). Training resources. Retrieved from  https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/training-resources . (Training materials for how to do a meta-synthesis, or qualitative evidence synthesis). 

Cornell University Library (2019). Planning worksheet for structured literature reviews. Retrieved 4/8/22 from  https://osf.io/tnfm7/  (offers a framework for a narrative literature review).

Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006).  Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade . Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3): 101-117. DOI: 10.1016/ S0899-3467 (07)60142-6.  This is a very good article about what to take into consideration when writing any type of narrative review.

When reviewing observational studies/qualitative research :

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. (Reporting guidelines for various types of health sciences observational studies).  http://www.strobe-statement.org 

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)  http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192614

RATS Qualitative research systematic review guidelines.  https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/qualitative-research-review-guidelines-rats/

Methods/Guidance

Right Review , this decision support website provides an algorithm to help reviewers choose a review methodology from among 41 knowledge synthesis methods.

The Systematic Review Toolbox , an online catalogue of tools that support various tasks within the systematic review and wider evidence synthesis process. Maintained by the UK University of York Health Economics Consortium, Newcastle University NIHR Innovation Observatory, and University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research.

Institute of Medicine. (2011).  Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews . Washington, DC: National Academies  (Systematic review guidelines from the Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly called the Institute of Medicine)).

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2022).  Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals . Guidance on how to prepare a manuscript for submission to a Medical journal.

Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (International Cochrane Collaboration systematic review guidelines). The various Cochrane review groups comporise around 30,000 physicians around the world working in the disciplines on reviews of interventions with very detailed methods for verifying the validity of the research methods and analysis performed in screened-in Randmized Controlled Clinical Trials. Typically published Cochrane Reviews are the most exhaustive review of the evidence of effectiveness of a particular drug or intervention, and include a statistical meta-analysis. Similar to practice guidelines, Cochrane reviews are periodically revised and updated.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual of Evidence Synthesis . (International systematic review guidelines). Based at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, and collaborating with around 80 academic and medical entities around the world. Unlike Cochrane Reviews that strictly focus on efficacy of interventions, JBI offers a broader, inclusive approach to evidence, to accommodate a range of diverse questions and study designs. The JBI manual provides guidance on how to analyse and include both quantitative and qualitative research.

Cochrane Methods Support Unit, webinar recordings on methodological support questions 

Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. (2019). Training resources. Retrieved from https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/training-resources . (How to do a meta-synthesis, or qualitative evidence synthesis). 

Center for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York, England) (2009).  Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care . (British systematic review guidelines). 

Agency for Health Research & Quality (AHRQ) (2013). Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews . (U.S. comparative effectiveness review guidelines)

Hunter, K. E., et al. (2022). Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers.  BMJ (Clinical research ed.) ,  377 , e068791. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068791

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).  The PCORI Methodology Report . (A 47-item methodology checklist for U.S. patient-centered outcomes research. Established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PCORI funds the development of guidance on the comparative effectivess of clinical healthcare, similar to the UK National Institute for Clinical Evidence but without reporting cost-effectiveness QALY metrics). 

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) (2019). Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters . A checklist of N American & international online databases and websites you can use to search for unpublished reports, posters, and policy briefs, on topics including general medicine and nursing, public and mental health, health technology assessment, drug and device regulatory, approvals, warnings, and advisories.

Hempel, S., Xenakis, L., & Danz, M. (2016). Systematic Reviews for Occupational Safety and Health Questions: Resources for Evidence Synthesis. Retrieved 8/15/16 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1463.html . NIOSH guidelines for how to carry out a systematic review in the occupational safety and health domain.

A good source for reporting guidelines is the  NLM's  Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives .

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). (An international group of academics/clinicians working to promote a common approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.) 

Phillips, B., Ball, C., Sackett, D., et al. (2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence. Retrieved 3/20/17 from https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf . (Another commonly used criteria for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, developed in part by EBM guru David Sackett.) 

Systematic Reviews for Animals & Food  (guidelines including the REFLECT statement for carrying out a systematic review on animal health, animal welfare, food safety, livestock, and agriculture)

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. (Describes 14 different types of literature and systematic review, useful for thinking at the outset about what sort of literature review you want to do.)

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health information and libraries journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276  (An updated look at different types of literature review, expands on the Grant & Booth 2009 article listed above).

Garrard, J. (2007).  Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method  (2nd Ed.).   Sudbury, MA:  Jones & Bartlett Publishers. (Textbook of health sciences literature search methods).

Zilberberg, M. (2012).  Between the lines: Finding the truth in medical literature . Goshen, MA: Evimed Research Press. (Concise book on foundational concepts of evidence-based medicine).

Lang, T. (2009). The Value of Systematic Reviews as Research Activities in Medical Education . In: Lang, T. How to write, publish, & present in the health sciences : a guide for clinicians & laboratory researchers. Philadelphia : American College of Physicians.  (This book chapter has a helpful bibliography on systematic review and meta-analysis methods)

Brown, S., Martin, E., Garcia, T., Winter, M., García, A., Brown, A., Cuevas H.,  & Sumlin, L. (2013). Managing complex research datasets using electronic tools: a meta-analysis exemplar . Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 31(6), 257-265. doi:10.1097/NXN.0b013e318295e69c. (This article advocates for the programming of electronic fillable forms in Adobe Acrobat Pro to feed data into Excel or SPSS for analysis, and to use cloud based file sharing systems such as Blackboard, RefWorks, or EverNote to facilitate sharing knowledge about the decision-making process and keep data secure. Of particular note are the flowchart describing this process, and their example screening form used for the initial screening of abstracts).

Brown, S., Upchurch, S., & Acton, G. (2003). A framework for developing a coding scheme for meta-analysis . Western Journal Of Nursing Research, 25(2), 205-222. (This article describes the process of how to design a coded data extraction form and codebook, Table 1 is an example of a coded data extraction form that can then be used to program a fillable form in Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Access).

Elamin, M. B., Flynn, D. N., Bassler, D., Briel, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Karanicolas, P., & ... Montori, V. M. (2009). Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity .  Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology ,  62 (5), 506-510. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016  (This article offers advice on how to decide what tools to use to extract data for analytical systematic reviews).

Riegelman R.   Studying a Study and Testing a Test: Reading Evidence-based Health Research , 6th Edition.  Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012. (Textbook of quantitative statistical methods used in health sciences research).

Rathbone, J., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015). Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers. Systematic Reviews, 480. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0067-6

Guyatt, G., Rennie, D., Meade, M., & Cook, D. (2015). Users' guides to the medical literature (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education Medical.  (This is a foundational textbook on evidence-based medicine and of particular use to the reviewer who wants to learn about the different types of published research article e.g. "what is a case report?" and to understand what types of study design best answer what types of clinical question).

Glanville, J., Duffy, S., Mccool, R., & Varley, D. (2014). Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 102(3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.  Systematic Reviews, 5 : 210, DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. http://rdcu.be/nzDM

Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N. (2015). Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 103 (4): 184-8. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26512216

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. (2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 104 (3):240-3. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014. Erratum in: J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366130

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 . PRESS is a guideline with a checklist for librarians to critically appraise the search strategy for a systematic review literature search.

Clark, JM, Sanders, S, Carter, M, Honeyman, D, Cleo, G, Auld, Y, Booth, D, Condron, P, Dalais, C, Bateup, S, Linthwaite, B, May, N, Munn, J, Ramsay, L, Rickett, K, Rutter, C, Smith, A, Sondergeld, P, Wallin, M, Jones, M & Beller, E 2020, 'Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial',  Journal of the Medical Library Association , vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 195-207.

Journal articles describing systematic review methods can be searched for in PubMed using this search string in the PubMed search box: sysrev_methods [sb] . 

Software tools for systematic reviews

• Covidence GW in 2019 has bought a subscription to this Cloud based tool for facilitating screening decisions, used by the Cochrane Collaboration. Register for an account.
• NVIVO for analysis of qualitative research NVIVO is used for coding interview data to identify common themes emerging from interviews with several participants. GW faculty, staff, and students may download NVIVO software.
• RedCAP RedCAP is software that can be used to create survey forms for research or data collection or data extraction. It has very detailed functionality to enable data exchange with Electronic Health Record Systems, and to integrate with study workflow such as scheduling follow up reminders for study participants.
• SRDR tool from AHRQ Free, web-based and has a training environment, tutorials, and example templates of systematic review data extraction forms
• RevMan 5 RevMan 5 is the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews
• Rayyan Free, web-based tool for collecting and screening citations. It has options to screen with multiple people, masking each other.
• GradePro Free, web application to create, manage and share summaries of research evidence (called Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables) for reviews or guidelines, uses the GRADE criteria to evaluate each paper under review.
• DistillerSR Needs subscription. Create coded data extraction forms from templates.
• EPPI Reviewer Needs subscription. Like DistillerSR, tool for text mining, data clustering, classification and term extraction
• SUMARI Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis.
• Dedoose Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis, similar to NVIVO in that it can be used to code interview transcripts, identify word co-occurence, cloud based.
• Meta-analysis software for statistical analysis of data for quantitative reviews SPSS, SAS, and STATA are popular analytical statistical software that include macros for carrying out meta-analysis. Himmelfarb has SPSS on some 3rd floor computers, and GW affiliates may download SAS to your own laptop from the Division of IT website. To perform mathematical analysis of big data sets there are statistical analysis software libraries in the R programming language available through GitHub and RStudio, but this requires advanced knowledge of the R and Python computer languages and data wrangling/cleaning.
• PRISMA 2020 flow diagram The PRISMA Statement website has a page listing example flow diagram templates

GW researchers may want to consider using Refworks to manage citations, and GW Box to store the full text PDF's of review articles. You can also use online survey forms such as Qualtrics, RedCAP, or Survey Monkey, to design and create your own coded fillable forms, and export the data to Excel or one of the qualitative analytical software tools listed above.

Forest Plot Generators

• RevMan 5 the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews.
• Meta-Essentials a free set of workbooks designed for Microsoft Excel that, based on your input, automatically produce meta-analyses including Forest Plots. Produced for Erasmus University Rotterdam joint research institute.
• Neyeloff, Fuchs & Moreira Another set of Excel worksheets and instructions to generate a Forest Plot. Published as Neyeloff, J.L., Fuchs, S.C. & Moreira, L.B. Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 5, 52 (2012). https://doi-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-52
• For R programmers instructions are at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/forestplot/vignettes/forestplot.html and you can download the R code package from https://github.com/gforge/forestplot
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Protocol and registration >>

• Last Updated: Jun 10, 2024 2:14 PM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/systematic_review

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2850
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

• 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: Apr 17, 2024 2:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 June 18, 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, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Chester Fritz Library
• Library of the Health Sciences
• Thormodsgard Law Library

Literature Reviews

• Get started

Literature Reviews within a Scholarly Work

Literature reviews as a scholarly work.

• Finding Literature Reviews
• Your Literature Search
• Library Books
• How to Videos
• Communicating & Citing Research
• Bibliography

Literature reviews summarize and analyze what has been written on a particular topic and identify gaps or disagreements in the scholarly work on that topic.

Within a scholarly work, the literature review situates the current work within the larger scholarly conversation and emphasizes how that particular scholarly work contributes to the conversation on the topic. The literature review portion may be as brief as a few paragraphs focusing on a narrow topic area.

When writing this type of literature review, it's helpful to start by identifying sources most relevant to your research question. A citation tracking database such as Web of Science can also help you locate seminal articles on a topic and find out who has more recently cited them. See "Your Literature Search" for more details.

A literature review may itself be a scholarly publication and provide an analysis of what has been written on a particular topic without contributing original research. These types of literature reviews can serve to help keep people updated on a field as well as helping scholars choose a research topic to fill gaps in the knowledge on that topic. Common types include:

Systematic Review

Systematic literature reviews follow specific procedures in some ways similar to setting up an experiment to ensure that future scholars can replicate the same steps. They are also helpful for evaluating data published over multiple studies. Thus, these are common in the medical field and may be used by healthcare providers to help guide diagnosis and treatment decisions. Cochrane Reviews are one example of this type of literature review.

Semi-Systematic Review

When a systematic review is not feasible, a semi-systematic review can help synthesize research on a topic or how a topic has been studied in different fields (Snyder 2019). Rather than focusing on quantitative data, this review type identifies themes, theoretical perspectives, and other qualitative information related to the topic. These types of reviews can be particularly helpful for a historical topic overview, for developing a theoretical model, and for creating a research agenda for a field (Snyder 2019). As with systematic reviews, a search strategy must be developed before conducting the review.

Integrative Review

An integrative review is less systematic and can be helpful for developing a theoretical model or to reconceptualize a topic. As Synder (2019) notes, " This type of review often re quires a more creative collection of data, as the purpose is usually not to cover all articles ever published on the topic but rather to combine perspectives and insights from di ff erent fi elds or research traditions" (p. 336).

Source: Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104. 333-339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

• << Previous: Get started
• Next: Finding Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 8:31 PM
• URL: https://libguides.und.edu/literature-reviews

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

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

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

Choosing a Literature Review Methodology

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

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

Types of Evidence Synthesis*

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

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

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

Mixed Studies Review (Mixed Methods Review) - Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Types/Typologies, Taxonomies

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

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

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

• << Previous: Home
• Next: The Systematic Review Process >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 12:44 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/literature_review

A Guide to Literature Reviews

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see the Systematic Review tab].

Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but on how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues that you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

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

Resource Books from the Library

• << Previous: Structure and Writing Style
• Next: How do I Cite? >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 11:34 AM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers.

• First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish.
• Second, are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies.
• Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinions, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

Argumentative Review      This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews.

Integrative Review      Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.

Historical Review      Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review      A review does not always focus on what someone said [content], but how they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

Theoretical Review      The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomenon. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

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

Types of Literature Reviews

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

Strategies for Getting Started

Composition guidelines, how to locate reviews by discipline.

We also provide the following activities:

Types of Literature Reviews [Refresher]

The previous page provided an introduction to literature reviews and guidelines for determining the scope and purpose of your review. Next, we take a look at the different types of literature reviews and why a researcher might select one type over another.

A literature review helps your reader understand the relationship of your research project to the work of other scholars. It covers the existing knowledge about a problem, and allows you to show the relevance/significance of your contribution to the discussion. Your reader may or may not have read scholarly literature about the theories, methodologies, and literary works you are discussing. But they want to know that you have read it and have thought about it. Your literature review provides not only a summary of the existing scholarship for readers; it also offers your perspective on it.

Not all humanities research projects contain literature reviews, but many do. Keep in mind that the type of literature review you choose (see list below) pertains to the secondary research – other scholarly sources – and not to the primary literary work. For instance, a literature review about Kate Chopin’s writing will be your thoughts about the scholarship on Chopin and not about Chopin’s text itself. You are summarizing what you see in the scholarly literature about Chopin’s writing. The literature review puts you in the position of authority not just on Chopin’s writing but on the scholarship about her writing. You are seeking to understand what scholars have said about her work. Scholars might belong to different schools of thought (psychoanalytic, feminist, Marxist, etc.). They might make different arguments about Chopin. They might use different methodological approaches. 

If your research involves two or more theories, such as psychology and genre studies, you may need to create multiple literature reviews, one for each theory or methodology. If the theories overlap with each other significantly (i.e., Marxism and Cultural Studies), you may combine them. Your literature review need not include everything about the subject area – you would need to write a book to cover a single theory – but only those concepts and methods that are most relevant to your research problem.

Factors to Consider When Developing Your Literature Review

• Determine the Scope : How broad or narrow should your literature review be? You may want to focus on recent scholarship only, or on a particular school of thought in the literature. Your scope is determined by your purpose; what is it you aim to achieve with your research?
• Establish Criteria : We discussed the importance of defining the purpose and scope of your review on the previous page, but it’s worth reviewing here as well. This step will help you establish important criteria and focus your searching. For example, how many sources will you need? What types of sources (primary, secondary, statistics, media)? Is currency important? Do you know who the prominent authors or theorists are in your subject area? Take some time to map out these or other important factors before you begin searching journals and databases.
• Consider Your Audience : Unlike a work cited page or an annotated bibliography, both of which are lists of sources, a literature review is essayistic and can be considered a precursor to your final paper. Therefore, it should be written in your own voice, and it should be geared toward a specific audience. Considering audience during this early stage will help focus your final paper as well.
• Find Models : We’ll discuss the different types of literature reviews and how to locate examples in the section below. However, even if you’re undecided about what type of review will work best for you, you may want to review some example literature reviews to get a sense of what they look like before you begin your own.

One piece of advice before starting: look for existing literature reviews on your area of scholarship. You can build on the work that other scholars have put into reviewing the scholarly literature. There’s no need to completely “reinvent the wheel” if some of the work is already done.

Scholars sometimes publish “stand-alone” literature reviews that are not part of a larger work; such literature reviews are valuable contributions to the field, as they summarize the state of knowledge for other scholars.

Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth’s “A Typology of Reviews” identifies 14 distinct types of literature reviews. Further, the UCLA library created a chart to complement the article and for easy comparison of those 14 types of reviews. This section provides a brief summary of the most common literature reviews. For a more complete analysis, please see the full article and the chart .

To choose the most appropriate structure, put yourself in your reader’s shoes and think through their need for information. The literature review is about providing context for your contribution. How much context do people need? Keep it to the minimum necessary; compressing a lot of information into a small amount of text is a must.

These structures are not meant to be straightjackets but tools to help you organize your research. If you find that the tool is working, then keep using it. If not, switch tools or modify the one you are using. Keep in mind that the types of literature reviews are just different ways of organizing information. So, you can discuss literary trends without organizing your review of secondary literature by trend; your discussion can be organized by theory or theme, for examples. In our literature reviews, we are not recounting other scholars’ arguments at length but merely providing key concepts so we can summarize the discussion so far and position our own claims. You don’t have to adhere strictly to one structure or another. They are just organizing tools that help you manage your material (and help your reader make sense of it).

Types of Reviews

• Traditional or narrative reviews : This approach will generate a comprehensive, critical analysis of the published research on your topic. However, rather than merely compiling as many sources as possible, use this approach to establish a theoretical framework for your paper, establish trends, and identify gaps in the research. This process should bring your research question into clearer focus and help define a thesis that you will argue for in your paper. This is perhaps the most common and general type of literature review. The examples listed below are all designed to serve a more specific purpose.
• Argumentative : The purpose of an argumentative literature review is to select sources for the purpose of supporting or refuting a specific claim. While this type of review can help the author make a strong case for or against an issue, they can also be prone to claims of bias. Later in this textbook, we will read about the distinction between warranted and unwarranted bias . One is ok and the other is not.
• Chronological : A chronological review is used when the author wants to demonstrate the progression of how a theory, methodology, or issue has progressed over time. This method is most effective when there is a clear chronological path to the research about a specific historical event or trend as opposed to a more recursive theoretical concept.
• By trend : This is similar to the chronological approach except it focuses on clearly-defined trends rather than date ranges. This would be most appropriate if you want to illustrate changing perspectives or attitudes about a given issue when specific date ranges are less important than the ebb and flow of the trend.
• Thematic : In this type of literature review, the author will select specific themes that he or she feels are important to understanding a larger topic or concept. Then, the author will organize the sources around those themes, which are often based on relevance or importance. The value of this method is that the process of organizing the review by theme is similar to constructing an argument. This can help the author see how resources connect to each other and determine how as well as why specific sources support their thesis.
• Theoretical : The goal of this type of review is to examine how theory has shaped the research on a given topic. It establishes existing theoretical models, their connections, and how extensively they have been developed in the published research. For example, Jada applied critical race theory to her analysis of Sonny’s Blues , but she might also consider conducting a more comprehensive review of other theoretical frameworks such as feminism, Marxism, or postmodernism. Doing so could provide insight into alternate readings, and help her identify theoretical gaps such as unexplored or under-developed approaches to Baldwin’s work.
• Methodological : The approach focuses on the various methodologies used by researchers in a specific area rather than an analysis of their findings. In this case, you would create a framework of approaches to data collection related to your topic or research question. This is perhaps more common in education or the social and hard sciences where published research often includes a methods section, but it is sometimes appropriate for the digital humanities as well.
• Scoping : The aim of a scoping review is to provide a comprehensive overview or map of the published research or evidence related to a research question. This might be considered a prelude to a systematic review that would take the scoping review one step further toward answering a clearly defined research question. See below for more details.
• Systematic : The systematic review is most appropriate when you have a clearly-defined research question and have established criteria for the types of sources you need. In this way, the systematic review is less exploratory than other types of reviews. Rather, it is comprehensive, strategic, and focused on answering a specific research question. For this reason, the systematic review is more common in the health and social sciences, where comprehensiveness is more important. Literature reviews in the Humanities are not usually exhaustive but tend to show only the most representative or salient developments in the scholarship.
• Meta-analysis : Does your research deal with statistics or large amounts of data? If so, then a meta-analysis might be best for you rather than providing a critical review, the meta-analysis will summarize and synthesize the results of numerous studies that involve statistics or data to provide a more comprehensive picture than would be possible from just one study.

An argumentative literature review presents and takes sides in scholarly arguments about the literary work. It makes arguments about other scholars’ work. It does not necessarily involve a claim that the literary work is itself making an argument. Likewise, a chronological literature review presents the scholarly literature in chronological order.

You don’t need to keep strictly to one type. Scholars often combine features from various types of literature reviews. A sample review that combines the follow types –

• Argumentative
• Theoretical
• Methodological

– is the excellent work of Eiranen, Reetta, Mari Hatavara, Ville Kivimäki, Maria Mäkelä & Raisa Maria Toivo (2022) “ Narrative and Experience: Interdisciplinary Methodologies between History and Narratology , ” Scandinavian Journal of History , 47:1, 1-15

When writing your literature review, please follow these pointers:

• Conduct systematic searches
• Use Evidence
• Be Selective
• Use Quotes Sparingly
• Summarize & Synthesize
• Use Caution when Paraphrasing
• Use Your Own Voice

Advice from James Mason University’s “Literature Reviews: An Overview”

A note on synthesizing : Don’t make the common mistake of summarizing individual studies or articles one after the other. The goal is to synthesize — that is, to make observations about groups of studies. Synthesis often uses language like this:

• Much of the literature on [topic x ] focuses on [major themes].
• In recent years, researchers have begun investigating [facets a , b , and c ] of [topic x ].
• The studies in this review of [topic x ] confirm / suggest / call into question / support [idea / practice / finding / method / theory / guideline y ].
• In the reviewed studies [variable x ] was generally associated with higher / lower rates of [outcome y ].
• A limitation of some / most / all of these studies is [ y ].

Please see this sample annotated literature review  from James Mason University.

Structure of a literature review [1]

• Problematization: The 2 to 3 pages of problematization are a distinct, iterative, step. It may take doing such a statement a few times before moving forward to writing the actual paper.
• Search: Write down your keyword sets, your updated keyword sets, and databases. It is perfectly within a reviewer’s rights to ask for these details.
• Summary: Really getting to know major themes requires some annotation of articles. You want to identify core papers and themes and write about them. This helps you really learn the material. [ChatGPT or Wikipedia are no substitute for deep engagement with a paper.]
• Argument: Either outline or create a slide deck that help you express the arguments in your paper. Read them out loud. Have friends look at them. Present them. [Every literature review has an argument. If not, it’s a summary. A summary does not merit publication in a top outlet.]
• Unpacking: Once you’ve nailed the short pitch, unpack the full argument. [ a) Take time in each major section to map out a) the argument, b) the supporting evidence, and the takeaway. b) Take those major sections, reconcile them, make sure they don’t overlap, then move on to writing. c) Sketch out the paper’s sections, tables, figures, and appendices.]
• Writing: Writing is the easy part. You can always put words to the screen. [Revising and improving is hard. Make time to write every day. Improving requires feedback. Find a writing partner to give feedback. Create your tables and figures. Write to them. Make sure the words in the paper align to the visuals.]
• Communicate: When the paper is done, go back and create a paper presentation. [I do this for the papers that I’m most serious about. The act of storyboarding helps me sort out the small pieces of the story that don’t fit together. If I really want it to succeed, I present it. The act of presenting helps me get it right. My best papers sometimes take seven or eight presentations to get it right. Then I return to the paper and fine tune it. Only then, does it have a shot at a top outlet.]

Literature reviews can be published as part of a scholarly article, often after the introduction and sometimes with a header, but they can also be published as a standalone essay. To find examples of what reviews look like in your discipline, choose an appropriate subject database (such as MLA for literary criticism) and conduct a keyword search with the term “Literature Review” added in quotes:

Not only do these examples demonstrate how to structure different types of literature reviews, but some offer insights into trends and directions for future research. In the next section, we’ll take a closer look at some reading strategies to help guide you through this process.

Since scholars already have produced literature reviews on various scholarly conversations, you don’t always need to “reinvent the wheel” (start a literature review from nothing). You can find a published literature review and update it or amend it; scholars do that all the time. However, you must properly cite work you incorporate from others.

• What types of literature review will you be using for your paper? Why did you make this selection over others? If you haven’t made a selection yet, which types are you considering?
• What specific challenges do you face in following a literature review structure?
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?
• Richard West, Brigham Young University, amended by Jason Thatcher, Temple University - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_academicwriting-topten2023-activity-7146507675021766656-BB0O ↵

Types of Literature Reviews Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Complete the Macdonald-Kelce Library Survey

Take the Library Survey and enter to win a prize!

Literature review.

• Introduction to Literature Reviews
• Purpose and Scope
• Types of Lit Reviews
• Finding Published Literature Reviews
• Writing the Lit Review
• Books and Websites

Types of Literature Reviews

There are four main types of literature reviews:

Narrative or Traditional

• Summarizes and analyzes a body of literature on a particular subject. This type of lit review is useful for providing background and overview and for illuminating areas for further research. The least methodologically rigorous type of lit review makes this type appropriate for academic courses and can be helpful in focusing a topic and in further refining a research question.
• Example article:

Aphramor, L. (2010). Validity of claims made in weight management research: a narrative review of dietetic articles.  Nutrition Journal , 9 30-38.

• Employs strict methodology and selection criteria to address a clearly defined research question. Systematic reviews include as many relevant published and unpublished studies as possible using careful evaluation for quality, rigorous methods to limit bias, and strict controls to avoid selective inclusion or exclusion. Multiple reviewers are common and methods are carefully detailed for replicability.
• Example article (log into MyUTampa for access):

Bandera, E.V., Kushi, L.H., Moore, D. F., Gifkins, D.M., McCullough, M.L. (2007, November). Consumption of animal foods and endometrial cancer risk: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes & Controls , 18(9), 967-988. 

Meta-analysis  

• A type of quantitative systematic literature review which involves statistical analysis of multiple research studies to reveal patterns, relationships, and to integrate findings from many studies on the same subject.

Faragher, E.B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C.L. (2005, February). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 62(2), 105-112.

Meta-s ynthesis

• A type of non-statistical review which analyzes and synthesizes qualitative research studies to locate common elements, themes, and core similarities to build theory and develop new conceptualizations.

Priddis, H., Dahlen, H., Schmied, V. (2013, April).Women’s experiences following severe perineal trauma: a metaethnographic synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 69(4), 748–759. doi: 10.1111/jan.12005

• << Previous: Purpose and Scope
• Next: Finding Published Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 1:47 PM
• URL: https://utopia.ut.edu/literaturereviews

Macdonald-Kelce Library - The University of Tampa - 401 W. Kennedy Blvd. - Tampa, FL 33606 - 813 257-3056 - [email protected] - Accessibility

How to Conduct a Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?

Types of Literature Reviews

• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Citation Help

Need more help? Ask a librarian!

• Online Form
• Contact a Subject Specialist

Reference hours:

• Mon-Thurs: 9 am - 11 pm
• Fri: 9 am - 4 pm
• Sat: 9 am - 4:30 pm
• Sun: 3 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Literature reviews are pervasive throughout various academic disciplines, and thus you can adopt various approaches to effectively organize and write your literature review.  The University of Southern California created a summarized list of the various types of literature reviews, reprinted here:

• Argumentative Review
• Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication.
• Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical reviews are focused on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.
• Methodological Review A review does not always focus on  what  someone said [content], but  how  they said it [method of analysis]. This approach provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches and data collection and analysis techniques), enables researchers to draw on a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection and data analysis, and helps highlight many ethical issues which we should be aware of and consider as we go through our study.
• Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"
• Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to concretely examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review help establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.
• << Previous: Starting Your Research
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Jun 30, 2023 12:01 PM
• URL: https://libguides.jsu.edu/literaturereview

Literature Review: Lit Review Types

• Lit Review Types
• GRADE System
• Do a Lit Review
• Citation Justice
• Lit Review Sources
• AI for Research This link opens in a new window

Types of literature Reviews

[For a compiled list of review types, see: "Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements" :  https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276 ]

Traditional or Narrative literature Review

• Critiques and summarizes a body of literature
• Draws conclusions about the topic
• Identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge
• Requires a sufficiently focused research question

Weaknesses:

• A large number of studies may make it difficult to draw conclusions
• The process is subject to bias that supports the researcher's own work.

Systematic Literature Review

• More rigorous and well-defined approach
• Comprehensive
• Published and unpublished studies relating to a particular subject area
• Details the time frame within which the literature was selected
• Details the methods used to evaluate and synthesize findings of the studies in question

Example of systematic review

Meta-analysis

• A form of systematic review (reductive)
• Takes findings from several studies on the same subject and analyzes them using standardized statistical procedures
• Integrates findings from a large body of quantitative findings to enhance under-standing (study=unit of analysis)
• Draws conclusions and detect patterns and relationships

Example of meta-analysis

Meta-synthesis

• Non-statistical technique
• Integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies
• Identifies common core elements and themes
• May use findings from phenomenological, grounded theory or ethnographic studies
• Involves analyzing and synthesizing key elements
• Goal:  transform individual findings into new conceptualizations and interpretations

Example of meta-synthesis

Systematic Review Resources

• Systematic Reviews: the process: Types of Reviews A full list of types of reviews with definitions from Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives.
• SR Database Cheat Sheet Created 2020 by Taubman Health Sciences Library

See Also: Systematic Review LibGuide

• AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews
• AMSTAR 2: Appraisal tool for systematic reviews of randomized and observational studies (non-randomized studies)
• Campbell Systematic Reviews A peer-reviewed online monograph series of systematic reviews with a focus on international research evidence on the effects of interventions in crime and justice, education, international development, disability and social welfare.
• CASP Appraisal Checklists "This set of eight critical appraisal tools are designed to be used when reading research, these include tools for Systematic Reviews, Randomised Controlled Trials, Cohort Studies, Case Control Studies, Economic Evaluations, Diagnostic Studies, Qualitative studies and Clinical Prediction Rule." (Free download under Creative Commons License)
• Cochrane Library This link opens in a new window Collection of six databases in medicine and healthcare that contain different types of independent evidence to inform clinical decision-making.
• Data Management Plan Template: Systematic Reviews Template Author(s): Heather Ganshorn, Zahra Premji, Libraries and Cultural Resources, Paul E. Ronksley, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary Published: April 9, 2021
• Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews Read online for free: includes downloadable standards.
• McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies
• << Previous: Home
• Next: GRADE System >>
• Last Updated: May 24, 2024 9:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utoledo.edu/litreview

Faculty / Staff Search

Department / unit search.

• Student Services

• Catalogue & Collections
• Research Support
• My Library Account
• Videos and How-Tos
• typesofliteraturereviews

Videos & How-Tos

• YouTube Playlist
• Email us about Videos & How-Tos

Literature Reviews, Introduction to Different Types of

There are many different types of literature reviews, each with its own approach, analysis, and purpose. To confuse matters, these types aren't named consistently. The following are some of the more common types of literature reviews.

These are more rigorous, with some level of appraisal:

• The Systematic Review is important to health care and medical trials, and other subjects where methodology and data are important. Through rigorous review and analysis of literature that meets a specific criteria, the systematic review identifies and compares answers to health care related questions. The systematic review may include meta-analysis and meta-synthesis, which leads us to...
• The Quantitative or Qualitative Meta-analysis Review can both make up the whole or part of systematic review(s). Both are thorough and comprehensive in condensing and making sense of a large body of research. The quantitative meta-analysis reviews quantitative research, is objective, and includes statistical analysis. The qualitative meta-analysis reviews qualitative research, is subjective (or evaluative, or interpretive), and identifies new themes or concepts.

These don't always include a formal assessment or analysis:

• The Literature Review (see our Literature Review video) or Narrative Review often appears as a chapter in a thesis or dissertation. It describes what related research has already been conducted, how it informs the thesis, and how the thesis fits into the research in the field. (See https://student.unsw.edu.au/writing-critical-review for more information.)
• The Critical Review is like a literature review, but requires a more detailed examination of the literature, in order to compare and evaluate a number of perspectives.
• The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation or research proposal. It is conducted before the research begins, and sets the stage for this research by highlighting gaps in the literature, and explaining the need for the research about to be conducted, which is presented in the remainder of the article.
• The Conceptual Review groups articles according to concepts, or categories, or themes. It identifies the current 'understanding' of the given research topic, discusses how this understanding was reached, and attempts to determine whether a greater understanding can be suggested. It provides a snapshot of where things are with this particular field of research.
• The State-of-the-Art Review is conducted periodically, with a focus on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic, and highlights where are there still disagreements.

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

Contact us for more assistance

1151 Richmond Street London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7 Tel: 519-661-2111 Privacy | Web Standards | Terms of Use | Accessibility

About the Libraries

Library Accessibility

Library Privacy Statement

Land Acknowledgement

Support the Libraries

Literature Reviews, Critiquing, & Synthesizing Literature

• Literature Review

Types of Literature Reviews

Literature review types -- comparing, learning about study designs, critically appraised topics -- writing, integrative lit review.

• Literature Review Steps Videos
• Critiquing Literature / Critical Review
• Synthesizing Literature
• Summarizing Articles
• Other Lit Review LibGuides

Types of Literature Reviews:

Critically Appraised Topic (CATs) :  A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a short summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a clinical question. A CAT is like a shorter and less rigorous version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic.

Integrative Review: A review via a systematic approach that uses a detailed search strategy to find relevant evidence to answer a targeted clinical question. Evidence can come from RCTs, observational studies, qualitative research, clinical experts, and other types of evidence. Does not use summary statistics.

Meta-analysis:  a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance.

Narrative or Traditional Review:  Critical research summary on a topic of interest, often to put a research problem into context. Captures a “snapshot” of the clinical problem or issue.

Rapid Review :  A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data.

Scoping Review  A s coping review is a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. It involves an extensive literature search and often uses structured mapping or charting of the literature.

Systematic Review : Comprehensive search strategies and rigorous research appraisal methods surrounding a clinical issue or question. Evidence is primarily based upon  RCTs . Used to summarize, appraise, & communicate contradictory results or unmanageable amounts of research.

Umbrella Review : An umbrella review is a systematic collection and assessment of multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a specific research topic

• Lit Review vs Systematic Rev vs Meta Analysis
• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Chart comparing Systematic Review Vs Literature Review Chart explaining differences. Chart by L. Kysh, MLIS from U. Ca
• Conducting umbrella reviews Belbasis, L., Bellou, V., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2022). Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ medicine, 1(1).
• Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222.
• Part 1: Difference between systematic reviews and rapid reviews (4:43) Cochrane Training video.
• Rapid literature review: definition and methodology Smela, B., Toumi, M., Świerk, K., Francois, C., Biernikiewicz, M., Clay, E., & Boyer, L. (2023). Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. Journal of market access & health policy, 11(1), 2241234. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234
• Reviewing Research: Literature Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews: Differentiating the Three Review Types University of Buffalo LibGuide
• Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: Applications in veterinary medicine Sargeant, J. M., & O'Connor, A. M. (2020). Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: Applications in veterinary medicine. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 11-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00011
• Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
• Systematic Review Service: What Type of Review is Right for You? University of Maryland Health Sciences and Human Services Library Decide with type of review. Decision Tree included.
• Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative References Getting Help Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative Review Duquesne University
• What Type of Review is Right for You? Cornell University Library Flowchart to decide about which review to use.
• Study Design 101 Tutorial by George Washington University. Describes different study designs.

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs)

• CEBMa Guideline for Critically Appraised Topics in Management and Organizations Barends, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Briner, R. B. (2017). CEBMa guideline for critically appraised topics in management and organizations. Center for Evidence-Based Management. https://cebma. org/wp-content/uploads/CEBMa-CAT-Guidelines. pdf.
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was developed in Oxford in 1993 and has since helped to develop an evidence based approach in health and social care, working with local, national and international partner organisations.
• Evidence Based Medicine IV: how to find an evidence-based answer to a clinical question? Make a critically appraised topic! Beckers, G. M. A., Herbst, K., Kaefer, M., Harper, L., Castagnetti, M., Bagli, D., Kalfa, N., Fossum, M., & ESPU Research Committee. (2019). Evidence based medicine IV: How to find an evidence-based answer to a clinical question? make a critically appraised topic. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 15(4), 409-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.05.009
• EXAMPLE: The Use of Orthotic Insoles to Prevent Lower Limb Overuse Injuries: A Critically Appraised Topic Kelly JL, Valier AR. The Use of Orthotic Insoles to Prevent Lower Limb Overuse Injuries: A Critically Appraised Topic. J Sport Rehabil. 2018 Nov 1;27(6):591-595. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2016-0142. Epub 2018 Oct 13. PMID: 28952905.
• How to Perform a Critically Appraised Topic: Part 1, Ask, Search, and Apply Aine Marie Kelly and Paul Cronin American Journal of Roentgenology November 2011, Volume 197, Number 5
• How to Perform a Critically Appraised Topic: Part 2, Appraise, Evaluate, Generate, and Recommend Aine Marie Kelly and Paul Cronin American Journal of Roentgenology November 2011, Volume 197, Number 5
• How to write a critically appraised topic (CAT) Sadigh, G., Parker, R., Kelly, A. M., & Cronin, P. (2012). How to write a critically appraised topic (CAT). Academic radiology, 19(7), 872–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.005
• How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice Callander J, Anstey AV, Ingram JR, Limpens J, Flohr C, Spuls PI. How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice. Br J Dermatol. 2017 Oct;177(4):1007-1013. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15873. Epub 2017 Oct 1. PMID: 28967117.
• What is a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) Physiopedia

Integrative Review:  A review via a systematic approach that uses a detailed search strategy to find relevant evidence to answer a targeted clinical question. Evidence can come from RCTs, observational studies, qualitative research, clinical experts, and other types of evidence. Does not use summary statistics.

• Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande S, Taylor A, Meyer S, Scott M. Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers. J Res Nurs. 2021 Aug;26(5):427-438. doi: 10.1177/1744987121997907. Epub 2021 Aug 5. PMID: 35251272; PMCID: PMC8894639.
• The integrative review: Updated methodology. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
• Strategies for completing a successful integrative review Oermann, M. H., & Knafl, K. A. (2021). Strategies for completing a successful integrative review. Nurse Author & Editor, 31(3-4), 65-68.
• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Literature Review Steps Videos >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 8:44 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ahu.edu/LitReviewSum

Resources listed on these guides are compiled by librarians at the R.A. Williams Library. We accept content recommendations, and after review, may include suggested resources on a guide. Our time is limited, so we generally do not reply to unsolicited recommendations from individuals not affiliated with AdventHealth University or notify them regarding whether or not we have linked to suggested content.

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

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

By Laura Brown on 13th October 2023

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

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

What is Literature Review?

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

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

It serves with some specific purpose in the research.

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

4 Major Types Of Literature Review

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

1. Narrative Review

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

2. Systematic Review

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

3. Meta Analysis

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

4. Scoping Review

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

Different Types Of Literature review In Research

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

5. Critical Review

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

6. Theoretical Review

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

7. Integrative Review

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

8. Historical Review

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

9. Methodological Review

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

10. Cross-Disciplinary Review

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

11. Descriptive Review

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

12. Rapid Review

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

13. Conceptual Review

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

14. Library Research

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

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

Choosing the Ideal Literature Review Approach in Academics

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

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

Bonus Tip: Crafting an Effective Literature Review

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

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

Some Useful Tools And Resources For You

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

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

Some Common Mistakes To Avoid

Avoid these common mistakes when crafting literature reviews.

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

While Summing Up On Various Types Of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

• About Covidence and systematic reviews

What are the different types of review?

Systematic literature reviews (slrs).

SLR’s attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific clearly-formulated research question.  A SLR uses explicit and reproducible systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.

The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesizes the extracted study data and presents the results. 

A SLR may contain meta-analyses (statistical analysis). A SLR which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available is often known as a living SLR.

Rapid reviews

Rapid reviews aim to produce a rigorous synthesis quickly (due to time constraints/urgency), based on a pre-defined research question. The review process for rapid reviews is the same as for a more traditional systematic review: the emphasis is on a replicable pre-specified search, and screening methods that minimize the risk of bias, although potentially isn’t as stringent as a formal systematic review.

The process operates within pre-specified limits (for example, by restricting searches to articles published during a specific timeframe) and is usually run by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in systematic review methods.

Umbrella reviews or Overview of reviews

An umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes. 

Scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are exploratory and they typically address a broad question, compared to a systematic review that typically has a more targeted question. 

Researchers conduct scoping reviews to assess the extent of the available evidence, to organize it into groups and to highlight gaps. If a scoping review finds no studies, this might help researchers to decide that a systematic review is likely to be of limited value and that resources could be better directed elsewhere.

Literature reviews or narrative reviews

Literature, or narrative, reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are often topic based  and can take the form of a discussion. Literature reviews lack precision and replicability and can  present their findings in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented in a narrative format rather than statistical methods.

Take a look at the articles about the different types of review on the Covidence blog:

• Systematic review types: meet the family
• The difference between a systematic review and a literature review
• The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis

Which review is that? A guide to review types

• Which review is that?
• Review Comparison Chart
• Decision Tool
• Critical Review
• Integrative Review
• Narrative Review
• State of the Art Review
• Narrative Summary
• Systematic Review
• Meta-analysis
• Comparative Effectiveness Review
• Diagnostic Systematic Review
• Network Meta-analysis
• Prognostic Review
• Psychometric Review
• Review of Economic Evaluations
• Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies
• Living Systematic Reviews
• Umbrella Review
• Review of Reviews
• Rapid Review
• Rapid Evidence Assessment
• Rapid Realist Review
• Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
• Qualitative Interpretive Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Meta-synthesis
• Qualitative Research Synthesis
• Framework Synthesis - Best-fit Framework Synthesis
• Meta-aggregation
• Meta-ethnography
• Meta-interpretation
• Meta-narrative Review
• Meta-summary
• Thematic Synthesis
• Mixed Methods Synthesis
• Narrative Synthesis
• Bayesian Meta-analysis
• EPPI-Centre Review
• Critical Interpretive Synthesis
• Realist Synthesis - Realist Review
• Scoping Review
• Mapping Review
• Systematised Review
• Concept Synthesis
• Expert Opinion - Policy Review
• Technology Assessment Review
• Methodological Review
• Systematic Search and Review

This quick reference tool provides information on a wide range of literature review types that are available for research synthesis for publication and research purposes.  

Graphic and guide based on on the work of  Sutton et al., (2019) on 'Review Families'.

*Note to students undertaking a literature review as part of coursework:

It is recommended that students undertaking a literature review as part of their coursework follow the literature review guidelines provided within their subject as they may include selected elements of full literature reviews suitable to the learning task.

References Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.  Health Information & Libraries Journal ,  36 (3), 202-222.  Full Text

• Next: Review Comparison Chart >>
• Last Updated: Jun 5, 2024 10:35 AM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/whichreview

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

Literature reviews are crucial for demonstrating progress and a comprehensive understanding of a subject. However, an unorganized growth in literature can lead to complicated and competing arguments, hindering progress. This research delves into different types of literature reviews and the common mistakes researchers make when conducting them. Learning how to efficiently conduct a literature review is essential for success in academia and professional careers.

1. Introduction

2. types of literature review.

• Narrowing the subject and picking papers accordingly
• Literature search
• Reading and reviewing the selected articles thoroughly
• Organizing the chosen papers by identifying patterns and developing subthemes
• Creating a thesis or mission statement
• Developing the paper
• Reviewing the work

2.1. Narrative Literature Review

2.2. systematic literature review, 2.3. meta-analysis literature review, 2.4. umbrella literature review, 2.5. descriptive literature review, 2.6. scoping literature review, 2.7. critical literature review, 3. common errors in conducting literature review, 4. thumb rules in writing literature review.

• Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339.
• Kelley, C. Reviewing literature and formulating problems. In The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 83–92.
• Paré, G.; Trudel, M.-C.; Jaana, M.; Kitsiou, S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 183–199.
• Baumeister, R.F. Writing a literature review. In The Portable Mentor; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 119–132.
• Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994.
• Mohamed-Shaffril, H.A.; Samsuddin, S.F.; Abu Samah, A. The ABC of systematic literature review: The basic methodological guidance for beginners. Qual. Quant. 2021, 55, 1319–1346.
• Green, B.N.; Johnson, C.D.; Adams, A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. J. Chiropr. Med. 2006, 5, 101–117.
• Bastian, H.; Glasziou, P.; Chalmers, I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000326.
• Rienties, B.; Hampel, R.; Scanlon, E.; Whitelock, D. Reflecting on the main findings and practical applications. In Open World Learning: Research, Innovation and the Challenges of High-Quality Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 264–272.
• Palmatier, R.W.; Houston, M.B.; Hulland, J. Review Articles: Purpose, Process, and Structure; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–5.
• Boyd, B.K.; Solarino, A.M. Ownership of corporations: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1282–1314.
• LaMarre, A.; Chamberlain, K. Innovating qualitative research methods: Proposals and possibilities. Methods Psychol. 2022, 6, 100083.
• Bah, E.; Njoume, F.E.; Nague, L.; Mbozo’O, Y.O.; Dongmo, A.; Mback, E.L.; Berinyuy, M.; Ravana, P.; Kourfed, S.; Noah, R.; et al. Early introduction of African medical students into scientific research: A viewpoint and literature review of the importance, barriers, and proposed solutions. Front. Emerg. Med. 2021, 6, e24.
• van Dinter, R.; Tekinerdogan, B.; Catal, C. Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2021, 136, 106589.
• Cooper, H.M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl. Technol. Policy 1988, 1, 104–126.
• Denney, A.S.; Tewksbury, R. How to write a literature review. J. Crim. Justice Educ. 2013, 24, 218–234.
• Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1997, 1, 311–320.
• Juntunen, M.; Lehenkari, M. A narrative literature review process for an academic business research thesis. Stud. High. Educ. 2019, 46, 330–342.
• Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222.
• Pickering, C.; Grignon, J.; Steven, R.; Guitart, D.; Byrne, J. Publishing not perishing: How research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews. Stud. High. Educ. 2014, 40, 1756–1769.
• Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2002, 13–23.
• Collins, J.A.; Fauser, B.C. Balancing the Strengths of Systematic and Narrative Reviews; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 103–104.
• Schlesselman, J.J.; Collins, J.A. Evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In Seminars in Reproductive Medicine; Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
• Bearman, M.; Smith, C.; Carbone, A.; Slade, S.C.; Baik, C.; Hughes-Warrington, M.; Neumann, D. Systematic review methodology in higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2012, 31, 625–640.
• Jesson, J.; Matheson, L.; Lacey, F.M. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011.
• Popay, J.; Roberts, H.; Sowden, A.; Petticrew, M.; Arai, L.; Rodgers, M.; Britten, N.; Roen, K.; Duffy, S. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme; Institute for Health Research: London, UK, 2006; Volume 1, p. b92.
• Mulrow, C.D. The Medical Review Article: State of the Science. Ann. Intern. Med. 1987, 106, 485–488.
• Hunter, C.; Januszyk, M.; Wan, D.C.; Momeni, A. Systematic Reviews in Craniofacial Trauma—Strengths and Weaknesses. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2016, 77, 363–368.
• Finckh, A.; Tramèr, M.R. Primer: Strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis. Nat. Clin. Pract. Rheumatol. 2008, 4, 146–152.
• Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019.
• Gurevitch, J.; Koricheva, J.; Nakagawa, S.; Stewart, G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 2018, 555, 175–182.
• Ahn, E.; Kang, H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2018, 71, 103–112.
• Coughlan, M.; Cronin, P.; Ryan, F. Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. Br. J. Nurs. 2007, 16, 658–663.
• Russo, M.W. How to review a meta-analysis. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007, 3, 637.
• Hussain, N.; Bookwala, A.; Sancheti, P.; Bhandari, M. The 3-min appraisal of a meta-analysis. Indian J. Orthop. 2011, 45, 4.
• Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 2006, 29, 489–497.
• King, W.R.; He, J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 16, 32.
• Rosenthal, R.; DiMatteo, M.R. Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 59–82.
• Higgins, J. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.; The Cochrane Collaboration: London, UK, 2011; Volume 6.
• Deeks, J.J.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 241–284.
• Fusar-Poli, P.; Radua, J. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid. Based Ment. Health 2018, 21, 95–100.
• Dipietro, L.; Evenson, K.R.; Bloodgood, B.; Sprow, K.; Troiano, R.; Piercy, K.L.; Vaux-Bjerke, A.; Powell, K.E.; 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Benefits of Physical Activity during Pregnancy and Postpartum: An Umbrella Review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 1292–1302.
• Aromataris, E.; Fernandea, R.; Godfray, C.M.; Holly, C.; Khalil, H.; Tungpunkom, P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evid. Implement. 2015, 13, 132–140.
• Siontis, K.C.; Hernandez-Boussard, T.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: Survey of published studies. BMJ 2013, 347, f4501.
• Bellou, V.; Belbasis, L.; Tzoulaki, I.; Evangelou, E.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. Park. Relat. Disord. 2016, 23, 1–9.
• Faulkner, G.; Fagan, M.J.; Lee, J. Umbrella reviews (systematic review of reviews). Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2021, 15, 1–18.
• Yang, H.; Tate, M. A descriptive literature review and classification of cloud computing research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 31, 2.
• Schlagenhaufer, C.; Amberg, M. A descriptive literature review and classification framework for gamification in information systems. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Münster, Germany, 26–29 May 2015.
• Whetten, D.A. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 490–495.
• Rumrill, P.D.; Fitzgerald, S.M.; Merchant, W.R. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work 2010, 35, 399–404.
• Hartling, L.; Chisholm, A.; Thomson, D.; Dryden, D.M. A Descriptive Analysis of Overviews of Reviews Published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49667.
• Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Jaiswal, M.P. Classification of Smart City Research—A Descriptive Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 661–685.
• O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Baxter, L.; Tricco, A.C.; Straus, S.; Wickerson, L.; Nayar, A.; Moher, D.; O’Malley, L. Advancing scoping study methodology: A web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 305.
• Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.; Colquhoun, H.; Kastner, M.; Levac, D.; Ng, C.; Sharpe, J.P.; Wilson, K.; et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2016, 16, 1–10.
• Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O’Brien, K.K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010, 5, 19.
• Colling, J. Demystifying the clinical nursing research process: The literature review. Urol. Nurs. 2003, 23, 297–299.
• Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005, 4, 356–367.
• Geneidy, O.; Ismaeel, W.S.; Abbas, A. A critical review for applying three-dimensional concrete wall printing technology in Egypt. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2019, 62, 438–452.
• Graça, M.; Cruz, S.; Monteiro, A.; Neset, T.-S. Designing urban green spaces for climate adaptation: A critical review of research outputs. Urban Clim. 2022, 42, 101126.
• Mukasyan, A.; Rogachev, A.; Moskovskikh, D.; Yermekova, Z. Reactive spark plasma sintering of exothermic systems: A critical review. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 2988–2998.
• Fisch, C.; Block, J. Six Tips for Your (Systematic) Literature Review in Business and Management Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 103–106.
• Paul, J.; Criado, A.R. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29, 101717.
• Torraco, R.J. Writing integrative reviews of the literature: Methods and purposes. Int. J. Adult Vocat. Educ. Technol. IJAVET 2016, 7, 62–70.
• Callahan, J.L. Writing Literature Reviews: A Reprise and Update; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 271–275.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Reviews
• Work with a Search Expert
• Covidence Review Software

Choosing a Review Type

Types of literature reviews.

• Evidence in a Systematic Review
• Information Sources
• Search Strategy
• Managing Records
• Selection Process
• Data Collection Process
• Study Risk of Bias Assessment
• Reporting Results
• For Search Professionals

This guide focuses on the methodology for systematic reviews (SRs), but an SR may not be the best methodology to use to meet your project's goals. Use the articles listed here or in the Types of Literature Reviews box below for information about additional methodologies that could better fit your project. 

• Haddaway NR, Lotfi T, Mbuagbaw L. Systematic reviews: A glossary for public health . Scand J Public Health. 2022 Feb 9:14034948221074998. doi: 10.1177/14034948221074998. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35139715.
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. Defines 14 types of reviews and provides a helpful summary table on pp. 94-95.
• Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J . 2019;36(3):202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276
• If you're not sure what type of review is right for your quantitative review, use this tool to find the best methodology for your project.:What Review is Right for You? https://whatreviewisrightforyou.knowledgetranslation.net

Meta-Analyses

• Comparative Effectiveness
• systematically and transparently searches for a broad range of information to synthesize, in order to find the effect of an intervention.
• uses a protocol 
• has a clear data extraction and management plan.
• Time-intensive and often take months to a year or more to complete, even with a multi-person team. 

NOTE: The term "systematic review" is also used incorrectly as a blanket term for other types of reviews.

Methodological Guidance

• Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011. Institute of Medicine. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13059
• Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions, v. 6. 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
• The Joanna Briggs Reviewers Manual. 2024. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL
• The Community Guide/Methods/Systematic Review Methods. 2014. The Community Preventive Services Task Force. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/about/methods.html

For issues in systematic reviews, especially in social science or other qualitative research: 

• Some Potential "Pitfalls" in the Construction of Educational Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-017-0675-7
• Lescoat, A., Murphy, S. L., Roofeh, D., et al. (2021). Considerations for a combined index for limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis to support drug development and improve outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397198320961967
• DeLong, M. R., Tandon, V. J., Bertrand, A. A. (2021). Review of Outcomes in Prepectoral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction with and without Surgical Mesh Assistance.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33177453/
• Carey, M. R., Vaughn, V. M., Mann, J. (2020). Is Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Therapy Non-Inferior to Antibiotic Therapy in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: a Systematic Review.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32270403/
• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate  quantitative studies.
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results.
• May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review.
• Cochrane Handbook, Ch 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10
• Bauer, M. E., Toledano, R. D., Houle, T., et al. (2020). Lumbar neuraxial procedures in thrombocytopenic patients across populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31810860/ 6
• Mailoa J, Lin GH, Khoshkam V, MacEachern M, et al. Long-Term Effect of Four Surgical Periodontal Therapies and One Non-Surgical Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26110453/

Umbrella Reviews

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic. 
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review.
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider.
• Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses .  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35081993
• Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P.  2015 Methodology for JBI Umbrella Reviews. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl.
• Gastaldon, C., Solmi, M., Correll, C. U., et al. (2022). Risk factors of postpartum depression and depressive symptoms: umbrella review of current evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35081993/
• Blodgett, T. J., & Blodgett, N. P. (2021). Melatonin and melatonin-receptor agonists to prevent delirium in hospitalized older adults: An umbrella review.   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34749057/

Comparative effectiveness 

• Systematic reviews of existing research on the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and comparative harms of different health care interventions.
•  Intended to provide relevant evidence to inform real-world health care decisions for patients, providers, and policymakers.
• “Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.” Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/collections/cer-methods-guide
• Main document of above guide :  https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/cer-methods-guide_overview.pdf .
• Tanni KA, Truong CB, Johnson BS, Qian J. Comparative effectiveness and safety of eribulin in advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021 Jul;163:103375. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103375. Epub 2021 Jun 2. PMID: 34087344.
• Rice D, Corace K, Wolfe D, Esmaeilisaraji L, Michaud A, Grima A, Austin B, Douma R, Barbeau P, Butler C, Willows M, Poulin PA, Sproule BA, Porath A, Garber G, Taha S, Garner G, Skidmore B, Moher D, Thavorn K, Hutton B. Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions adjunctive to opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: A systematic review with network meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 28;15(12):e0244401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244401. PMID: 33370393; PMCID: PMC7769275.

​ Scoping Review or Evidence Map

Systematically and transparently collect and  categorize  existing evidence on a broad question of  policy or management importance.

Seeks to identify research gaps and opportunities for evidence synthesis rather than searching for the effect of an intervention. 

May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would. (see  EE Journal  and  CIFOR )

May take longer than a systematic review.

• For useful guidance on whether to conduct a scoping review or not, see Figure 1 in this article. Pollock, D , Davies, EL , Peters, MDJ , et al. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics . J Adv Nurs . 2021 ; 77 : 2102 – 2113 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14743For a helpful

Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework http://10.1080/1364557032000119616

Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. (2020) . JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.  JBI. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews

Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tet al. (2018)  Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30453902/

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Epub 2018 Sep 4. PMID: 30178033.  https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/M18-0850

Bouldin E, Patel SR, Tey CS, et al. Bullying and Children who are Deaf or Hard-of-hearing: A Scoping Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33438758

Finn M, Gilmore B, Sheaf G, Vallières F. What do we mean by individual capacity strengthening for primary health care in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic scoping review to improve conceptual clarity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33407554/

Hirt J, Nordhausen T, Meichlinger J, Braun V, Zeller A, Meyer G. Educational interventions to improve literature searching skills in the health sciences: a scoping review.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33013210/

​ Rapid Review

Useful for addressing issues needing timely decisions, such as developing policy recommendations. 

Applies systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting.

Employs intentional, methodological "shortcuts" (limiting search terms for example) at the risk of introducing bias.

Defining characteristic is the transparency of team methodological choices.

Garritty, Chantelle, Gerald Gartlehner, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Valerie J. King, Candyce Hamel, Chris Kamel, Lisa Affengruber, and Adrienne Stevens. “Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group Offers Evidence-Informed Guidance to Conduct Rapid Reviews.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 130 (February 2021): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 .

Klerings I , Robalino S , Booth A , et al. Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 19 April 2023. https:// 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112079

WHO. “WHO | Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide.” World Health Organization. Accessed February 11, 2022. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/ .

Dobbins, Maureen. “Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review,” 2017, 25.  https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf

Norris HC, Richardson HM, Benoit MC, et al. (2021) Utilization Impact of Cost-Sharing Elimination for Preventive Care Services: A Rapid Review.   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34157906/

Marcus N, Stergiopoulos V. Re-examining mental health crisis intervention: A rapid review comparing outcomes across police, co-responder and non-police models. Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Feb 1. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13731. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35103364.

Narrative ( Literature ) Review

A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology.

See Baethge 2019 below for a method to provide quality assessment,

Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and time range covered will vary and do not follow an established protocol.

It provides insight into a particular topic by critically examining sources, generally over a particular period of time.

Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29578574/

• Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S. & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41073-019-0064-8   https:// researchintegrityjournal. biomedcentral.com/articles/10. 1186/s41073-019-0064-8
• Czypionka, T., Greenhalgh, T., Bassler, D., & Bryant, M. B. (2021). Masks and Face Coverings for the Lay Public : A Narrative Update. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33370173/
• Gardiner, F. W., Nwose, E. U., Bwititi, P. T., et al.. (2017). Services aimed at achieving desirable clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus: A narrative review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29201367/
•  Dickerson, S. S., Connors, L. M., Fayad, A., & Dean, G. E. (2014). Sleep-wake disturbances in cancer patients: narrative review of literature focusing on improving quality of life outcomes.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25050080/

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 18 June 2024

Influence of taping on joint proprioception: a systematic review with between and within group meta-analysis

• Shashank Ghai 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Ishan Ghai 5 &
• Susanne Narciss 3 , 4  

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume  25 , Article number:  480 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

60 Accesses

Metrics details

Taping is increasingly used to manage proprioceptive deficits, but existing reviews on its impact have shortcomings. To accurately assess the effects of taping, a separate meta-analyses for different population groups and tape types is needed. Therefore, both between- and within-group meta-analyses are needed to evaluate the influence of taping on proprioception. According to PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was conducted across seven databases (Web of Science, PEDro, Pubmed, EBSCO, Scopus, ERIC, SportDiscus, Psychinfo) and one register (CENTRAL) using the keywords “tape” and “proprioception”. Out of 1372 records, 91 studies, involving 2718 individuals, met the inclusion criteria outlined in the systematic review. The meta-analyses revealed a significant between and within-group reduction in repositioning errors with taping compared to no tape (Hedge’s g: -0.39, p  < 0.001) and placebo taping (Hedge’s g: -1.20, p  < 0.001). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses further confirmed the reliability of the overall between and within-group analyses. The between-group results further demonstrated that both elastic tape and rigid tape had similar efficacy to improve repositioning errors in both healthy and fatigued populations. Additional analyses on the threshold to detection of passive motion and active movement extent discrimination apparatus revealed no significant influence of taping. In conclusion, the findings highlight the potential of taping to enhance joint repositioning accuracy compared to no tape or placebo taping. Further research needs to uncover underlying mechanisms and refine the application of taping for diverse populations with proprioceptive deficits.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Over the past decade, taping has become a focal point in rehabilitation and performance science [ 1 ]. The increased application of this intervention is partly fueled by its enhanced viability [ 2 ], ease of application [ 3 ], availability [ 4 ], cost-effectiveness [ 5 , 6 ], and sometimes just a fashion statement [ 7 , 8 ]. Owing to these factors, the application of taping in the existing literature extends endlessly across different medical conditions [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], and sports [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The literature has proposed several mechanisms to explain the effects of taping [ 14 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. However, enhancing joint proprioception is one of the significant mechanisms of taping that is considered to facilitate recovery and performance [ 25 , 26 ]. Proprioception refers to an individual's ability to integrate sensory input from mechanoreceptors within musculoskeletal structures to determine the position of a body segment in space [ 27 ]. Deficiencies in proprioception are known to negatively affect joint biomechanics and neuromuscular control, increasing the risks of injury [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Therefore, stimulating proprioception during training is crucial for rehabilitation, as its enhancement could not only promote coordinated movements, joint stability, and control, but also reduce the likelihood of injuries [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. In the context of taping, research has indicated that the tactile stimulation from taping can activate mechanoreceptors that eventually augment the afferent input via the central pathways to augment proprioception [ 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Eventually, this increased afferent input is thought to further facilitate the efferent neuromuscular response, which increases both the speed and the quality of the muscle reaction [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Y Konishi [ 34 ] suggested that injury-induced damage to musculoskeletal structures could impair proprioception by deteriorating mechanoreceptors' ability to provide regular afferent feedback, crucial for modulating motor units. Under these conditions, tactile stimulation via taping might rescue alpha motor activity [ 34 ], while a "skin stretch" effect from taping could enhance proprioception by altering musculoskeletal kinetics [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Taping has demonstrated benefits in improving proprioception and preventing injuries by enhancing joint position sense and resisting harmful movements [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Additionally, taping may boost motor performance by enhancing neural activity, as shown in neuroimaging studies indicating increased activation in brain areas related to coordination and sensation [ 14 , 47 , 48 ].

Despite this mounting evidence suggesting the beneficial influence of taping on joint proprioception and its gaining popularity, a lack of consensus exists in the literature regarding its efficacy. For instance, while some individual trials have suggested the beneficial influence of taping on proprioception [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], others have suggested no effect [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ], or even a detrimental effect [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. Similarly, reviews [ 23 , 63 , 69 , 70 ], and meta-analyses [ 71 , 72 ], have reported inconclusive evidence regarding the overall efficacy of taping on joint proprioception. Within the meta-analyses, while one has reported no effect of taping on proprioception in people with a recurrent ankle sprain [ 71 ], the other reported a beneficial influence of taping on ankle repositioning in the same population group [ 72 ]. Likewise, the four systematic reviews also stated an inconclusive impact of tape on proprioceptive performance [ 23 , 63 , 69 , 70 ].

Besides the mixed findings, several limitations of the existent meta-analyses warrant an improved systematic review and meta-analysis [ 73 ]. The existing reviews are limited from both analytical and methodological points of view on several accounts. First, these reviews do not include several existing high-quality trials [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 57 , 64 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]. This lack of sufficient data could diminish the power of these meta-analyses and increase the probability that the observed results occurred due to a type II error. Second, none of these reviews conducted both between- and within-group meta-analyses. These findings could be significant because the between-group analyses can explain the differential outcome of taping compared to no-tape/placebo tape. In contrast, the within-group analyses could explain the magnitude of change in proprioceptive parameters before and after the taping. Findings on both, between- and within-group effects are needed to deduce appropriate training dosages or perform comparative evaluations with existing interventions in their training regimens. Third, it was observed that none of the existing meta-analyses analyzed the results differently among randomized controlled and controlled clinical trials. Such a differential analysis would allow for the classification of studies in a meta-analysis according to their inherent level of bias. Fourth, no review has differentiated the outcomes of taping according to an individual's health status. The two meta-analyses published to date have only evaluated the influence of taping on individuals with ankle instability [ 71 , 72 ]. Even though trials have reported the impact of taping among healthy individuals and individuals with stroke [ 77 , 84 ], osteoarthritis [ 85 , 86 ], anterior cruciate ligament injury/reconstruction [ 78 , 87 , 88 ], no review has attempted to differentially synthesize the efficacy of taping according to the health status of an individual. Evaluating this outcome is important to quantify the effectiveness of taping in different health conditions and could be helpful for both clinicians and patient population groups. Finally, no review has yet examined how the elasticity of tapes, including elastic and rigid tape, influences joint proprioceptive performance [ 89 , 90 ]. Elastic tapes, such as Kinesio and dynamic tape, are known to enhance proprioception due to their high stretch capabilities, allowing them to move and stretch with the body's natural movements and provide constant feedback to sensory receptors in the skin and underlying tissues [ 91 ]. In contrast, rigid tapes like athletic and Leuko tape prioritize support and stability over range of motion (47). A comparative assessment of elastic and rigid tapes could offer useful insights for clinicians, patients, and tape manufacturers on how tensile strength affects proprioceptive performance.

Research aims and questions

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a between-group analysis (i.e., taping vs placebo/no tape) and a within-group (i.e., pre-vs post-test) was conducted to determine the influence taping has on proprioception in healthy and patient population groups. The goal of the study is to allow clinicians to understand tape's overall impact while simultaneously allowing them to compare its efficacy with existing interventions. The main aims of this study are:

To evaluate the effect of taping on repositioning accuracy from between- and within-group analyses.

To evaluate the effect of taping on the threshold to detect passive movement from both between- and within-group analyses.

To evaluate the effect of taping on active movement extent discrimination accuracy from between- and within-group analyses.

To perform subgroup meta-analyses between individual studies according to the elasticity of tape (i.e., elastic, rigid tape), health status (i.e., healthy, patient population groups), and study design (i.e., randomized and non-randomized trials).

Material and methods

The PRISMA-SR 2020 guidelines were followed to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis. The checklist is presented in Table S1 . This systematic review was pre-registered at the PROSPERO (CRD42022344452).

Sources of data and search strategy

The systematic literature search was performed across seven databases (Web of Science, PEDro, Pubmed, EBSCO, Scopus, ERIC, SportDiscus, Psychinfo) and one register (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for the publication period from January 1970 until August 2023. These databases were chosen on the basis of access provided by the academic organization. The authors also conducted an extra search of the reference section of the included studies.

The review's criteria for study inclusion were established following the PICOS approach (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome of Interest, Study Design). Two researchers (S.G, I.G) determined the inclusion criteria, which were as follows:

Healthy population groups.

Population groups with musculoskeletal disorders (e.g., sprains, strains, tendinitis, repetitive stress injuries, degenerative joint diseases, traumatic injuries).

Population groups with neurological disorders (e.g., stroke, Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, degenerative neurological disorders).

Studies assessing the impact of taping on joint proprioception.

Proprioception acuity evaluated through joint repositioning tests, threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM), active movement extent discrimination apparatus (AMEDA) (for detailed test explanations, refer to [ 27 ]).

Studies comparing taping intervention outcomes with no taping or placebo tape.

All types of quantitative clinical studies, including randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, crossover trials, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and feasibility studies.

Studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals, theses, and conference proceedings.

Studies published in English, French, German, or Hindi.

Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the articles. In instances of disagreement regarding the selection of pertinent studies, the two authors engaged in discussions. The subsequent data were extracted from the articles: author names, country of research, participant details (age, sample size, gender distribution, health status), evaluated joint, taping method, taping technique, taping applicator, assessment durations, taping frequency, and outcomes.

Assessment of the methodological quality

The quality of the studies included in the review was assessed using the PEDro quality appraisal scale [ 92 ]. The interpretation of PEDro scale scores is as follows: studies scoring between 9 to 11 are considered "excellent quality," 6 to 8 are deemed "good quality," 4 to 5 are classified as "fair quality," and scores less than or equal to 3 are labeled "poor quality" [ 93 ]. Two researchers (SG, IG) independently conducted the appraisal of the studies.

Data analysis

In the present review, a between-group (taping vs. no taping comparator and taping vs. placebo comparator) and a within-group (pre- vs. post-taping) random effect meta-analysis was conducted with Comprehensive meta-analysis (V 4.0) [ 94 ]. The data for the meta-analysis was separately distributed and analyzed for each proprioceptive outcome (i.e., re-positioning accuracy, the threshold to detect motion passively, active movement extent discrimination accuracy). Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on study design (i.e., randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial), type of taping (i.e., elastic, rigid tape), and health status (i.e., healthy, musculoskeletal injury, neurological injury), and health status receiving different types of tape (elastic/rigid). The reported outcomes of the meta-analysis included weighted and adjusted effect size (i.e., Hedge’s g), 95% C.I., and significance level. The threshold for the interpretation of effect size is as follows: > 0.16 to < 0.38 is considered a small effect, ≥ 0.38 to < 0.76 as a medium effect, and ≥ 0.76 as a large effect [ 95 ]. Forest plots were generated to illustrate the overall results.

Besides, the presence of heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics. The threshold for interpreting the heterogeneity with I 2 statistics is as follows: between 0 to 25% considered negligible heterogeneity, 25% to 75% as moderate heterogeneity, and > 75% as substantial heterogeneity [ 96 ]. Additionally, “leave-one-out” sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the findings. The method systematically removes each study from the meta-analysis and re-analyzes the data to assess the influence of individual studies on the overall results. This helps to identify studies that may be driving the results and assess the robustness of the findings [ 97 ]. Additionally, an assessment of publication bias was carried out according to the trim and fill procedure by Duval and Tweedie [ 98 ]. The alpha level for the study was set at 5%.

Characteristics of included studies

The initial search across the seven databases and one registry yielded a total of 1372 articles, which after implementing the PICOS inclusion criteria, were reduced to 73 articles. Furthermore, during the examination of the citations within these included articles, 98 relevant articles were encountered. These additional articles underwent another round of screening, ultimately resulting in the inclusion of another 18, in total 91 articles. A PRISMA flow chart illustrates the entire selection process in Fig.  1 [ 99 ]. Thereafter, qualitative data were extracted from all included studies.

PRISMA flowchart (developed from an R package and Shiny application from [ 99 ])

Study design

Of the 91 included studies (Table S  2 ), 35 were randomized controlled trials [ 54 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 67 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 82 , 83 , 85 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ], 29 were randomized cross over design [ 48 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 66 , 81 , 84 , 90 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 ], 12 were pre-test post-test quasi experimental design [ 53 , 64 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 ], 10 were crossover trials [ 36 , 39 , 50 , 58 , 68 , 88 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 ], two were non-randomized controlled design [ 65 , 153 ], one was a cross-sectional design [ 154 ], and one was a retrospective cohort study [ 87 ]. Additionally, one study presented data from two different studies in which one was a pre-test post-test quasi experimental design and a randomized controlled design [ 86 ].

Risk of bias

The individual PEDro scoring for each included study has been tabulated in Table  1 . The average PEDro quality score of the 91 included studies was (5.2 ± 1.6), suggesting the overall quality of the included studies to be “fair”. Individually, 3% of studies scored 9, 5% scored 8, 10% scored 7, 26% scored 6, 22% scored 5, 18% scored 4, 11% scored 3, and 4% scored 2. As mentioned before, one study presented data from two different study in which one was a pre-test post-test quasi experimental design and a randomized controlled design [ 86 ]. The risk for bias for this study was appraised as 3 for the pre-test post-test quasi experimental design, and 8 for the randomized controlled design. The risk of bias scoring across the studies has also been illustrated in Fig.  2 .

Illustrating the presence/absence of risk of bias according to the PEDro scale

Publication bias

The incidence of publication bias according to Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure for the primary outcome of absolute error during joint position sense has been demonstrated in Fig. 3 . The method identified five missing studies on the left side of the mean effect, whereas no study was missing on the right side. In the analysis, under the random effect model, the point estimate and the 95% C.I. for the combined studies was -0.39 (-0.54 to -0.24). Using the trim and fill procedure, the imputed point estimates were -0.48 (-0.64 to -0.32).

A trim and fill funnel plot illustrating the publication bias. Each study is represented by an individual blue circle, whereas a unique red circle represents the imputed studies. The funnel plot area covers 95% of the pseudo-confidence intervals. The vertical midline represents the estimated overall effect size (i.e., empirical studies + imputed studies)

Systematic review report

Participants.

From the 91 included studies, data from a total of 2718 (1043F, 1123M) people was reported. Fourteen of the included studies did not report the sex distribution of their sample [ 36 , 50 , 55 , 62 , 66 , 76 , 82 , 102 , 110 , 118 , 119 , 134 , 147 , 154 ]. Likewise, seven studies did not report the age description [ 50 , 52 , 60 , 65 , 114 , 142 , 154 ]. In the rest of the 91 studies, the average of the sample was 29.7 ± 12.8 years.

In the entire study sample of 2718 individuals, 2166 (812F, 938M) individuals had received the taping. The discrepancy in the sex distribution is because 14 studies, as mentioned before, had failed to report sex distribution in their respective studies. The average age of the sample receiving taping was 29.4 ± 13 years. Additionally, 13 studies compared the taping intervention's efficacy with a placebo taping [ 57 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 85 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 105 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 116 , 118 ]. Here, data were reported for a total of 279 (115F, 100M) individuals. The discrepancy in the sex distribution was again because three studies did not mention the sex distribution of their participants [ 76 , 102 , 118 ]. The average age in this sample was 35.7 ± 16.6 years. Likewise, 17 studies performed a comparative evaluation by comparing the effectiveness of taping in a group that was subjected to no intervention [ 54 , 55 , 60 , 67 , 74 , 78 , 82 , 101 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 110 , 114 , 115 , 117 , 134 ]. Here, data were reported from a total of 273 (116F, 85M) individuals. Five studies had not reported their sex distribution [ 55 , 60 , 82 , 110 , 134 ], and two studies had not reported the age descriptive of the group that did not receive taping [ 60 , 114 ]. The average age in this sample was 26.1 ± 3.7 years.

Health status

Table 2 shows a detailed description of the health status of the participants included in this review.

Type of tape

Fourteen different types of tapes were utilized in the included studies (Table S2). The tapes were classified as either rigid or elastic tapes based on the description provided in the respective studies. Overall, sixty studies had utilized elastic tapes [ 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 88 , 90 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 111 , 113 , 114 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 120 , 123 , 124 , 126 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 153 , 154 ], and 33 studies had used rigid tapes [ 36 , 39 , 55 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 80 , 83 , 86 , 103 , 104 , 110 , 115 , 119 , 122 , 125 , 127 , 128 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 ]. Additionally, four studies had compared the efficacy across two different tapes. Here, two studies had compared the efficacy between elastic and rigid tapes [ 90 , 109 ], whereas one study each had evaluated the efficacy between two different types of elastic [ 56 ], and rigid tapes [ 68 ].

Proprioceptive assessment

Seven different types of proprioceptive assessments were used in the included studies to evaluate proprioceptive performance. Here, 71 of the included studies had used joint sense tests [ 36 , 39 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 109 , 110 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 118 , 119 , 122 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 128 , 129 , 131 , 132 , 134 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 152 , 153 ], four studies had used threshold to detect of passive motion test [ 62 , 111 , 127 , 133 ], four had used active movement extent discrimination accuracy test [ 51 , 52 , 80 , 90 ], one had used proprioceptive feedback index (i.e., derived from repositioning error and the correlation between instant movement and prototype instant movement) [ 130 ], one study had used active displacement test [ 154 ], one study had added proprioceptive test accuracy scores (i.e., moving target program on an isokinetic dynamometer) [ 120 ], one had used proprioceptive index (i.e., x, y, rotation values) [ 141 ], and one had evaluated the percentage of exact joint position sense trial [ 123 ]. Additionally, seven studies had performed assessment of joint position sense as well as threshold to detection of passive motion [ 53 , 64 , 79 , 108 , 117 , 135 , 151 ].

The outcomes of individual studies, categorized by the type of proprioceptive assessment used, are summarized as follows:

Joint position sense: Among the 78 studies assessing the impact of taping on joint position sense 47 reported a significant improvement in repositioning accuracy [ 36 , 39 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 64 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 88 , 102 , 103 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 110 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 119 , 124 , 132 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 139 , 140 , 143 , 144 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 150 , 151 , 153 ], 27 reported no difference [ 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 67 , 81 , 82 , 86 , 100 , 101 , 104 , 105 , 109 , 117 , 118 , 122 , 125 , 126 , 128 , 129 , 131 , 137 , 138 , 142 , 145 , 149 , 152 ], and four reported a significant decline in repositioning accuracy with taping [ 58 , 66 , 68 , 74 ].

Threshold to detection of passive motion: In the 11 studies examining the effect of taping on the threshold to detection of passive motion, two studies observed a significant improvement [ 64 , 117 ], one study reported significant deterioration [ 133 ], while eight studies found no significant impact of taping [ 53 , 61 , 62 , 108 , 111 , 121 , 127 , 151 ].

Active movement extent discrimination apparatus: Three studies indicated a significant improvement in active movement extent discrimination [ 51 , 52 , 80 ], while one study found no difference in discrimination capabilities with taping [ 90 ].

Active displacement test: One study assessing the influence of taping on active displacement outcomes reported a significant improvement in displacement capabilities with taping [ 154 ].

Percentage of exact joint position sense trials: In one study, no significant effect of taping on the ability to perform exact joint repositioning trials was reported [ 123 ].

Proprioceptive feedback index: A study evaluating the impact of taping on the proprioceptive feedback index reported a significant improvement with taping.

Proprioceptive index: One study assessing the influence of taping on the proprioceptive index reported a significant improvement with taping [ 141 ].

Proprioceptive test accuracy: One study reported no significant effect of taping on proprioceptive test accuracy trials [ 120 ].

Meta-analysis report

Table 3 provides comprehensive insights into the meta-analysis results for absolute repositioning error, threshold to detection of passive motion, and discrimination of active movement extent apparatus. It offers a thorough examination of the between-group analysis comparing taping, placebo, and no comparators. Similarly, Table  4 illustrates the outcomes of the meta-analysis within each group.

Forest plot illustrating the between group effect of taping on repositioning error. Black boxes: individual weighted effect sizes (Hedge's g), whiskers: 95% confidence intervals, red diamond: pooled weighted effect size and 95% CI, positive effect size: reduced repositioning error for the placebo/no-taping group, negative effect size: reduced repositioning error for the taping group

Sensitivity analysis

A summary of the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis has been provided in Table  5 . Specifically, studies were reported if the overall analysis yielded a p -value less than 0.05, and the removal of a specific study increased the p -value above this threshold. Conversely, studies were also reported if the overall analysis yielded a p -value greater than 0.05 and the removal of any particular study decreased the p -value below this threshold.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding the influence of taping on joint proprioception in healthy and patient population groups. The findings from the review suggest a positive influence of taping on improving joint repositioning accuracy against both placebo and no comparator groups.

To date, only two meta-analyses have quantified the influence of taping on proprioceptive accuracy [ 71 , 72 ]. In the initial review, five studies reported medium effect enhancements (Hedge’s g: 0.25) in proprioceptive accuracy among individuals with ankle instability [ 72 ]. In an additional analysis with two studies, the authors reported trivial deterioration (g: -0.10) in knee proprioception among individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. In the second review, the authors included a total of seven studies and reported a positive influence of taping/bracing on joint position sense (0.20º) but not the threshold to movement detection (-0.24º) [ 71 ]. However, it is essential to note that the authors merged the outcomes of studies and did not differentiate the results between taping and bracing. This merged reporting of effects could be an essential factor that biases the understanding concerning the overall influence of taping on joint proprioception. The present study, through a review of 91 studies, represents a significant advancement over previous reviews. Firstly, unlike prior studies that merged various joint stabilizers, such as taping and bracing [ 71 ], the present study focused solely on taping, allowing for a more precise evaluation of taping’s efficacy. Secondly, deliberate analyses based on the type of assessment ensured distinct between-group and within-group comparisons, a modification absent in prior research. Thirdly, the review extended beyond previous studies by systematically differentiating outcomes according to study design i.e., distinguishing between randomized and non-randomized designs. Fourth, the study explored nuanced variations in taping outcomes across different health statuses, providing valuable insights for clinicians and patients. Fifth, the evaluation of tape elasticity, encompassing both elastic and rigid varieties, sheds light on how different tape properties influence joint proprioception. Overall, these additions enrich the existing literature and expand understanding concerning the taping's impact on proprioception.

In line with the previous findings, a medium- to- large effect improvement in joint repositioning accuracy was observed with taping in the between group analyses against no comparator (Hedge’s g: -0.39), placebo comparator (g: -1.20) and in the within-group (-0.65) analyses. While the magnitude of improvement for the joint position sense tests was larger for the placebo group compared to the no taping group, it's crucial to note that both of these improvements were statistically significant ( p  < 0.05). This suggests that regardless of the intervention (placebo or no taping), there was a substantial enhancement in repositioning accuracy. Moreover, the analysis revealed a notable difference in the number of studies included, with 48 studies in the no taping analysis compared to 25 studies in the placebo analysis. This variance in the number of studies might have influenced the observed difference in magnitude [ 155 ]. For instance, a larger pool of studies in the no taping analysis could potentially dilute the effect size, whereas a smaller number of studies in the placebo analysis might result in a more pronounced effect size. Therefore, despite the varying magnitudes of improvement, the consistent statistical significance across both groups underscores the importance of the observed enhancement in joint position sense accuracy. These effects were also visible in subsequent subgroup analyses, where the outcomes between RCTs and non-RCTs were differentially analyzed. Moreover, the robustness of these findings was confirmed through leave-one-out sensitivity analyses (see Table  5 ). This approach involved systematically removing individual data points from each study and rerunning the analysis to evaluate the consistency and stability of the results. By iteratively testing the impact of each data point on the overall outcome, leave-one-out sensitivity analysis provided valuable insights into the reliability of the statistical conclusions. Specifically, it allowed us to determine whether the findings were dependent on specific data points or if they held true across the entire dataset. The consistent patterns observed across multiple iterations of the analysis therefore indicated the robustness of the results. Furthermore, when it comes to the threshold to detect passive motion, no significant effect of taping (-0.02) was observed as compared to no comparator, but a significant effect was observed as compared to placebo comparator (-1.35). During the within-group analysis, a medium effect (-0.36) improvement was observed in the threshold to perceive passive motion. The change in the threshold to detect passive motion is a crucial measure in assessing proprioception because the test evaluates the ability to perceive passive motion, incorporating passive proprioceptive signals which may differ from consciously perceived tests of proprioception. This assessment is particularly valuable in cases of ACL-deficient knees [ 156 ], or individuals with rotator cuff tears [ 157 ], as it can identify subtle proprioceptive alterations commonly observed in such conditions. Moreover, the sensitivity and precision of the threshold to detect passive motion provide insights into prognostic outcomes and guide treatment planning. For instance, individuals with higher threshold values may exhibit greater functional impairment, signaling the need for more targeted interventions to improve proprioception and enhance joint stability. Furthermore, a between-group analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of taping on active movement extent discrimination apparatus. However, no significant influence of taping was observed. This lack of effect on the ability to actively discriminate movements could perhaps be as a result of the high level of ecological validity demonstrated by the active movement extent discrimination apparatus [ 158 ]. The test reportedly assesses proprioception functions in conditions more analogous to natural settings [ 27 ]. Likewise, its ability to provide accurate and meaningful metrics, rooted in signal detection theory [ 159 ], is important as by analyzing response data amidst uncertainty using receiver operating characteristic analysis, the test offers a robust assessment of proprioception. This could potentially explain why modifications in joint position sense and threshold to detection of passive motion were observed, while none were noted in the active movement discrimination test. However, it's worth considering the impact of the number of studies included in the analysis. For instance, in the meta-analysis comparing joint position sense against no comparator, 48 studies were evaluated. In contrast, for threshold to detection of passive motion, eight studies were assessed, and for active movement discrimination apparatus, only two studies were evaluated. The lack of modification observed in active movement discrimination apparatus could be attributed to its reliability in assessing proprioception. However, it's also plausible that the limited number of studies prevented an effect from being observed, potentially due to a type II error [ 160 ].

Influence of taping on healthy and patient population groups

In line with the existing studies where the use of taping has been emphasized to manage deficit joint proprioception [ 50 , 76 , 77 , 78 ], significant medium -to- large effect increments for the outcomes of repositioning accuracy with taping were found for healthy population groups (no comparator: -0.29, placebo comparator: -0.61). The increments in repositioning accuracy were also found in population groups with anterior cruciate ligament rupture (no comparator: -0.66), and in individuals with osteoarthritis (placebo comparator: -2.21). These improvements were however, not confirmed in the within-group analyses where non-significant improvement in repositioning accuracy was evident in healthy population groups (g: -0.55, p  = 0.10). These findings contrast with existing literature suggesting that augmentation of proprioceptive afferent by taping is more beneficial for individuals with poorer inherent proprioception than individuals with good proprioception [ 161 ]. The reason behind being that taping augmented proprioceptive afferent information might overload the “inherently good” proprioceptive pathways in healthy individuals. In contrast, individuals with poorer proprioception (i.e., injuries) might benefit from augmented afferent information [ 126 , 162 ]. Although this theory is widely supported [ 61 , 126 , 163 ], two reasons might explain this differential result in the meta-analysis. First, there was a large difference in the number of studies in the subgroup analysis that evaluated effects of taping on different population groups. For instance, in the within-group analysis, the influence of taping was evaluated on healthy individuals among 15 studies, whereas in the between group analysis with no taping comparator there were 32 studies that had evaluated the effect of taping on healthy individuals. Moreover, in the within group analysis only four, three, and two studies evaluated taping’s impact on ankle instability, stroke, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, respectively. The difference between the number of studies incorporating healthy and patient population group was also evident in between-group meta-analyses (i.e., in no comparator analyses healthy: 32 studies, functional ankle instability: three, patellofemoral pain syndrome: two). Second, in the analyses of healthy population groups, separate sub-group analyses to evaluate the differential influence on individuals with excellent and poor inherent proprioception were not conducted. This analysis was not performed because only a few of the included studies had reported their data differentially according to the intrinsic proprioceptive capabilities of their sample [ 61 , 126 ]. Future studies are strongly recommended to classify the proprioceptive level of their population groups, as it will help in understanding the actual influence of taping on proprioceptive accuracy among healthy individuals.

Influence of elastic and rigid tapes on proprioception

Various tapes had been used in the existing literature to influence proprioceptive outcomes in healthy and patient population groups (Table S2). However, seldomly some studies have directly compared the influence of different types of tapes on proprioceptive results [ 49 , 56 , 90 ]. In the meta-analyses different tapes were characterized as elastic or rigid tapes based on the description provided in the studies. All the between-group analysis revealed that both the elastic tape (no comparator: -0.40, placebo comparator: -1.13), and rigid tape (no comparator: -0.37, placebo comparator: -1.67) led to a significant improvement repositioning accuracy. The improvement in repositioning accuracy with elastic tape makes sense because previously published literature has demonstrated that tapes with low elastic modulus can support and stabilize the joints without restricting their range of motion [ 164 , 165 , 166 ]. Besides, owing to their better elasticity, tapes such as Kinesio tape have been reported to exert a pulling force on the skin, facilitating mechanoreceptors' stimulation [ 142 ]. Similarly, enhanced elasticity in the tape has been shown to provide better comfort as it aligns well with the contour of the body, and this could have led to an enhancement in proprioceptive performance [ 90 ]. With regards to the rigid tape, the higher elasticity modulus of such tapes could restrict the range of motion at a joint, thereby immobilizing its activity during the injury phase to facilitate healing [ 167 , 168 ]. However, it's important to note that in some instances documented in the literature, certain rigid tapes have been reported to lose their elasticity rapidly, leading to inadequate restraint of joint motion [ 169 , 170 , 171 ].

The analysis did not report differences in the magnitude of effect between rigid (-0.70) and elastic (-0.63) tape during the within-group analyses as well. However, when evaluating the efficacy of these tapes in detecting passive motion thresholds, larger magnitude of improvements was noted in the threshold perception with the elastic tape (-0.26) as compared to the rigid tape (0.04). This difference in efficacy might stem from the restrictive nature of the rigid tapes, which while limiting ankle motion could affect joint forces higher up the kinetic chain, particularly in the knee joint [ 172 ]. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the differential influence of elastic and rigid taping on proprioceptive outcomes in both healthy and injured population groups. Significant enhancement in joint proprioception was observed with both types of tape among in healthy individuals, with similar magnitudes of improvement noted for elastic (-0.30) and rigid tape (-0.29). However, among fatigued healthy individuals, although not statistically significant, there was a "medium" effect size improvement in repositioning accuracy with rigid tape (-0.72), contrasting with a "small" effect size improvement seen with elastic tape (-0.08). This difference in magnitude could be likely attributed to the fact that when a muscle or joint is fatigued, it becomes more susceptible to injury [ 173 ], and rigid tape can help to prevent this by limiting the range of motion and providing additional support. Likewise, rigid taping could have also restrained motion at the injured ligamentous tissue to its anatomical limits, and could have attenuated fatigue-induced instability, often associated with deficits in neuromuscular control, by improving the altered flow of afferent input to the central nervous system [ 38 , 55 , 174 ].

Limitations

Despite the novelty of the present meta-analysis, the study has a few limitations. The principal objective of this study was to elucidate the influence of taping on joint repositioning accuracy, the threshold to detection of passive motive, and active movement extent discrimination accuracy. However, upon further assessment of the studies, it was observed that while some of the included studies had evaluated the direct influence of taping [ 76 , 120 , 140 , 153 ], others had assessed the influence of the prolonged application of taping on the outcomes of joint proprioception [ 75 , 78 , 87 , 103 , 119 , 134 ]. As it was not the initial goal to evaluate how prolonged taping could influence joint proprioception, separate subgroup analyses to compare the effect of prolonged taping on proprioception were not conducted. Existing studies have suggested that prolonged taping could have a larger impact on movement kinematics and kinetics than immediately after taping [ 103 , 119 , 175 ]. Therefore, future studies are strongly recommended to evaluate the differential influence of the prolonged application of taping on joint proprioception. Secondly, the majority of the studies included in the analysis did not blind assessors, therapists, and subjects, as determined by the PEDro scale used to assess methodological quality. This lack of blinding could have significantly impacted the results, and even though subgroup analyses were conducted to account for the differences between studies with blinding and randomization versus those without, readers are urged to interpret the findings with caution. Thirdly, substantial heterogeneity was also prominent regarding the different taping application methods. For instance, some studies included in the review adhered to a specific taping technique, such as Kenzo Kase’s technique [ 50 , 78 , 85 ], and basket-weave technique [ 36 , 134 , 148 ], whereas the majority had applied taping without following any standardized approach [ 39 , 59 , 61 , 76 , 77 , 110 ]. This heterogeneous approach to using tape complicates understanding of taping’s influence on joint proprioception. Future studies are recommended to adhere to standardized taping applications as they can help develop practical, evidence-based guidelines. Another major limitation of the study was that fewer studies were included in certain meta-analyses, such as between-group analyses of stroke population, individuals with ankle sprain (i.e., two studies), active movement extent discrimination apparatus (two studies), and within-group analysis of threshold to detect passive motion (three studies for overall analysis). The fewer studies could increase the chances of a type II error [ 176 ]. Lastly, as the present review mainly incorporated studies that evaluated the influence of taping on joint repositioning accuracy tests, it is important to understand the inherent constraints associated with joint position tests to grasp the overall impact of taping on proprioception [ 27 , 177 ]. The literature suggests that joint re-positioning tests lack ecological validity because the testing conditions are significantly different from normal daily activities [ 27 , 178 ]. For instance, conditions such as slow angular velocities, non/partial-weight bearing conditions, absence of auditory and visual feedback, and isolation of the joint under investigation mean that these tasks do not accurately reflect the normal performance of the proprioceptive system in real-world scenarios [ 27 ]. Additionally, since joint position sense tests heavily rely on memory and attention, the outcomes may not solely reflect an individual's proprioceptive ability [ 27 , 177 ]. For example, in cases where an individual has good proprioception but suffers from memory deficits or attention issues, their performance on joint position sense tests may be adversely affected. This suggests that the results of joint position sense tests may not accurately isolate and evaluate proprioceptive function when other cognitive factors come into play. The reader is recommended to infer the results of this review in light of the aforementioned limitations.

Future directions

Although the number of studies incorporating taping for improving proprioception in healthy and patient population groups has increased in the past decade, a few aspects still warrant exploration. For instance, limited research has evaluated the long-term retention of proprioceptive accuracy after the application of taping [ 78 , 103 ]. Conventionally, taping has been identified as a transient approach that facilitates performance transiently by guiding the movement when it is being worn. However, once it’s removed, the lack of guidance (see guidance hypothesis [ 179 ]) by taping forces improved accuracy back to initial levels [ 171 ]. An effective means by which this feedback dependency of taping could be countered by tapering the extent of tactile feedback provided over time. Here, perhaps reducing the length of taping applied [ 51 ], or even the tension with which taping is used could reduce the extent of feedback being provided to the performer and allow them to form robust internal feedback/feed-forward models concerning the task at hand. Future studies should try to evaluate these outcomes to ascertain if tactile stimulation via taping can also enhance learning as compared to performance.

The meta-analysis suggests a positive influence of taping on proprioceptive accuracy outcomes in healthy population groups. The increments for repositioning accuracy were confirmed to be higher in the between group analysis against both placebo and no taping comparators. Besides, subgroup analyses revealed that both elastic taping and rigid taping had similar efficacy in improving repositioning accuracy. Despite the sensitivity analyses confirming the robustness of the findings, readers are recommended to interpret these results cautiously as the studies included in the review were of "fair" methodological quality, and high levels of heterogeneity were observed in the meta-analyses. Nonetheless, the study provides evidence for incorporating taping to promote joint repositioning accuracy.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Qin Y, Li M, Han J, Cui G, Du W, Yang K: Research hotspots and trends of Kinesio Taping from 2011 to 2020: a bibliometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollution Res. 2022.

Yoshida A, Kahanov L. The effect of kinesio taping on lower trunk range of motions. Res Sports Med. 2007;15(2):103–12.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kim S-Y, Oh D-W, Kim T-Y. Functional Taping Technique for Chronic Back Pain and Lower Extremity Pain-McConnell’s Approach. J Korean Acad Orthop Manual Phys Ther. 2008;14(2):50–9.

Google Scholar  

Gardner MJ, Parada S, Routt MLC Jr. Internal rotation and taping of the lower extremities for closed pelvic reduction. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23(5):361–4.

Franettovich MM, Murley GS, David BS, Bird AR. A comparison of augmented low-Dye taping and ankle bracing on lower limb muscle activity during walking in adults with flat-arched foot posture. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(1):8–13.

Bennell K, Coburn S, Wee E, Green S, Harris A, Forbes A, Buchbinder R. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a physiotherapy program for chronic rotator cuff pathology: A protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8(1):86.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cai C, Au IPH, An W, Cheung RTH. Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of Kinesio tape: Fact or fad? J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(2):109–12.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kalron A, Bar-Sela S. A systematic review of the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping–fact or fashion. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49(5):699–709.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Parreira PdCS, Costa LdCM. Junior LCH, Lopes AD, Costa LOP: Current evidence does not support the use of Kinesio Taping in clinical practice: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2014;60(1):31–9.

Xue X, Chen Y, Mao X, Tu H, Yang X, Deng Z, Li N. Effect of kinesio taping on low back pain during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tran L, Makram AM, Makram OM, Elfaituri MK, Morsy S, Ghozy S, Zayan AH, Nam NH, Zaki MMM, Allison EL: Efficacy of kinesio taping compared to other treatment modalities in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Sports Med. 2021:1–24.

Kasawara KT, Mapa JMR, Ferreira V, Added MAN, Shiwa SR, Carvas N Jr, Batista PA. Effects of Kinesio Taping on breast cancer-related lymphedema: A meta-analysis in clinical trials. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;34(5):337–45.

Jaraczewska E, Long C. Kinesio® taping in stroke: improving functional use of the upper extremity in hemiplegia. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006;13(3):31–42.

Delahunt E, McGrath A, Doran N, Coughlan GF. Effect of taping on actual and perceived dynamic postural stability in persons with chronic ankle instability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(9):1383–9.

Logan CA, Bhashyam AR, Tisosky AJ, Haber DB, Jorgensen A, Roy A, Provencher MT. Systematic review of the effect of taping techniques on patellofemoral pain syndrome. Sports Health. 2017;9(5):456–61.

Capecci M, Serpicelli C, Fiorentini L, Censi G, Ferretti M, Orni C, Renzi R, Provinciali L, Ceravolo MG. Postural rehabilitation and Kinesio taping for axial postural disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(6):1067–75.

Kwon M, Lee S, Lee J, Lee A, Lee H. The Effects of Functional Ankle Taping on Postural Stability in Elite Judo Players. Appl Sci. 2022;12(21):10779.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lau KK-L, Cheng KC-C: Effectiveness of taping on functional performance in elite athletes: A systematic review. J Biomechanics. 2019;90:16–23.

Sacco IdCN. Takahasi HY, Suda EY, Battistella LR, Kavamoto CA, Lopes JAF, Vasconcelos JCPd: Ground reaction force in basketball cutting maneuvers with and without ankle bracing and taping. Sao Paulo Med J. 2006;124:245–52.

Crossley K, Cowan SM, Bennell KL, McConnell J. Patellar taping: is clinical success supported by scientific evidence? Man Ther. 2000;5(3):142–50.

Bishop C, Arnold JB, May T. Effects of Taping and Orthoses on Foot Biomechanics in Adults with Flat-Arched Feet. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(4):689–96.

Tobin S, Robinson G. The effect of McConnell’s vastus lateralis inhibition taping technique on vastus lateralis and vastus medialis obliquus activity. Physiotherapy. 2000;86(4):173–83.

Joscha K, Julian M. What is the current level of evidence and the efficacy of medical taping on circulation, muscle function, correction, pain, and proprioception? Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Professional Assignment Project, European School of Physiotherapy, Hogeschool van Amsterdam. 2010.

Kase K: Clinical therapeutic applications of the Kinesio taping method. Albuquerque. 2003.

Park Y-H, Lee J-H. Effects of proprioceptive sense-based Kinesio taping on walking imbalance. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(11):3060–2.

Kneeshaw D. Shoulder taping in the clinical setting. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2002;6(1):2–8.

Han J, Waddington G, Adams R, Anson J, Liu Y. Assessing proprioception: A critical review of methods. J Sport Health Sci. 2016;5(1):80–90.

Labanca L, Ciardulli F, Bonsanto F, Sommella N, Di Martino A, Benedetti MG. Balance and proprioception impairment, assessment tools, and rehabilitation training in patients with total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):1055.

Van Tunen JAC, Dell’Isola A, Juhl C, Dekker J, Steultjens M, Thorlund JB, Lund H. Association of malalignment, muscular dysfunction, proprioception, laxity and abnormal joint loading with tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis-a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19:1–15.

Röijezon U, Clark NC, Treleaven J. Proprioception in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Part 1: Basic science and principles of assessment and clinical interventions. Man Ther. 2015;20(3):368–77.

Chiaramonte R, D’Amico S, Caramma S, Grasso G, Pirrone S, Ronsisvalle MG, Bonfiglio M. The Effectiveness of Goal-Oriented Dual Task Proprioceptive Training in Subacute Stroke: A Retrospective Observational Study. Ann Rehabil Med. 2024;48(1):31.

Chiaramonte R, Bonfiglio M, Leonforte P, Coltraro GL, Guerrera CS, Vecchio M. Proprioceptive and Dual-Task Training: The Key of Stroke Rehabilitation, A Systematic Review. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2022;7(3):53.

Chiaramonte R, Bonfiglio M, Chisari S: Multidisciplinary protocol for the management of fibromyalgia associated with imbalance. Our experience and literature review. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2019;65.

Konishi Y. Tactile stimulation with Kinesiology tape alleviates muscle weakness attributable to attenuation of Ia afferents. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16(1):45–8.

Morrissey D. Proprioceptive shoulder taping. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2000;4(3):189–94.

Jerosch J, Hoffstetter I, Bork H, Bischof M. The influence of orthoses on the proprioception of the ankle joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1995;3(1):39–46.

Glick JM, Gordon RB, Nishimoto D. The prevention and treatment of ankle injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1976;4(4):136–41.

Karlsson J, Andreasson GO. The effect of external ankle support in chronic lateral ankle joint instability: an electromyographic study. Am J Sports Med. 1992;20(3):257–61.

Heit EJ, Lephart SM, Rozzi SL. The effect of ankle bracing and taping on joint position sense in the stable ankle. J Sport Rehabil. 1996;5(3):206–13.

Cimino SR, Beaudette SM, Brown SHM. Kinesio taping influences the mechanical behaviour of the skin of the low back: A possible pathway for functionally relevant effects. J Biomech. 2018;67:150–6.

Pamuk U, Yucesoy CA. MRI analyses show that kinesio taping affects much more than just the targeted superficial tissues and causes heterogeneous deformations within the whole limb. J Biomech. 2015;48(16):4262–70.

Kelly LA, Racinais S, Tanner CM, Grantham J, Chalabi H. Augmented Low Dye Taping Changes Muscle Activation Patterns and Plantar Pressure During Treadmill Running. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(10):648–55.

Yam TTT, Or PPL, Ma AWW, Fong SSM, Wong MS. Effect of Kinesio taping on Y-balance test performance and the associated leg muscle activation patterns in children with developmental coordination disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Gait Posture. 2019;68:388–96.

Sarvestan J, Svoboda Z. Acute effect of ankle Kinesio and athletic taping on ankle range of motion during various agility tests in athletes with chronic ankle sprain. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;29(5):527–32.

Hunter LY. Braces and taping. Clin Sports Med. 1985;4(3):439–53.

Mostafavifar M, Wertz J, Borchers J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of kinesio taping for musculoskeletal injury. Phys Sportsmed. 2012;40(4):33–40.

Callaghan MJ, McKie S, Richardson P, Oldham JA. Effects of Patellar Taping on Brain Activity During Knee Joint Proprioception Tests Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Phys Ther. 2012;92(6):821–30.

Lin Z-M, Yang J-F, Lin Y-L, Cheng Y-C, Hung C-T, Chen C-S, Chou L-W. Effect of Kinesio Taping on Hand Sensorimotor Control and Brain Activity. Appl Sci. 2021;11(22):10522.

Grütters K, Narciss S, Beaudette SM, Oppici L. Reducing lumbar flexion in a repetitive lifting task: Comparison of leukotape and kinesio tape and their effect on lumbar proprioception. 2022.

Chen H-S, Chang Y-Z, Fang C-M, Lin C-Y, Yang W-C: [論文摘要] Effect of Kinesio Taping on Lower Extremities Proprioception and Dynamic Balance in Taekwondo Poomsae Athletes. 物理治療. 2022;47(2):137–137.

Yu R, Yang Z, Witchalls J, Adams R, Waddington G, Han J. Kinesiology tape length and ankle inversion proprioception at step-down landing in individuals with chronic ankle instability. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24(9):894–9.

Adams R, Ganderton C, Han J, Waddington G, Witchalls J, Yang Z. Effects of kinesiology tape with training shoes on ankle proprioception in individuals with chronic ankle instability during drop landing. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24:S55–6.

Narasinta I, Masduchi RH, Kurniawati PM. Immediate Effect of Kinesio Taping Application on Joint Proprioception Function in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients. Surabaya Phys Med Rehabil J. 2019;1(1):1–5.

Dhahi M, Abdelsalam MS. Effect of Kinesio Tape on Ankle Joint Position Sense and Evertor Peak Torque in Football Players Following Exercise Induced Fatigue. Int J Adv Res. 2019;7(3):434–41.

Jahjah A, Seidenspinner D, Schüttler K, Klasan A, Heyse TJ, Malcherczyk D, El-Zayat BF. The effect of ankle tape on joint position sense after local muscle fatigue: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):1–8.

Brogden CM, Marrin K, Page RM, Greig M. The efficacy of elastic therapeutic tape variations on measures of ankle function and performance. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;32:74–9.

Göktaş HE, Çitaker S, Yurtsever ED. Acute Effects of Dynamic Taping on Pain, Range of Motion and Proprioception in Patients with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2022;4(2):35–41.

Wilson LM, Greig M. The efficacy of functional supports in mediating the effects of exercise on shoulder joint position sense. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2017;25(2):127–34.

Callaghan MJ, Selfe J, McHenry A, Oldham JA. Effects of patellar taping on knee joint proprioception in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Man Ther. 2008;13(3):192–9.

Cecchinato AL: The effectiveness of ankle taping and bracing on joint position sense of functionally unstable ankles following an exercise regime: University of New Hampshire Plymouth State College; 2003.

Callaghan MJ, Selfe J, Bagley PJ, Oldham JA. The effects of patellar taping on knee joint proprioception. J Athl Train. 2002;37(1):19.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Refshauge KM, Kilbreath SL, Raymond J. The effect of recurrent ankle inversion sprain and taping on proprioception at the ankle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(1):10–5.

Williams S, Whatman C, Hume PA, Sheerin K. Kinesio taping in treatment and prevention of sports injuries. Sports Med. 2012;42(2):153–64.

Bayu CG, Andriana M, Pawana A. Effect of McConnell Patelar Taping on Joint Position Sense and Threshold to Detection Passive Motion in Sub acute Stroke Patient. Int J Res Publications. 2022;94(1):8–8.

Ruggiero SA, Frost LR, Vallis LA, Brown SHM. Effect of short-term application of kinesio tape on the flexion-relaxation phenomenon, trunk postural control and trunk repositioning in healthy females. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(9):862–70.

Aarseth LM, Suprak DN, Chalmers GR, Lyon L, Dahlquist DT. Kinesio tape and shoulder-joint position sense. J Athl Train. 2015;50(8):785–91.

Miralles I, Monterde S, del Rio O, Valero S, Montull S, Salvat I: Has Kinesio Tape Effects on Ankle Proprioception? A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clinical Kinesiology (Online Edition). 2014;68(2).

Mumford K. The acute effects of taping on proprioception in the ankle with previous inversion sprain. 2003.

Hughes T, Rochester P. The effects of proprioceptive exercise and taping on proprioception in subjects with functional ankle instability: A review of the literature. Phys Ther Sport. 2008;9(3):136–47.

Varela Miranda M, Justo Cousiño LA, González González Y, Alonso Calvete A. Effect of the neuromuscular taping on proprioception and postural control. Systematic review. Archivos de Neurociencias. 2022;27(3).

Raymond J, Nicholson LL, Hiller CE, Refshauge KM. The effect of ankle taping or bracing on proprioception in functional ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(5):386–92.

Ghai S, Driller M, Ghai I. Effects of joint stabilizers on proprioception and stability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;25:65–75.

Parreira PdCS, Costa LdCM. Hespanhol Junior LC, Lopes AD, Costa LOP: Current evidence does not support the use of Kinesio Taping in clinical practice: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2014;60(1):31–9.

Saran M, Pawaria S, Kalra S. Kinesio taping with ballistic six plyometric training on speed, accuracy, target and joint proprioception in fast bowlers with glenohumeral instability. Comp Exer Physiol. 2022;18(4):357–63.

Saki F, Romiani H, Ziya M, Gheidi N. The effects of gluteus medius and tibialis anterior kinesio taping on postural control, knee kinematics, and knee proprioception in female athletes with dynamic knee valgus. Phys Ther Sport. 2022;53:84–90.

Mehta P, Prabhakar AJ, Eapen C. Effect of kinesio taping on shoulder maximal voluntary contraction, proprioception and upper limb reaction time in recreational badminton players: A randomized placebo controlled trial. Physiother Prac Res. 2022;43(Preprint):97–105.

Kim JH, Kim KH, Kim DH: Effects of Proprioception Training with Kinesio Taping of the Knee Joints on the Proprioception, Balance, and Gait in Stroke Patients: A Single-Blind Randomized Trials. Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin. 2022.

Kielė D, Solianik R: Four-Week Application of Kinesiotaping Improves Proprioception, Strength, and Balance in Individuals With Complete Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture. J Strength Conditioning Res. 2022:10–1519.

Boonkerd C, Thinchuangchan K, Chalarak N, Thonpakorb S, Wanasoonthontham R, Kitsuksan T, Laddawong T. Effect of Kinesio Tape on Proprioception, Static and Dynamic Balance in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2022:2476–4981.

Smyth E, Waddington G, Witchalls J, Newman P, Weissensteiner J, Hughes S, Niyonsenga T, Drew M. Does ankle tape improve proprioception acuity immediately after application and following a netball session? A randomised controlled trial. Phys Ther Sport. 2021;48:20–5.

Chen Y-S, Tseng W-C, Chen C-H, Lu Y-X. Moderate kinesio taping stretch tension produced good inter-day reliability of dosiflexion joint position sense measurement. Gazz Med Ital Arch Sci Med. 2021;180:35–42.

Binaei F, Hedayati R, Mirmohammadkhani M, Taghizadeh Delkhoush C, Bagheri R. Examining the Use of Kinesiology Tape During Weight Bearing Exercises on Proprioception in Participants With Functional Ankle Instability. Percept Mot Skills. 2021;128(6):2654–68.

Alawna M, Unver B, Yuksel E. Effect of ankle taping and bandaging on balance and proprioception among healthy volunteers. Sport Sci Health. 2021;17(3):665–76.

Santos GLd, Souza MB, Desloovere K, Russo TL. Elastic tape improved shoulder joint position sense in chronic hemiparetic subjects: a randomized sham-controlled crossover study. PloS one. 2017;12(1):e0170368.

Cho H-y. Kim E-H, Kim J, Yoon YW: Kinesio taping improves pain, range of motion, and proprioception in older patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(3):192–200.

Hinman RS, Crossley KM, McConnell J, Bennell KL. Does the application of tape influence quadriceps sensorimotor function in knee osteoarthritis? Rheumatology. 2004;43(3):331–6.

Liu K, Qian J, Gao Q, Ruan B: Effects of Kinesio taping of the knee on proprioception, balance, and functional performance in patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture: A retrospective case series. Medicine. 2019;98(48).

Bischoff L, Babisch C, Babisch J, Layher F, Sander K, Matziolis G, Pietsch S, Röhner E. Effects on proprioception by Kinesio taping of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(6):1157–64.

Vanti C, Bertozzi L, Gardenghi I, Turoni F, Guccione AA, Pillastrini P. Effect of Taping on Spinal Pain and Disability: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4):493–506.

Long Z, Wang R, Han J, Waddington G, Adams R, Anson J. Optimizing ankle performance when taped: Effects of kinesiology and athletic taping on proprioception in full weight-bearing stance. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(3):236–40.

McNeill W, Pedersen C. Dynamic tape. Is it all about controlling load? J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016;20(1):179–88.

Moseley AM, Rahman P, Wells GA, Zadro JR, Sherrington C, Toupin-April K, Brosseau L. Agreement between the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0222770.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cashin AG, McAuley JH. Clinimetrics: Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. J Physiother. 2020;66(1):59.

Borenstein M. Comprehensive meta‐analysis software. Systematic reviews in health research: meta‐analysis in context. 2022:535–548.

Brydges CR. Effect size guidelines, sample size calculations, and statistical power in gerontology. Innov Aging. 2019;3(4):igz036.

West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ, Poole C, Tant E, Lenfestey N, Lux LJ, Amoozegar J, Morton SC, Carey TC: Comparative effectiveness review methods: Clinical heterogeneity. 2010.

Willis BH, Riley RD. Measuring the statistical validity of summary meta-analysis and meta-regression results for use in clinical practice. Stat Med. 2017;36(21):3283–301.

Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.

Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(2):e1230.

Abbasi S, Hadian Rasanani M-R, Ghotbi N, Olyaei GR, Bozorgmehr A, Rasouli O. Short-term effect of kinesiology taping on pain, functional disability and lumbar proprioception in individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain: a double-blinded, randomized trial. Chiropractic Manual Ther. 2020;28(1):1–10.

Ahn IK, Kim YL, Bae Y-H, Lee SM. Immediate effects of kinesiology taping of quadriceps on motor performance after muscle fatigued induction. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;410526:1–7.

Alahmari KA, Reddy RS, Tedla JS, Samuel PS, Kakaraparthi VN, Rengaramanujam K, Ahmed I. The effect of Kinesio taping on cervical proprioception in athletes with mechanical neck pain—a placebo-controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):1–9.

Alawna M, Mohamed AA. Short-term and long-term effects of ankle joint taping and bandaging on balance, proprioception and vertical jump among volleyball players with chronic ankle instability. Phys Ther Sport. 2020;46:145–54.

Allah NHN, Mohamed GA, Elhafez SM, Emran IM. Effect of rigid tape on hip joint proprioception in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Biosci Res. 2018;15(3):2686–92.

Aytar A, Ozunlu N, Surenkok O, Baltacı G, Oztop P, Karatas M. Initial effects of kinesio® taping in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A randomized, double-blind study. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2011;19(2):135–42.

Babakhani F, Heydarian M, Hatefi M. The immediate effect of kinesiotape and wobble board training on ankle joint position sense in athletes with functional ankle instability. J Adv Sport Technol. 2020;4(2):49–59.

Burfeind SM, Chimera N. Randomized control trial investigating the effects of kinesiology tape on shoulder proprioception. J Sport Rehabil. 2015;24(4):405–12.

Fazli F, Farsi A, Takamjani IE, Mansour S, Yousefi N, Azadinia F: Effect of Knee Orthosis and Kinesio Taping on Clinical and Neuromuscular Outcomes in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Life 2023;15:17.

Grütters K, Narciss S, Beaudette SM, Oppici L. Reducing lumbar flexion in a repetitive lifting task: Comparison of leukotape and kinesio tape and their effect on lumbar proprioception. Appl Sci. 2023;13(10):5908.

Iris M, Monterde S, Salvador M, Salvat I, Fernández-Ballart J, Judith B. Ankle taping can improve proprioception in healthy volunteers. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(12):1099–106.

Keenan KA, Akins JS, Varnell M, Abt J, Lovalekar M, Lephart S, Sell TC. Kinesiology taping does not alter shoulder strength, shoulder proprioception, or scapular kinematics in healthy, physically active subjects and subjects with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. Phys Ther Sport. 2017;24:60–6.

Kurt EE, Büyükturan Ö, Erdem HR, Tuncay F, Sezgin H. Short-term effects of kinesio tape on joint position sense, isokinetic measurements, and clinical parameters in patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(7):2034–40.

Saki F, Shayesteh A, Ramezani F, Shahheidari S. The Effects of Lower Leg Kinesio Taping on Ankle Proprioception, Static and Dynamic Balance in Athletes with Medial Tibial Stress Syndrome. J Adv Sport Technol. 2023;7(2):1–11.

Shahrokhi H, Miri H, Yekedehghan S. Comparison of the effect of 8 week taping and selected therapeutic exercises on range of motion, proprioception and pain in gymnasts with shoulder impingement syndrome. Stud Sport Med. 2020;11(26):127–46.

Shams F, Hadadnezhad M, Letafatkar A, Hogg J. Valgus Control Feedback and Taping Improves the Effects of Plyometric Exercises in Women With Dynamic Knee Valgus. Sports Health. 2022;14(5):747–57.

Shih YF, Lee YF, Chen WY. Effects of kinesiology taping on scapular reposition accuracy, kinematics, and muscle activity in athletes with shoulder impingement syndrome: A randomized controlled study. J Sport Rehabil. 2018;27(6):560–9.

Torres R, Trindade R, Gonçalves RS. The effect of kinesiology tape on knee proprioception in healthy subjects. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016;20(4):857–62.

Trost A: The Effects of Kinesio Tape™ on Proprioception and Balance in Individuals with and without Knee Pain. University of Hawai'i at Manoa; 2020.

Ucuzoglu ME, Unver B, Sarac DC, Cilga G. Similar effects of two different external supports on wrist joint position sense in healthy subjects: A randomized clinical trial. Hand Surgery Rehabil. 2020;39(2):96–101.

Bailey D, Firth P. Does kinesiology taping of the ankles affect proprioceptive control in professional football (soccer) players? Phys Ther Sport. 2017;25:94–8.

Boonkerd C, Thinchuangchan K, Chalarak N, Thonpakorb S, Wanasoonthontham R, Kitsuksan T, Laddawong T. Effect of Kinesio Tape on Proprioception, Static and Dynamic Balance in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2023:0–0.

Bradley T, Baldwick C, Fischer D, Murrell GAC. Effect of taping on the shoulders of Australian football players. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(10):735–8.

Fratocchi G, Di Mattia F, Rossi R, Mangone M, Santilli V, Paoloni M. Influence of Kinesio Taping applied over biceps brachii on isokinetic elbow peak torque. A placebo controlled study in a population of young healthy subjects. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16(3):245–9.

Han J-T. Immediate Effect of Calf Muscle Kinesio Taping on Ankle Joint Reposition Sense and Force Sense in Healthy Elderly. 대한물리치료학회지 (JKPT). 2020;32(4):193–197.

Hopper DM, Grisbrook TL, Finucane M, Nosaka K. Effect of ankle taping on angle and force matching and strength of the plantar flexors. Phys Ther Sport. 2014;15(4):254–60.

Hosp S, Bottoni G, Heinrich D, Kofler P, Hasler M, Nachbauer W. A pilot study of the effect of Kinesiology tape on knee proprioception after physical activity in healthy women. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(6):709–13.

Hubbard TJ, Kaminski TW. Kinesthesia is not affected by functional ankle instability status. J Athl Train. 2002;37(4):481.

Kaminski TW, Gerlach TM. The effect of tape and neoprene ankle supports on ankle joint position sense. Phys Ther Sport. 2001;2(3):132–40.

Li P, Wei Z, Zeng Z, Wang L. Acute effect of kinesio tape on postural control in individuals with functional ankle instability following ankle muscle fatigue. Front Physiol. 2022;13:980438.

Jj L. Hung CJ, Yang PL: The effects of scapular taping on electromyographic muscle activity and proprioception feedback in healthy shoulders. J Orthop Res. 2011;29(1):53–7.

Maqsood M, Váczi M. Immediate Effects of Quadriceps Muscle Kinesiology Taping on Joint Position Sense and Force Sense in Healthy Individuals. In: Preprints. Preprints; 2023.

Park S-Y, Kim M-J, Seol S-E, Hwang C, Hong J-S, Kim H, Shin W-S. Effects of dynamic taping on shoulder joint proprioception. Phys Ther Rehabil Sci. 2020;9(4):269–74.

Refshauge KM, Raymond J, Kilbreath SL, Pengel L, Heijnen I. The effect of ankle taping on detection of inversion-eversion movements in participants with recurrent ankle sprain. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(2):371–5.

Robbins S, Waked E, Rappel R. Ankle taping improves proprioception before and after exercise in young men. Br J Sports Med. 1995;29(4):242–7.

Simoneau GG, Degner RM, Kramper CA, Kittleson KH. Changes in ankle joint proprioception resulting from strips of athletic tape applied over the skin. J Athl Train. 1997;32(2):141.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Weerakkody N, Allen T. The effects of fast bowling fatigue and adhesive taping on shoulder joint position sense in amateur cricket players in Victoria. Australia J Sports Sci. 2017;35(19):1954–62.

Wei Z, Wang X-X, Wang L. Effect of short-term kinesiology taping on knee proprioception and quadriceps performance in healthy individuals. Front Physiol. 2020;11:1501.

Zanca GG, Mattiello SM, Karduna AR. Kinesio taping of the deltoid does not reduce fatigue induced deficits in shoulder joint position sense. Clin Biomech. 2015;30(9):903–7.

Akbari M, Pahnabi G, Karimi H. Immediate Effect of Kinesio Taping on Knee Joint Position Sense after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J Clin Physiother Res. 2016;2(4):162–8.

Bae Y-S. Effects of spiral taping on proprioception in subjects with unilateral functional ankle instability. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017;29(1):106–8.

Cho SH, Moon HJ. Effects of Kinesio-taping on balance abilities and proprioception sense. J Int Aca Phys Ther Res. 2017;8(2):1163–7.

Halseth T, John WM, Mark D. The effects of Kinesio TM Taping on proprioception at the ankle. J Spo Sci Med. 2004;3(1):1–7.

Momeni-lari H, Ghasemi M, Khademi-kalantari K, Akbarzadeh-baghban A. The Short-Term Effects of Kinesio Tape on Joint Position Sense, Sense of Force and Postural Control in Patients with Functional Ankle Instability. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2018;20(8):51–5.

Niknam H, Sarmadi A, Salavati M, Madadi F. The effect of knee kinesiotaping on proprioception and weight bearing in ACL reconstructed patients. Daneshvar Med. 2011;19(2):33–42.

Poyraz İ, Vergili Ö. The impacts of Kinesio taping on muscular fatigue and proprioception following fatigue among adolescent basketball players. J Health Sci Med. 2023;6(3):623–9.

Rajabzadeh B, Amiri A, Vasaghi-Gharamaleki B, Saneii SH. The Effects of Shoulder Kinesio Taping on Shooting Accuracy and Joint Position Sense in Female Archery Athletes. Function Disability J. 2019;2(1):9–16.

Seo H-D, Kim M-Y, Choi J-E, Lim G-H, Jung S-I, Park S-H, Cheon S-H, Lee H-Y. Effects of Kinesio taping on joint position sense of the ankle. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(4):1158–60.

Spanos S, Brunswic M, Billis E. The effect of taping on the proprioception of the ankle in a non-weight bearing position, amongst injured athletes. Foot. 2008;18(1):25–33.

Barbanera M. Mazuchi FdA, Batista JPB, Ultremare JdM, Iwashita JdS, Ervilha UF: Semi-rigid brace and taping decrease variability of the ankle joint position sense. Motriz. 2014;20:448–53.

Lee W-H, Kwon O-Y, Yi C-H, Jeon H-S, Ha S-M. Effects of taping on wrist extensor force and joint position reproduction sense of subjects with and without lateral epicondylitis. J Phys Ther Sci. 2011;23(4):629–34.

Mokhtarinia H, Ebrahimi TI, Salavati M, Goharpai S, Khosravi A. The effect of patellar taping on knee joint proprioception in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. 2008.

Schenker M. Tape versus mikros. Kranken Gymnastik. 1991;43(0010):01081–97.

Barzegar Ganji Z, Dehghan-Manshadi F, Khademi-Kalantari K, Ghasemi M, Tabatabaee SM. The immediate effect of kinesio tape on the variation of shoulder position sense at different angles in patients with impingement syndrome. Sci J Rehabil Med. 2015;4(2):37–45.

Kisa EP, Kaya BK. Does Taping Have an Immediate Effect on Shooting the Target? Percept Mot Skills. 2023;130(4):1609–23.

Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JPT. The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(3):e59202.

Roberts D, Ageberg E, Andersson G, Fridén T. Clinical measurements of proprioception, muscle strength and laxity in relation to function in the ACL-injured knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007;15(1):9–16.

Takahashi K, Shitara H, Ichinose T, Sasaki T, Hamano N, Hasegawa M, Yamaji T, Tazawa M, Chikuda H, Wada N. Delayed detection of passive motion in shoulders with a rotator cuff tear. J Orthop Res. 2022;40(6):1263–9.

Antcliff S, Welvaert M, Witchalls J, Wallwork SB, Waddington G. Using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus to Test Individual Proprioception Acuity: Implications for Test Design. Percept Mot Skills. 2020;128(1):283–303.

Swets JA: Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers: Psychology Press; 2014.

Stanley TD, Doucouliagos H, Ioannidis JPA. Beyond Random Effects: When Small-Study Findings Are More Heterogeneous. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2022;5(4):25152459221120428.

Perlau R, Frank C, Fick G. The effect of elastic bandages on human knee proprioception in the uninjured population. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(2):251–5.

Birmingham TB, Kramer JF, Inglis JT, Mooney CA, Murray LJ, Fowler PJ, Kirkley S. Effect of a neoprene sleeve on knee joint position sense during sitting open kinetic chain and supine closed kinetic chain tests. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(4):562–6.

Ghai S, Ghai I, Narciss S. Influence of taping on force sense accuracy: a systematic review with between and within group meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2023;15(1):138.

Alam S, Malhotra D, Munjal J, Chachra A. Immediate effect of Kinesio taping on shoulder muscle strength and range of motion in healthy individuals: A randomised trial. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2015;33(2):80–8.

Reynard F, Vuistiner P, Léger B, Konzelmann M. Immediate and short-term effects of kinesiotaping on muscular activity, mobility, strength and pain after rotator cuff surgery: a crossover clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):305.

Franettovich Smith MM, Coates SS, Creaby MW. A comparison of rigid tape and exercise, elastic tape and exercise and exercise alone on pain and lower limb function in individuals with exercise related leg pain: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(1):328.

Shaheen AF, Bull AMJ, Alexander CM. Rigid and Elastic taping changes scapular kinematics and pain in subjects with shoulder impingement syndrome; an experimental study. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2015;25(1):84–92.

Bozkurt T, Kilic RT, Yosmaoglu HB. The effect of elastic therapeutic taping and rigid taping on pain, functionality, and tissue temperature in lumbar radiculopathy: a randomized controlled study. Somatosens Mot Res. 2021;38(4):373–80.

Best R, Mauch F, Böhle C, Huth J, Brüggemann P. Residual Mechanical Effectiveness of External Ankle Tape Before and After Competitive Professional Soccer Performance. Clin J Sport Med. 2014;24(1):51–7.

Oppici L, Grütters K, Garofolini A, Rosenkranz R, Narciss S. Deliberate Practice and Motor Learning Principles to Underpin the Design of Training Interventions for Improving Lifting Movement in the Occupational Sector: A Perspective and a Pilot Study on the Role of Augmented Feedback. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3.

Pinto BL, Beaudette SM, Brown SHM. Tactile cues can change movement: An example using tape to redistribute flexion from the lumbar spine to the hips and knees during lifting. Hum Mov Sci. 2018;60:32–9.

Williams SA, Ng L, Stephens N, Klem N, Wild C. Effect of prophylactic ankle taping on ankle and knee biomechanics during basketball-specific tasks in females. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;32:200–6.

Miura K, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Okamura Y, Otsuka H, Toh S. The effect of local and general fatigue on knee proprioception. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(4):414–8.

Hiemstra LA, Lo IKY, Fowler PJ. Effect of fatigue on knee proprioception: implications for dynamic stabilization. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001;31(10):598–605.

Kim J, Kim S, Lee J. Longer application of kinesio taping would be beneficial for exercise-induced muscle damage. J Exercise Rehabil. 2016;12(5):456.

Button KS, Ioannidis J, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, Munafò MR. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(5):365–76.

Goble DJ. Proprioceptive acuity assessment via joint position matching: from basic science to general practice. Phys Ther. 2010;90(8):1176–84.

Laszlo JI: Chapter 2 Motor Control and Learning: How Far Do the Experimental Tasks Restrict Our Theoretical Insight? In: Advances in Psychology. Volume 84, edn. Edited by Summers JJ: North-Holland; 1992: 47–79.

Schmidt RA, Young DE, Swinnen S, Shapiro DC. Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989;15(2):352.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Open access funding provided by Karlstad University. This work was partly funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) as part of Germany's Excellence Strategy—EXC 2050/1—Project ID 390696704—Cluster of Excellence "Centre for Tactile Internet with Human-in-the-Loop" (CeTI) of Technische Universität Dresden. The open access funding was provided by Karlstad University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political, Historical, Religious and Cultural Studies, Karlstads Universitet, Karlstad, Sweden

Shashank Ghai

Centre for Societal Risk Research, Karlstads Universitet, Karlstad, Sweden

Psychology of Learning and Instruction, Department of Psychology, School of Science, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Shashank Ghai & Susanne Narciss

Centre for Tactile Internet With Human-in-the-Loop (CeTI), Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

School of Life Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SG conceptualized the study and was responsible for designing and implementing the research. SG, IG acted as the independent reviewers and performed the statistical analysis. SG wrote the initial version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shashank Ghai .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, 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

Supplementary material 1., 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.

Ghai, S., Ghai, I. & Narciss, S. Influence of taping on joint proprioception: a systematic review with between and within group meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25 , 480 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07571-2

Download citation

Received : 14 February 2024

Accepted : 06 June 2024

Published : 18 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07571-2

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

• Position sense
• Proprioception
• Rehabilitation

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

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

• Open access
• Published: 15 June 2024

The role of corruption in global food systems: a systematic scoping review

• Anastassia Demeshko 1 ,
• Chloe Clifford Astbury 1 , 2 ,
• Kirsten M. Lee 1 , 2 ,
• Janielle Clarke 1 ,
• Katherine Cullerton 3 &
• Tarra L. Penney 1 , 2  

Globalization and Health volume  20 , Article number:  48 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

226 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Corruption exists at all levels of our global society and is a potential threat to food security, food safety, equity, and social justice. However, there is a knowledge gap in the role and impact of corruption within the context of the global food system. We aimed to systematically review empirical literature focused on corruption in the global food system to examine how it is characterized, the actors involved, its potential impacts, and the solutions that have been proposed to address corruption in the food system.

We used a systematic scoping review methodology. Terms combining corruption and the food system were searched in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Econlit, in October 2021. Two screeners applied a priori selection criteria to screen the articles at the title and abstract and full-text levels. Data was extracted into a charting form and thematically synthesized to describe the types of corruption in the food system, the actors involved, how corruption impacts the food system, and potential solutions. Sankey diagrams and narrative summaries were developed to summarize the included studies and findings.

From the 238 included records, five main types of corruption were identified in the global food system: bureaucratic corruption, fraud, bribery, organized crime, and corporate political activity. These different types of corruption spanned across various food system areas, from policy and governance structures to food environments, and involved a wide range of actors. More powerful actors like those in public and private sectors tended to instigate corruption in the food system, while community members and primary producers tended to be impacted by it. The impacts of corruption were mostly negative and corruption was found to undermine food system governance and regulatory structures; threaten health, safety, and food security; and lead or contribute to environmental degradation, economic loss, erosion of trust, social inequities, and decreased agricultural productivity. While solution-oriented literature was limited, the essential role of strong governance,  use of technology and predictive modelling methods to improve detection of corruption, and organizational approaches to problem solving were identified.

Our review findings provide researchers and policymakers with a comprehensive overview of corruption in the global food system, providing insights to inform a more holistic approach to addressing the issue. Addressing corruption in the food system is an essential element of supporting the transition to a more healthy, equitable and sustainable global food system.

Introduction

Corruption is a complex phenomenon which takes many forms and exists at all levels of global society [ 1 ]. Within the global food system, there is limited understanding of the types of corruption that exist, the actors involved, and whether the potential impacts might disrupt efforts to transition to healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems [ 2 ].

The need for a systems approach for healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems

The Food and Agriculture Organization defines the food system as encompassing “ the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food products that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries, and parts of the broader economic, societal and natural environments in which they are embedded ” [ 3 ]. From production to consumption, the productivity and sustainability of the global food system are interconnected with policy and governance structures and systems that support food production (e.g., ecological, economic or health systems that food supply chains depend on) [ 4 ]. In turn, these directly and indirectly affect the food supply chains, food environments, consumer behaviors, diets, and health outcomes contained within the food system [ 3 , 5 ].

The current food system is failing to provide nutritious foods for all [ 6 ]. Inextricably linked to issues of health, humanitarianism, and environmental sustainability [ 7 , 8 ], the food system is associated with complex challenges such as poverty, non-communicable disease, environmental degradation, and economic downturns [ 9 ]. More than 800 million people experience hunger [ 9 ], over two billion experience micronutrient deficiencies [ 10 ], and almost two billion live with overweight or obesity [ 11 ]. While enough food is produced to feed the world, 931 million tons of food were wasted in 2019–17% of all food produced [ 12 ]. Food systems are essential to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including ‘zero hunger’ and ‘responsible consumption and production’ [ 3 ].

Given the complexity of food system challenges, there has been a call for systems approaches to guide a global transition to healthy, sustainable and equitable food systems [ 3 ]. A systems approach recognizes the totality of food system components and drivers, which may help to address the limitations of previous efforts to improve food security and nutrition, such as taking a production-focused approach that aims to increase food supply [ 3 , 4 , 13 ]. While this approach might allow systemic challenges, such as corruption, to be holistically conceptualized, these challenges can vary in their presentation, drivers, and impacts across the food system [ 6 , 7 ].

The challenge of corruption in the global food system

Corruption can be defined as the abuse of entrusted power, usually for the purpose of political, financial, or personal gain [ 1 ]. In its most common forms, corruption can occur as bribery, theft, nepotism, exploitation of conflicting interests, organized crime, legislative capture, extortion, improper political contributions, and poor governance [ 14 ]. Corruption has been shown to be a primary barrier for nations in meeting SDGs [ 15 , 16 ]. However, although we know that corruption is present throughout society, little attention has been allocated to understanding its role in the context of improving global food systems in efforts to support health, the environment, and equity.

Given that corruption varies in type, activity, and between sectors, it is critical to develop context-specific understanding of how it operates in the food system [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Explicit acts of food system corruption have been identified, including public officials accepting bribes and participating in organized crime [ 20 , 21 ]. Experts have also introduced the idea of ‘legal corruption’ [ 17 , 22 ], which includes widespread practices in food policy and research such as unreported conflict of interest with the food and beverage industry [ 17 ]. Corruption is also interspersed in the functioning of society and therefore, difficult to eradicate given the role it plays in daily life [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. For example, in some countries, corruption has become essential for ensuring jobs and farm loans can be secured. Understanding corruption in the global food system can inform anti-corruption policies and programs that minimize further impacts on vulnerable actors. Therefore, there is a need to understand corruption in the context of the global food system and address the knowledge gap in how we can integrate anti-corruption measures to support a food system transition [ 17 , 26 ].

We aimed to systematically review literature focused on corruption in the global food system to understand how it is characterized, the actors involved, whether and how corruption impacts the food system, and potential solutions to corruption in the food system.

A systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted to investigate corruption in the global food system. The five-stage scoping review framework devised by Arksey and O’Malley, and refined by Levac et al., was used to identify and summarize the literature on this topic [ 27 , 28 ]. The methodology and reporting were directed by the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews’ guidelines [ 29 ].

Stage 1: identifying the research question

Informed by our study aims, our research questions were:

How is corruption in the food system characterized in the peer-reviewed literature?

What actors are involved in corruption in the food system, how does corruption impact the food system, what solutions have been proposed to address corruption in the food system, stage 2: identifying relevant studies.

Five electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Econlit) were systematically searched in October 2021 to identify the relevant literature for the scoping review. The main concepts of the research question informed the search strategy. These concepts were guided by the ‘Population, Concept, Context’ Framework established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Table  1 ) [ 30 ]. Titles, abstracts, and keywords within the electronic databases were searched (see Supplementary File 1 for the full search strategy).

Stage 3: study selection

Records identified through the database searches were collated and screened using Covidence reference management software [ 31 ]. All duplicates were removed. To select the relevant papers, the eligibility criteria presented in Table  2 were used.

A modified double screening process was used. First, AD and CCA independently screened an initial set of 100 titles and abstracts. Results were compared to ensure consistency in decisions around study eligibility, and disagreements were resolved through consensus. This process was repeated until an acceptable level of agreement (> 90%) was reached. The remaining records were screened by AD. AD and CCA screened 50% of title and abstracts before moving to single screening. Following this, full-text double screening was undertaken by AD and CCA on all articles, and conflicts were resolved by consensus. As recommended by published guidelines, the list of included studies was refined iteratively throughout the selection process [ 27 , 28 ].

Stage 4: charting the data

Two researchers (AD and JC) extracted data using a data charting form (see Supplementary File 2 ), focusing on key study characteristics including the country context and area of the food system in which corruption occurred; type of corruption explored in the study; stakeholders involved; impacts of corruption; and any potential solutions proposed. In line with the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review guidelines, we trialed the data charting form with ten records, making revisions as needed to ensure the data was appropriately addressing the research questions. Amendments to the charting form involved broadening and simplifying the prompts for data extraction. This was due to the heterogeneity of study types, which made sections of the initial form inapplicable to some studies. In line with scoping review guidelines, a formal quality assessment of the records was not conducted.

Stage 5: collating, summarizing, and reporting the results

To summarize this large and heterogenous data set, we used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Based on a review of the charted data, we developed and defined categories (Table  3 ) to summarize the included studies, drawing on relevant frameworks and definitions from the literature focused on types of corruption (e.g., Transparency International’s database, the concept of legal corruption, Corporate Political Activity framework) [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]; food system actors [ 36 , 37 ]; and areas of the food system [ 5 , 10 ]. We used the categories described in Table  3 , as well as narrative summaries developed through qualitative content analysis [ 38 ] and visual summaries in the form of Sankey diagrams, to answer our research questions:

We characterized studies as focusing on one or more of the five corruption types (Table  3 ). For each type, we reviewed relevant summaries, narratively summarizing examples of this corruption type occurring within the food system, as well as measurement and data collection approaches.

In describing the food system actors involved with corruption in each study, we identified two roles: instigators of corruption and those impacted by corruption. We categorized each of our included studies by the food system area in which corruption occurred, and the actors who instigated or were impacted by corruption. We summarized this information using a Sankey diagram to illustrate the concentration of corruption in particular food system areas, as well as the flow of corruption from instigators to those impacted. The Sankey diagram was developed using an open-source online tool, SankeyMATIC [ 39 ]. Sankey diagrams have been suggested as a useful tool to present patterns of evidence in systematic reviews, particularly when data is complex and heterogenous [ 40 ]; as was the case for our dataset. A Sankey diagram consists of nodes and their connecting flows (e.g., flows of information, resources, or characteristics) within a process or network [ 40 , 41 ]. In our Sankey diagrams, the nodes represent the areas of interest in the review synthesis process, while the flows represent the number of studies in which a concept was identified. The width of each flow is proportional to the total number of times each concept was identified within the literature, and the intersection between different study characteristics (e.g., how many studies reported on corruption perpetuated by government officials and, of these, how many reported impacts on farmers versus consumers versus other stakeholders? ). As the categories for the different nodes are not mutually exclusive and studies often included multiple concepts (e.g., fraud and organized crime were reported in the same study), the totals do not equate to the number of included records and instead, vary between nodes.

In order to assess the impacts of corruption, we focused on studies categorized as providing evidence of impact, rather than descriptive evidence (Table  3 ). To illustrate the intersections between the type of corruption, the area in which it occurred and its impacts, we developed a Sankey diagram using the approach described above. We also narratively summarized the evidence around each type of impact, citing examples drawn from the included literature.

We narratively summarized the evidence around proposed solutions to corruption in the food system, as presented in the included studies.

Our search identified 5326 records after duplicates were removed. Of these, a total of 238 articles met the inclusion criteria (see Fig.  1 ).

PRISMA flow diagram

Most studies were focused on Sub-Saharan Africa ( n  = 55, of a total of 238 records) and Europe and Central Asia ( n  = 54), followed by East Asia and Pacific ( n  = 37), South Asia ( n  = 25), North America ( n  = 19), Latin America and The Caribbean ( n  = 13), and Middle East and North Africa ( n  = 5). Additionally, 30 papers studied corruption at the global level, including multiple regions. High- ( n  = 68, of a total of 238 records) and lower-middle-income ( n  = 67) countries were most commonly studied. Studies at the global level involving various income brackets ( n  = 48), and those of upper-middle-income ( n  = 39) nations, were also frequently investigated. Low-income nations were the least studied ( n  = 16) from the included literature in this review. Included studies were published between 1992 and 2021. Of the total, almost 90% of the records were published after 2010 (refer to Fig.  2 ).

Records included in the scoping review by year of publication ( n  = 238)

A similar number of articles used quantitative ( n  = 101) and qualitative ( n  = 99) study designs. The remaining 38 papers used mixed methods approaches. Studies used many approaches to collecting data on corruption in the food system, and this choice was often informed by the authors’ interpretations of corruption in their food system context. Supplementary File 3 summarizes the methodological approaches taken to capturing corruption. The quantitative approaches to measuring corruption included macro-level analysis, applying standardized internationally comparable indicators such as the Corruption Perception Index developed by Transparency International and the World Bank’s ‘control of corruption’ measure; micro-level analysis, where a proxy variable was developed to represent the specific type of corruption, often at a local or national level; and modelling analysis where empirical data was used to test the predictive power of the model. Qualitative approaches included ethnographic research, case study analysis, content analysis, and interview data collection.

The types of corruption investigated in the food system context were also heterogenous and terminology was used inconsistently. However, it was possible to identify conceptually distinct types of corruption: bureaucratic corruption ( n  = 105), fraud ( n  = 68), organized crime ( n  = 56), corporate political activity (CPA) ( n  = 38), and bribery ( n  = 33). The descriptive characteristics for the included records stratified by corruption type are presented in Table  4 below (full study details in Supplementary File 4 ).

We categorized corruption into five types as described in Table  3 : bureaucratic corruption, fraud, organized crime, corporate political activity and bribery. Examples of each type of corruption, as well as approaches to capturing and collecting data used in the literature, are summarized below.

Bureaucratic corruption

Bureaucratic corruption was the type of corruption most frequently identified in the food system context. While it was studied in all country income groups, it was most commonly studied in lower middle income countries ( n  = 48). North America was the only region where bureaucratic corruption was only studied as part of records investigating multiple countries and/or reporting global-level aggregate indicators. Overall, most studies in this category involved the public sector. Political corruption, political influence, rent seeking (i.e. extracting wealth through political or social power), and clientelism (i.e. trading political power for goods and services) were types of bureaucratic corruption specific to the public sector. Public sector corruption was frequently investigated through macro-level indicators (utilizing standardized internationally comparable indicators such as the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International and World Bank’s governance indicators, namely the ‘control of corruption’ measure) to understand institutional relationships [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Context-specific explorations of corruption involving governments or state officials were also identified through a range of methodological approaches, including ethnographic studies to understand ambivalent personal relatedness in public office, or case-study analyses involving key informant interviews with those experiencing the bureaucratic corruption [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. The subtypes of patronage, regulatory capture, coercion, nepotism, cronyism, negligence of duty, conflict of interest and extortion generally applied to a range of food system areas and actors [ 23 , 53 ].

Food fraud was the most common type of fraud studied, involving food industry actors who altered food products in a way that deceived citizens but enabled corporations or businesses to gain profits. Fraud was most commonly studied in high-income nations ( n  = 34). Examples of food fraud include the 2013 horsemeat scandal in the European Union, compromised safety of infant formula in China, and more generally, cases where product authenticity was not upheld (e.g., extra-virgin olive oil, halal meat products, seafood) and resulted in food safety issues for communities [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. The consequences of food fraud on consumer trust in the food industry and farmers’ trust in the authorities and other food system actors were also commonly investigated [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Other identified types of fraud were agricultural fraud (e.g., contaminated crop pesticides), identity fraud, forgery, financial fraud and theft of public funds, computer fraud, and food stamp fraud [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ].

Organized crime

Organized crime was present in the global food system in diverse ways. This included illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; labor exploitation of farm or restaurant workers; resource leakage or diversion of funds, particularly in food subsidy or welfare programs; collusion; land grabbing; money laundering using the structures of food production as a pawn; embezzlement; and reoccurring instances of theft or pilferage [ 20 , 59 , 68 ]. A common area of overlap was found between organized crime and fraud, where ‘food crimes’ were described. Examples of these ‘food crimes’ include farmers experiencing repeated exploitation or theft of stock within the meat supply chain, and subsidy leakage and diversion in public distribution programs which particularly affected vulnerable communities [ 69 , 70 ].

Corporate political activity

Corporate political activity (CPA) largely concerned acts of lobbying, but also captured any tactics that corporations and businesses used to influence policies that affected the food system (e.g., sugar taxation, agricultural subsidies, obesity prevention legislation) [ 71 , 72 , 73 ]. These activities were typically legal in their contexts, and were often seen as a legitimate and accepted part of the democratic process in democratic countries. CPA captures what some study authors call a ‘grey area’ of corruption which, while legal, involves behaviors that influence food governance and policies for the private gains of industry [ 74 , 75 ].

Examples of bribery involved excess financial payments in exchange for goods, such as food stamp cards, or services. Services provided in exchange for bribes included transporting food products across borders or providing a positive food safety inspection result regardless of whether products or premises met regulatory standards [ 21 , 76 , 77 ]. Bribery was often captured by measuring discrepancies between the expected versus actual cost of a service or item, or through accounts of paying off an individual in a position of authority. In some cases, it was merely stated that ‘bribery’ was present without elaboration. While at other times, bribery was sub-categorized as gift-giving or kickbacks. Gift-giving involved the transfer of resources (that were not necessarily financial) in exchange for a favor. Presented as a sociocultural norm, descriptions of gift-giving were less negative in tone compared to other forms of bribery [ 21 , 78 , 79 ].

Figure  3 illustrates the flow of corruption across the food system from actors who are instigators of corruption to those impacted by corruption (see Supplementary File 4 for full details of included studies). Within policy and governance structures, government officials and public servants were the most frequently identified instigators of corruption ( n  = 81), where their behaviors mostly impacted community members ( n  = 45). Intermediaries ( n  = 27) and public safety and security authorities or regulators ( n  = 24) were the next most frequent instigators of corruption within policy and governance structures. Notably, within food supply chains, every category of actor was found to be involved with instigating corruption in this food system area, though business and corporate actors were the most frequent instigators ( n  = 33). While community members were most commonly impacted by corruption, they were rarely identified as the instigators of corruption. In contrast, business or corporate actors were often identified as instigators of corruption but were impacted by corruption on only a few occasions (see Supplementary File 5 for full distribution of instigators and those impacted by corruption).

Sankey diagram identifying the flow of corruption among food system actors. The width of each flow is proportional to the total number of concepts identified in the literature for that node, representing a salience of these concepts across the literature base. As the categories for the different nodes are not mutually exclusive the totals vary between nodes. Ns represent the number of concepts identified for each category. (*) Differentiates similar-named categories across different nodes

Of the included studies, 155 records reported an impact of corruption on the food system. Figure  4 illustrates how corruptions impacts the food system in different ways (see Supplementary File 4 for full study details). The impacts on the food system were primarily negative, though there were also nuances, where corruption was depicted as being interwoven with the food system and a part of some of its functions and mechanisms. A summary of how corruption impacts the food system is described below.

Undermines governance and regulatory structures

Corruption undermined food system governance structures. Namely, corruption resulted in inefficient operations, impaired accountability, poor performance and lack of transparency. This could have ripple effects beyond the food system, creating barriers to addressing climate change, for example by undermining equitable access to funds and infrastructure made available to support adaptation to climate change [ 80 , 81 ]. Corruption also undermined food safety: in some cases, failed health inspections were dismissed or food production had decreased input quality (e.g., seeds, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides were below acceptable standards), and surveillance was relaxed to conceal substandard food practices [ 21 , 50 , 82 , 83 ].

Officials responsible for governing society often undermined governance systems, using their position of authority as an opportunity for private gain. State officials often sought bribes from individuals working within the food system, normalizing corruption throughout the system [ 78 , 82 , 84 ]. In one study, truck drivers transporting food were threatened with transit delays by police officers unless they offered a bribe [ 76 ]. In another example, artisanal fishers found it more beneficial to bribe officials than obtain a formal license for their vessel. While the bribe could cost substantially more than a fishing license, it exempted them from further fishing controls [ 59 ]. In these cases, individuals found it necessary to engage in corrupt practices to protect their livelihoods [ 81 ].

Corruption also undermined the democratic process and attempts at socioeconomic and political reform. Patron-client relationships were often part of an informal governance system that accorded private sector actors a degree of decision-making power over regulations or public policy. This dynamic was documented in the literature in contexts including Indonesian fishing laws [ 85 ], food commodity market prices [ 83 ], food welfare subsidies [ 86 ], and food inspection regulations [ 21 ]. Governance was also undermined by buying votes to influence political outcomes [ 87 ], censoring public health campaigns [ 88 , 89 ], or influencing academics to frame evidence and public opinion in a way that favored industry interests [ 56 ].

Similarly, the grey area of corruption involved corporate political activities that, although legal, also interfered with policy and government decision-making processes [ 72 ]. For example, actors used strategies including media and public mobilization, lobbying, contributions to election campaigns, or creation of kinship and social ties between business and political elites, to prevent meaningful agricultural or food tax reform that aimed to redistribute costs away from consumers, farmers, or individuals with low socioeconomic backgrounds, to corporations and the rich [ 90 , 91 , 92 ]. Food industry lobbying that weakened policy responses to address diet-related disease was also investigated [ 93 ]. Shifting the focus of government policy away from socio-structural factors to individual responsibility, and from nutrition to physical activity is an instance of this [ 94 ], as well as abolishing the formulation of a sugar tax [ 95 ]. Moreover, it was reported that corruption weakened governance but weak governance also allowed corruption to occur, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of more corruptive behaviors [ 96 ].

Leads to environmental degradation

The presence of corruption was reported to lead to environmental degradation in various forms. This included overexploitation of species and natural resources, such as declining local fish supply and catches due to unregulated fishing, threats to wildlife, disregard for climate change and the environment, and greater deforestation when higher levels of corruption were present [ 52 , 97 , 98 ].

Decreases agricultural productivity

Corruption led to decreased agricultural productivity in various ways. It reduced farmer cropland expansion and caused farmers to abandon farmland; limited the number of animals that could be profitably sold due to excess costs of corruption (e.g., due to bribes or informally changed rules and regulations); and affected smallholder farmers’ and traders’ ability to participate in food production due to inflated costs [ 99 , 100 ]. The consequences of corruption for agricultural productivity are also compounded by resource leakage causing reduced agricultural output for farmers, and reduced labor capacity for farming due to workers migrating away from areas where corruption was inevitable [ 101 , 102 , 103 ].

Threatens health, safety, and food security

Corruption poses numerous threats to health, both at the individual and national level. Whether it was decreased caloric intake due to high food prices and lack of food accessibility (i.e., from having to pay bribes), or health risks due to the consumption of unsafe food in the case of food fraud, corruption was described as negatively impacting physical and psychological health [ 56 , 104 ]. When workers were involved, e.g., at a restaurant or farm, corruptive acts involved exploitation that led to consequences to health, safety, and even life [ 105 , 106 , 107 ]. At the macro level, decreased national life expectancy, and increased food insecurity, malnutrition, mortality, and armed conflict, were other reported impacts of corruption [ 104 , 108 , 109 ].

Erodes trust

The erosion of trust within communities was another byproduct of corruption in the food system. Decreased consumer confidence in products linked to corruption negatively impacted purchasing behaviors, food preferences, and perceptions of brand credibility [ 58 , 62 , 110 ]. Moreover, the exposure of corruption within the food system threatened social order and undermined community relationships, as it fueled community doubt in authorities and those in power [ 56 , 111 ].

Economic loss

Financial or economic loss due to corruption were also present in various areas of the food system. At the household level, corruption was a financial burden due to overpayments for products and lowered income, especially impacting people in low-income brackets [ 104 , 112 ]. Furthermore, unequally distributed welfare payments placed further financial pressure on food insecure households. The cost of participating in food production in the presence of corruption, (e.g., paying for land, administrative fees, etc.) caused financial losses for farmers and businesses, resulted in unstable markets, and increased downstream costs in the food supply chain [ 113 , 114 ]. At the national level, the presence of corruption diverted investors’ financial aid and foreign direct investments, discouraged business activity, and led to loss of output and employment [ 103 , 115 , 116 , 117 ].

Widening social inequities

The widening of social inequities was another impact of corruption in the food system. Segregation, racism, and social exclusion were perpetuated by corruption [ 92 , 118 ]. Whether it was at the shop level where households belonging to ‘lower’ castes were unable to buy products, or at the national level, where villagers were stripped of their land rights to enable lucrative business development, the power imbalance that often complemented corruptive behavior further exacerbated social inequities. Low-income households, minority groups, and smallholder farmers were disproportionately affected [ 111 , 119 ]. For smallholders in particular, marginalization occurred when large-scale farms captured most of the market due to patronage relations and power imbalances [ 92 , 120 , 121 ]. Moreover, diversion of funding and resources, and market price instability also had greater impacts on smallholders’ participation in food production activities [ 122 , 123 ].

Nuance in the impacts of corruption

Despite the negative impacts of corruption in the food system, there was some nuance in the portrayal of corruption in the literature. In some cases, studies highlighted that corruption was tightly interwoven with the food system, and was a key part of some of its functions and mechanisms. Corruption was seen as a mechanism to compensate for bureaucratic failures throughout the food supply chain, and a norm to the functionality of governance systems to progress policymaking [ 21 , 50 , 124 , 125 , 126 ]. In these instances, tackling corruption without looking at its broader context may have unintended consequences. In other cases, corruption itself had positive unintended consequences. Agricultural productivity was negatively impacted by corruption, but this was reported as a benefit for the environment as natural habitats were protected from cropland expansion and deforestation [ 101 , 127 , 128 ]. Positive policy responses to corruption were also reported, where, after corruption was identified, as in the case of food fraud, industry and government were incentivized to be more transparent, introduce better regulatory standards, and address the issues to regain consumer trust [ 129 , 130 ]. Finally, some studies reported no significant impacts of corruption in their analyses [ 63 , 71 , 131 , 132 ].

Few studies focused on potential solutions to address corruption in the food system, while many discussed the critical role of effective governance structures and processes. In terms of empirical research investigating approaches to address corruption, technological solutions were proposed, such as switching to digital food ration cards to prevent resource leakage and using blockchain to address food fraud traceability [ 133 , 134 , 135 ]. In line with seeking better approaches to monitoring corruption in the food supply chain, improved predictive modelling methods and global standardization of detecting corruption were also proposed [ 47 , 136 ]. Finally, an organizational approach to problem solving was explored, where social farming or social enterprises were effective societal organization structures for disempowering organized crime and weakening criminal control [ 137 , 138 ].

Sankey diagram identifying the flow of corruption across the food system areas and its eventual impacts. The width of each flow is proportional to the total number of concepts identified in the literature for that node, representing a salience of these concepts across the literature base. As the categories for the different nodes are not mutually exclusive the totals vary between nodes. For Node 3, the NA category represents papers that did not report on the impacts of corruption and were classified as ‘descriptive’ studies

The findings of this study emphasize the complexity of corruption in the global food system. Across the 238 included records, corruption in the food system was studied across a range of country income brackets in the past decade. Five main types of corruption were identified in the literature related to the global food system: bureaucratic corruption, fraud, bribery, organized crime, and corporate political activity. Corruption spanned across various areas of the food system and was commonly observed in policy and governance structures. A total of 155 studies reported on the impacts of corruption on the global food system, with no definitive pathway demonstrating how corruption flowed into eventual impacts. Corruption undermined food system governance and regulatory structures; threatened health, safety, and food security; led or contributed to environmental degradation, economic loss, erosion of trust, and social inequities; and decreased agricultural productivity. The impacts of corruption were nuanced, for example, in some cases corruption led to societal benefits or had no apparent effects on society. A pattern of power imbalances was identified, where community members and primary and raw material producers were disproportionately impacted by corruption, while the instigators were commonly public and private sector actors. Although few solutions were proposed, some were promising in addressing corruption in the food system, such as predictive modelling to improve detection of corruption and organizational approaches to problem solving.

Insights from findings and comparison with existing literature

Synthesizing the literature to understand corruption in the applied food system context is necessary to recognize the context-dependent variability of corruption [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. To our knowledge, this scoping review was the first to systematically investigate corruption in the global food system. A report describing anti-corruption measures in the agricultural sector found corruption affected all levels within the sector including the input, production, processing and packaging, storage and distribution stages as well as the consumer interface [ 139 ]. Although the report does not encompass the whole food system, this report supports the finding in the current review that addressing corruption in the agricultural subsector of the food system is complex [ 139 ].

The review identified characteristics of corruption and the diverse ways in which it affects different areas of the food system. The finding that corruption in the food system was not localized to one particular income group, reinforces the inaccuracy of longstanding beliefs that corruption is a “third-world” or “developing country” problem [ 140 , 141 , 142 ]. Characterizing corruption in the food system helped to identify ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ corruption [ 143 ], and conclude that corruption is especially present in policy and governance structures and food supply chains. Moreover, the heterogeneity in the approaches to investigating corruption in the food system identified the multidimensional nature of addressing corruption. There were no existing frameworks to guide understanding corruption in food system contexts and individual study findings were dependent on the authors’ conceptualizations of the phenomenon. This demonstrates the need to use interdisciplinary knowledge to cooperatively identify relevant solutions and holistically address corruption in the food system.

Analysis across the stakeholder categories identified a general trend showing an imbalance of power relating to the impacts of corruption. The burdens of corruption are largely being placed on more vulnerable groups, such as community members and primary food producers, while government officials and public servants, intermediaries, and business and corporate actors, are most commonly instigators of corruption (Fig.  3 ). Moreover, the identified impacts, such as social inequities, economic loss, decreased agricultural productivity, and health risks and food insecurity (among others), also disproportionately affect those with the least amount of power. By illustrating the flow of corruption in the food system (Fig.  4 ), insights into the connections between the types of corruption, areas of the food system, and the eventual impacts were uncovered. Given the widespread presence of corruption across the food system, working towards more sustainable and equitable food systems should incorporate the effects of corruption, as it may further exacerbate inequities if unaddressed [ 144 , 145 ].

Implications for research and practice

Understanding how corruption presents itself in the food system, where it exists, who is involved, and how it flows throughout the food system to its eventual impacts highlights potential areas for intervention that could support the food system transition. Given that the impacts of corruption are largely negative and there is little consideration for corruption in the existing policies and agendas for a food system transition [ 2 , 146 ], failing to integrate measures to address corruption may undermine efforts toward attaining a healthier, more equitable, food system. The evidence from this review may assist with informing and developing anti-corruption policies and programs. Since there were few studies describing proposed solutions to corruption in the food system, developing, evaluating, and reporting anti-corruption measures within the applied context is necessary [ 139 , 147 ].

The complex nature of corruption in the global food system, along with the limited number of solutions to address it, present the need for interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral approaches to developing solutions to minimize corruption. Conceptualizing corruption through a systems lens and recognizing the totality of the food system’s components and drivers may help to address the limitations of previous efforts to improve food security and nutrition [ 4 , 13 ]. A systems-informed holistic lens allows us to unpack the complexity of how corruption impacts social systems and the macro-level collective dynamics in the global food system [ 144 , 145 ].

Moreover, system theory and explorations of the perspectives relating to corruption have suggested that corruption is deployed as a moral language that shifts according to political-economic and power relations [ 141 ]. The nuanced findings from our review identifying that corruption may be interwoven in the functions and mechanisms of social and political systems, and is not bound by geographical regions or income levels, reinforces the complexity of addressing corruption. As corruption often involves a selectively applied and ‘slippery’ discourse [ 141 ], the measurement of corruption further confounds our understanding of the phenomenon. Although it might not fit conventional definitions, conceptualizing corruption as a challenge that includes ‘legal’ forms of corruption and that is widespread across the globe, may provide critical insight into unjust practices and issues relating to corruption in the global food system [ 141 , 143 , 145 , 148 ].

Strengths and limitations of the review

The review is strengthened by our use of a broad and neutral definition of corruption to inform our investigation of corruption in the global food system. The broad definition limited bias from existing perceptions of corruption and enabled an inclusive understanding of corruption. The review considered samples from low- to high-income nations across numerous geographical regions, and a wide range of study contexts and corruption types. An iterative deductive and inductive approach was used to guide the review, to maintain an understanding that is adaptive and reflective of corruption in multiple contexts.

The findings of this review are limited to what has been studied in peer-reviewed literature. Therefore, these findings represent the scope and breadth of empirical research, but are likely to exclude other essential scholarship related to defining and characterizing corruption broadly, debates related to the role of commercial entities and governance and corruption that could be applied to the area of global food systems and corruption. Beyond the academic knowledge base, grey literature may contain additional information on this topic. Many cases of corruption in the food system may be hidden and challenging to document: identifying, measuring and studying corruption is challenging and sometimes dangerous. Moreover, findings suggest there are food system areas where corruption has not been studied. For example, although a recent report by the European Commission testified that the waste sector is prone to corruption at the local level, corruption in the waste management sector was not described in the included literature [ 149 ]. Although we used data charting templates to allow for consistent reporting throughout the review, the findings of this review are subject to author bias given the nuanced nature of corruption. The scoping review was also limited to English-language articles, potentially missing relevant literature that is outside this scope.

This systematic scoping review aimed to understand the characteristics, involved actors, impacts, and empirical evidence for approaches to address corruption in the global food system. The findings from this review characterized the types of corruption in the food system and their eventual impacts, identified the actors involved, and synthesized the limited evidence for potential solutions. These findings could support the essential but often overlooked topic of corruption in global governance of food systems and support researchers and policymakers in developing, implementing, and evaluating anti-corruption measures to aid efforts to build an equitable, sustainable, and healthy food system for all.

Data availability

All data generated in this review is included in the manuscript and supplementary materials. The data source for the review consisted of articles which are available from their respective publishers.

Transparency International. 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index. In: Transparency.org [Internet]. 2020 [cited 11 Oct 2022]. Available: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020 .

Tacconi L, Williams DA. Corruption and Anti-corruption in Environmental and Resource Management. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2020;45:305–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-083949 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Food and Agriculture Organization. Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework. Rome; 2018.

Ingram J. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Secur 2011 34. 2011;3:417–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12571-011-0149-9 .

HLPE. Food security and nutrition - Building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome; 2020.

Gladek E, Fraser M, Sabag Muñoz O, Kennedy E, Hirsch P. Global Food System: An Analysis. Amsterdam; 2017.

Fanzo J, Bellows AL, Spiker ML, Thorne-Lyman AL, Bloem MW. The importance of food systems and the environment for nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2021;113:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/AJCN/NQAA313 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dubé L, Webb P, Arora NK, Pingali P. Agriculture, health, and wealth convergence: bridging traditional food systems and modern agribusiness solutions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1331:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/NYAS.12602 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Rome; 2019.

HLPE. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Rome; 2017.

Angelantonio E, Di, Bhupathiraju SN, Wormser D, Gao P, Kaptoge S, de Gonzalez AB, et al. Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. Lancet. 2016;388:776–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30175-1 .

United Nations Environment Programme. Food Waste Index Report 2021. Nairobi; 2021.

HLPE. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Rome; 2014.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The United Nations Anti-Corruption Toolkit. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2004 Feb p. 655. Report No.: 2. Available: https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Toolkit_ed2.pdf .

Mackey TK, Kohler J, Lewis M, Vian T. Combating corruption in global health. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:eaaf9547. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf9547 .

Transparency International. Global Corruption Report 2006. Berlin: Transparency International. 2006 p. 378. Available: https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/2006_GCR_HealthSector_EN.pdf .

Graycar A, Monaghan O. Rich Country corruption. Int J Public Adm. 2015;38:586–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.949757 .

Vian T. Anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in health: concepts, frameworks, and approaches. Glob Health Action. 2020;13:1694744. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1694744 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

United Nations Development Programme. Fighting corruption in the health sector - Methods, tools and good practices. New York: United Nations Development Programme. 2011 Oct. Available: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/107939/1/8.%20Mapping%20of%20good%20practices%20of%20anti-corruption%20interventions%20in%20the%20health%20sector.pdf .

Chapsos I, Hamilton S. Illegal fishing and fisheries crime as a transnational organized crime in Indonesia. TRENDS Organ CRIME. 2019;22:255–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-018-9329-8 .

Al-Mutairi S, Connerton I, Dingwall R. Understanding corruption in regulatory agencies: the case of food inspection in Saudi Arabia. Regul Gov. 2019;13:507–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12247 .

Horel S. Corporate Europe Observatory. Unhappy meal. The European Food Safety Authority’s independence problem. Corporate Europe Observatory; 2013 Oct p. 39. Available: https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/unhappy_meal_report_23_10_2013.pdf .

Anik AR, Bauer S, Alam MJ. Why farm households have differences in corruption experiences? Evidences from Bangladesh. Agric Econ Czech Repub. 2013;59:478–88. https://doi.org/10.17221/41/2013-agricecon .

Alexandre AB. Perception of corruption by traffic police and taxi drivers in Bukavu DR Congo: the limits of moral analysis. J Contemp Afr Stud. 2018;36:563–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2019.1583323 .

Chaudhuri S, Gupta MR. Delayed formal credit, bribing and the informal credit market in agriculture: a theoretical analysis. J Dev Econ. 1996;51:433–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(96)00407-5 .

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The United Nations Convention against Corruption - National Anti-Corruption Strategies: A Practical Guide for Development and Implementation. Vienna: UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME. 2015 p. 68. Available: https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2015/National_Anti-Corruption_Strategies_-_A_Practical_Guide_for_Development_and_Implementation_E.pdf .

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .

Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13:141–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 .

Covidence. - Better systematic review management. [cited 17 Jul 2020]. Available: https://www.covidence.org/home .

Mialon M, Charry DAG, Cediel G, Crosbie E, Scagliusi FB, Tamayo EMP. I had never seen so many lobbyists: food industry political practices during the development of a new nutrition front-of-pack labelling system in Colombia. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24:2737–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020002268 .

Transparency International. Corruptionary A-Z. In: Transparency.org [Internet]. 2022 [cited 8 Sep 2022]. Available: https://www.transparency.org/en/corruptionary .

Transparency International. Glossary - Anti-Bribery Guidance. In: Global Anti-Bribery Guidance [Internet]. 2018 [cited 8 Sep 2022]. Available: https://www.antibriberyguidance.org/glossary .

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Module 1: Definitions of Organized Crime. In: Education for Justice [Internet]. 2018 [cited 8 Sep 2022]. Available: http://www.unodc.org .

Maguire C, Belchior C, Hoogeveen Y, Westhoek H, Manshoven S. Food in a green light - A systems approach to sustainable food — European Environment Agency. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2017 p. 33. Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/food-in-a-green-light .

United Nations Environment Program. Food Systems and Natural Resources. A Report of the Working Group on Food Systems of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme. 2016 p. 34. Available: https://www.resourcepanel.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/media/food_systems_summary_report_english.pdf .

Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:334–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4%3C334::AID-NUR9%3E3.0.CO;2-G .

Bogart S, SankeyMATIC. A Sankey diagram builder for everyone. In: SankeyMATIC [Internet]. 2022 [cited 5 Dec 2022]. Available: https://sankeymatic.com/ .

Rebecca E, Glover, Al-Haboubi M, Petticrew MP, Eastmure E, Peacock SJ, Mays N. Sankey diagrams can clarify ‘evidence attrition’: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic tests for antimicrobial resistance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;144:173–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.032 .

Schmidt M. The Sankey Diagram in Energy and Material Flow Management. J Ind Ecol. 2008;12:173–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00015.x .

The World Bank. Helping Countries Combat Corruption. The World Bank. 1997. Available: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/corruptn/cor02.htm#note2 .

Joseph K. Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. Habitat Int. 2006;30:863–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.009 .

OECD. OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Public officials Definition. In: OECD [Internet]. 2007 [cited 5 Dec 2022]. Available: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7252 .

Swinburn B, Sacks G, Vandevijvere S, Kumanyika S, Lobstein T, Neal B, et al. INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support): overview and key principles. Obes Rev. 2013;14:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12087 .

Chang S-C. The effects of trade liberalization on environmental degradation. Qual Quant. 2015;49:235–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9984-4 .

Marvin HJP, Bouzembrak Y, Janssen EM, van der Fels- Klerx HJ, van Asselt ED, Kleter GA. A holistic approach to food safety risks: Food fraud as an example. Food Res Int. 2016;89:463–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.08.028 .

Pavez I, Codron J-M, Lubello P, Florêncio MC. Biosecurity institutions and the choice of contracts in international fruit supply chains. Agric Syst. 2019;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102668 .

Lammer C. Distancing the regulating state: corruption, transparency, and Rhe Puzzle of Personal Relatedness in a Food Network in Sichuan. Urban Anthropol Stud Cult Syst World Econ Dev. 2017;47:369.

Google Scholar  

Nading A. Orientation and crafted bureaucracy: finding dignity in Nicaraguan Food Safety. Am Anthropol. 2017;119:478–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12844 .

Vaidya R. Corruption, re-corruption and what transpires in between: the case of a government officer in India. J Bus Ethics. 2019;156:605–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3612-5 .

Standing A, MIRAGE OF PIRATES: STATE-CORPORATE CRIME, IN WEST AFRICA’S FISHERIES. STATE CRIME. 2015;4:175–97. https://doi.org/10.13169/statecrime.4.2.0175 .

Benjaminsen TA, Maganga FP, Abdallah JM. The Kilosa killings: Political Ecology of a Farmer-Herder conflict in Tanzania. Dev CHANGE. 2009;40:423–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01558.x .

Ruslan AAA, Kamarulzaman NH, Sanny M. Muslim consumers’ awareness and perception of halal food fraud. Int Food Res J. 2018;25:S87–96.

Bimbo F, Bonanno A, Viscecchia R. An empirical framework to study food labelling fraud: an application to the Italian extra-virgin olive oil market. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2019;63:701–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12318 .

Cheng H. Cheap capitalism: a sociological study of food crime in China. Br J Criminol. 2012;52:254–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr078 .

Agnoli L, Capitello R, De Salvo M, Longo A, Boeri M. Food fraud and consumers’ choices in the wake of the horsemeat scandal. Br Food J. 2016;118:1898–913. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2016-0176 .

Barnett J, Begen F, Howes S, Regan A, McConnon A, Marcu A, et al. Consumers’ confidence, reflections and response strategies following the horsemeat incident. Food Control. 2016;59:721–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.06.021 .

Beseng M. Cameroon’s choppy waters: the anatomy of fisheries crime in the maritime fisheries sector. Mar Policy. 2019;108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103669 .

Guntzburger Y, Théolier J, Barrere V, Peignier I, Godefroy S, de Marcellis-Warin N. Food industry perceptions and actions towards food fraud: insights from a pan-canadian study. Food Control. 2020;113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107182 .

Kendall H, Kuznesof S, Dean M, Chan M-Y, Clark B, Home R, et al. Chinese consumer’s attitudes, perceptions and behavioural responses towards food fraud. Food Control. 2019;95:339–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.08.006 .

Ritten C, Thunstrom L, Ehmke M, Beiermann J, McLeod D. International honey laundering and consumer willingness to pay a premium for local honey: an experimental study. Aust J Agric Resour Econ. 2019;63:726–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12325 .

Benbrook CM, Baker BP. Perspective on dietary risk assessment of pesticide residues in organic food. Sustain Switz. 2014;6:3552–70. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6063552 .

Thomas J, Thomas LT. Computer fraud perpetrated against small independent food retailers during the direct store delivery process. J Small Bus Manag. 1992;30:54.

Tagliarino NK, Bununu YA, Micheal MO, De Maria M, Olusanmi A. Compensation for Expropriated Community Farmland in Nigeria: an In-Depth analysis of the laws and practices related to Land Expropriation for the Lekki Free Trade Zone in Lagos. LAND. 2018;7. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7010023 .

Kassem HS, Alotaibi BA. Do farmers perceive risks of fraudulent pesticides? Evidence from Saudi Arabia. PLoS ONE. 2020;15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239298 .

Sugden G, Farm, Crime. Out of Sight, out of mind: a study of crime on farms in the County of Rutland, England. Crime Prev Community Saf. 1999;1:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140023 .

Isaacs M, Witbooi E. Fisheries crime, human rights and small-scale fisheries in South Africa: a case of bigger fish to fry. Mar Policy. 2019;105:158–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.023 .

Goodall O. Rural criminal collaborations and the food crimes of the countryside: realist social relations theory of illicit venison production. Crime Law Soc Change. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09976-9 .

Banerjee A, Hanna R, Kyle J, Olken BA, Sumarto S. Tangible information and Citizen empowerment: identification cards and Food Subsidy Programs in Indonesia. J Polit Econ. 2018;126:451–91.

Alguacil-Duarte F, González-Gómez F, Del Saz-Salazar S. Urban water pricing and private interests’ lobbying in small rural communities. Water Switz. 2020;12. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123509 .

Burlandy L, Prado Alexandre-Weiss V, Silva Canella D, Feldenheimer Da Silva AC, De Maranha Paes C. Rugani Ribeiro De Castro I. obesity agenda in Brazil, conflicts of interest and corporate activity. Health Promot Int. 2021;36:1186–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa085 .

Tselengidis A, Östergren P-O. Lobbying against sugar taxation in the European Union: analysing the lobbying arguments and tactics of stakeholders in the food and drink industries. Scand J Public Health. 2019;47:565–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494818787102 .

De Rosa M, Trabalzi F. Everybody does it, or how illegality is socially constructed in a southern Italian food network. J RURAL Stud. 2016;45:303–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.04.009 .

Robertson NM, Sacks G, Miller PG. The revolving door between government and the alcohol, food and gambling industries in Australia. Public Health Res Pract. 2019;29. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp2931921 .

Bromley D, Foltz J. Sustainability under siege: transport costs and corruption on West Africa’s trade corridors. Nat Resour Forum. 2011;35:32–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2011.01342.x .

Kumar B, Mohanty B. Public distribution system in rural India: implications for food safety and consumer protection. 2012. pp. 232–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.116 .

Barclay K, Cartwright I. Governance of tuna industries: the key to economic viability and sustainability in the western and Central Pacific Ocean. Mar POLICY. 2007;31:348–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.09.007 .

Lander CD. Adaptive strategies of smaller foreign investors in the Russian agricultural sector: identity, narrative and performance. J PEASANT Stud. 2019;46:165–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1371142 .

Weesie R, García AK. From herding to farming under adaptation interventions in southern Kenya: a critical perspective. Sustain Switz. 2018;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124386 .

Kopytko N. Change and transition: the climate of Ukraine’s agri-food sector. Clim Policy. 2016;16:68–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.979131 .

Stanikzai AN, Ali F, Kamarulzaman NH. Vulnerabilities of wheat crop farmers in war zone. Food Res. 2021;5:427–39. https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.5(2).506 .

Banerji A, Meenakshi JV. Buyer collusion and efficiency of government intervention in wheat markets in northern India: an asymmetric structural auctions analysis. Am J Agric Econ. 2004;86:236–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00575.x .

Chilombo A. Multilevel governance of large-scale land acquisitions: a case study of the institutional politics of scale of the farm block program in Zambia. Land Use Policy. 2021;107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105518 .

Grydehoj A, Nurdin N. Politics of technology in the informal governance of destructive fishing in Spermonde. Indonesia Geoj. 2016;81:281–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9619-x .

Hossain N, Kalita D. Moral economy in a global era: the politics of provisions during contemporary food price spikes. J Peasant Stud. 2014;41:815–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.895328 .

Beg S. Tenancy and clientelism. J Econ Behav Organ. 2021;186:201–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.006 .

Mialon M, Gaitan Charry DA, Cediel G, Crosbie E, Baeza Scagliusi F, Pérez Tamayo EM. The architecture of the state was transformed in favour of the interests of companies: corporate political activity of the food industry in Colombia. Glob Health. 2020;16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00631-x .

Mialon M, Mialon J. Analysis of corporate political activity strategies of the food industry: evidence from France. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21:3407–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018001763 .

Bellemare MF, Carnes N. Why do members of congress support agricultural protection? Food Policy. 2015;50:20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.010 .

Angeles LC. The political dimension in the agrarian question: strategies of resilience and political entrepreneurship of agrarian elite families in a Philippine Province. Rural Sociol. 1999;64:667–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1999.tb00383.x .

Bélair J. Farmland investments in Tanzania: the impact of protected domestic markets and patronage relations. World Dev. 2021;139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105298 .

Mialon M, Swinburn B, Allender S, Sacks G. Maximising shareholder value’: a detailed insight into the corporate political activity of the Australian food industry. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41:165–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12639 .

Bergeron H, Castel P, Saguy AC. A French paradox? Toward an explanation of inconsistencies between framing and policies. Fr Polit Cult Soc. 2019;37:110–30. https://doi.org/10.3167/fpcs.2019.370205 .

Bødker M, Pisinger C, Toft U, Jørgensen T. The rise and fall of the world’s first fat tax. Health Policy. 2015;119:737–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.03.003 .

Benjaminsen TA, Alinon K, Buhaug H, Buseth JT. Does climate change drive land-use conflicts in the sahel? J Peace Res. 2012;49:97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311427343 .

Pailler S. Re-election incentives and deforestation cycles in the Brazilian Amazon. J Environ Econ Manag. 2018;88:345–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.01.008 .

Carrero GC, Fearnside PM, do Valle DR, de Souza Alves C. Deforestation trajectories on a Development Frontier in the Brazilian Amazon: 35 years of settlement colonization, policy and economic shifts, and Land Accumulation. Environ Manage. 2020;66:966–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01354-w .

Montgomery R, Sumarto S, Mawardi S, Usman S, Toyamah N, Febriany V, et al. Deregulation of Indonesia’s interregional agricultural trade. Bull Indones Econ Stud. 2002;38:93–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/000749102753620301 .

Prishchepov AV, Ponkina EV, Sun Z, Bavorova M, Yekimovskaja OA. Revealing the intentions of farmers to recultivate abandoned farmland: a case study of the Buryat Republic in Russia. Land Use Policy. 2021;107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105513 .

Zhang Y, Pang M, Dickens BL, Edwards DP, Carrasco LR. Global hotspots of conversion risk from multiple crop expansion. Biol Conserv. 2021;254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108963 .

Beekman G, Bulte EH, Nillesen EEM. Corruption and economic activity: Micro level evidence from rural Liberia. Eur J Polit Econ. 2013;30:70–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2013.01.005 .

Rocchi B, Romano D, Sadiddin A, Stefani G. Assessing the economy-wide impact of food fraud: a SAM-based counterfactual approach. Agribusiness. 2020;36:167–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21633 .

Anik AR, Manjunatha AV, Bauer S. Impact of farm level corruption on the food security of households in Bangladesh. FOOD Secur. 2013;5:565–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-013-0282-8 .

Davies J. Corporate harm and embedded labour exploitation in agri-food supply networks. Eur J Criminol. 2020;17:70–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819874416 .

Davies J, Ollus N. Labour exploitation as corporate crime and harm: outsourcing responsibility in food production and cleaning services supply chains. Crime Law Soc Change. 2019;72:87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09841-w .

Tracy M. Multimodality, transparency, and Food Safety in China. POLAR-Polit Leg Anthropol Rev. 2016;39:34–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12170 .

öNDER H. The impact of corruption on food security from a macro perspective. Future Food J Food Agric Soc. 2021;9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-202011192215 .

Osabohien R, Osabuohien E, Ohalete P. Agricultural sector performance, institutional framework and food security in Nigeria. Bio-Based Appl Econ. 2019;8:161–78. https://doi.org/10.13128/bae-8929 .

Slangen LHG, Suchanek P, van Kooten GC. Trust in countries in transition: empirical evidence from agriculture. Int J Soc Econ. 2003;30:1095–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290310492887 .

Kalaora L. Madness, corruption and exile: on Zimbabwe’s remaining white commercial farmers. J South Afr Stud. 2011;37:747–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2011.609341 .

Perone G. The impact of agribusiness crimes on food prices: evidence from Italy. Econ Polit. 2020;877–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-019-00165-5 .

Cissokho L, Haughton J, Makpayo K, Seck A. Why is agricultural trade within ECOWAS so high? J Afr Econ. 2013;22:22–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejs015 .

Schaefer KA, Scheitrum D, Nes K. International sourcing decisions in the wake of a food scandal. Food Policy. 2018;81:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.10.002 .

Kaitibie S, Munshi MH, Rakotoarisoa MA. Analysis of Food imports in a highly Import Dependent Economy. Rev Middle East Econ Finance. 2017;13:106–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/rmeef-2016-0033 .

Asiedu E, Sadekla SS, Bokpin GA. Aid to Africa’s agriculture towards building physical capital: empirical evidence and implications for post-COVID-19 food insecurity. World Dev Perspect. 2020;20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100269 .

Ashby NJ, Ramos MA. Foreign direct investment and industry response to organized crime: the Mexican case. Eur J Polit Econ. 2013;30:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2013.01.006 .

Nagavarapu S, Sekhri S. Informal monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in public service delivery: evidence from the public distribution system in India. J Dev Econ. 2016;121:63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.01.006 .

Singh DR, Sunuwar DR, Shah SK, Sah LK, Karki K, Sah RK. Food insecurity during COVID-19 pandemic: a genuine concern for people from disadvantaged community and low-income families in Province 2 of Nepal. PLoS ONE. 2021;16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254954 .

Sulle E. Social differentiation and the politics of land: Sugar cane outgrowing in Kilombero, Tanzania. J South Afr Stud. 2017;43:517–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2016.1215171 .

Yami M, van Asten P, Hauser M, Schut M, Pali P. Participation without negotiating: influence of Stakeholder Power imbalances and Engagement models on Agricultural Policy Development in Uganda. Rural Sociol. 2019;84:390–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12229 .

Shonhe T, Scoones I, Murimbarimba F. Medium-scale commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe: the experience of A2 resettlement farms. J Mod Afr Stud. 2020;58:601–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X20000385 .

Tibugari H, Chikasha T, Manyeruke N, Mathema N, Musara JP, Dlamini D, et al. Poor maize productivity in Zimbabwe: can collusion in pricing by seed houses be the cause? Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1682230 .

Martinez JC. Site of Resistance or Apparatus of Acquiescence? Tactics at the Bakery. MIDDLE EAST LAW Gov. 2018;10:160–84. https://doi.org/10.1163/18763375-01002002 .

Ismaila S, Tanko M. Exploring relative deprivation theory in the rice industry: planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) in northern Ghana. Technol Soc. 2021;65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101556 .

Ng S, Kelly B, Yeatman H, Swinburn B, Karupaiah T. Tracking progress from policy development to implementation: a case study on adoption of mandatory regulation for nutrition labelling in Malaysia. Nutrients. 2021;13:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020457 .

Galinato GI, Galinato SP. The short-run and long-run effects of corruption control and political stability on forest cover. Ecol Econ. 2013;89:153–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.014 .

Wolfersberger J, Delacote P, Garcia S. An empirical analysis of forest transition and land-use change in developing countries. Ecol Econ. 2015;119:241–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.018 .

Fearnley L. Fake eggs: from counter-qualification to popular certification in China’s food safety crisis. BioSocieties. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-020-00211-7 .

Brooks S, Elliott C, Spence M, Walsh C, Dean M. Four years post-horsegate: an update of measures and actions put in place following the horsemeat incident of 2013. NPJ Sci FOOD. 2017;1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-017-0007-z .

Gomez M, Perdiguero J, Sanz A. Socioeconomic factors affecting Water Access in Rural areas of Low and Middle Income Countries. Water. 2019;11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020202 .

Ogunniyi AI, Mavrotas G, Olagunju KO, Fadare O, Adedoyin R. Governance quality, remittances and their implications for food and nutrition security in Sub-saharan Africa. WORLD Dev. 2020;127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104752 .

Bumblauskas D, Mann A, Dugan B, Rittmer J. A blockchain use case in food distribution: do you know where your food has been? Int J Inf Manag. 2020;52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.004 .

Mangla SK, Kazancoglu Y, Ekinci E, Liu M, Özbiltekin M, Sezer MD. Using system dynamics to analyze the societal impacts of blockchain technology in milk supply chainsrefer. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev. 2021;149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102289 .

Menon S. Aadhaar-based Biometric Authentication for PDS and Food Security: observations on implementation in Jharkhand’s Ranchi District. Indian J Hum Dev. 2017;11:387–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703017748384 .

Ringsberg HA. Implementation of global traceability standards: incentives and opportunities. Br FOOD J. 2015;117:1826–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2014-0353 .

Elsen S, Fazzi L. Extending the concept of social farming: rural development and the fight against organized crime in disadvantaged areas of southern Italy. J Rural Stud. 2021;84:100–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.03.009 .

Fazzi L, Elsen S. Actors in social agriculture cooperatives combating organized crime in southern Italy: cultivating the ground. Sustain Switz. 2020;12:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219257 .

Transparency International. Anti-corruption measures for reducing corruption in agriculture, Transparency International. 2021 Jan. Available: https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/kproducts/Anti-corruption-measures-for-reducing-corruption-in-agriculture_09.03.2022_U4-reviewed_PR.pdf .

Nye JS. Corruption and Political Development: a cost-benefit analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1967;61:417–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953254 .

Doshi S, Ranganathan M. Towards a critical geography of corruption and power in late capitalism. 2019;43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517753070 .

Pew Research Center N. Crime and Corruption Top Problems in Emerging and Developing Countries. Pew Research Center. 2014 Nov. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/11/06/crime-and-corruption-top-problems-in-emerging-and-developing-countries/ .

Oguzhan D. Link to external site this link will open in a new window, Johnston M. Legal Corruption? Public Choice. 2020;184:219–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-020-00832-3 .

Luna-Pla I, Nicolás-Carlock JR. Corruption and complexity: a scientific framework for the analysis of corruption networks. Appl Netw Sci. 2020;5:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-020-00258-2 .

Hiller P. Understanding corruption: how systems theory can help. In: de Graaf G, von Maravic P, Wagenaar P, editors. The good cause: theoretical perspectives on corruption. Opladen: B. Budrich; 2010. pp. 64–82.

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. Future Food Systems: For people, our planet, and prosperity. London, United Kingdom: Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. 2020. Available: https://foresight.glopan.org/ .

UNODC. Something’s Off. Corruption Risks Related to Food Safety and its Public Health Threat. Vienna: UNODC. 2023. Available: https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2023/UNODC_Somethings_Off_Corruption_Risks_Related_to_Food_Safety_and_its_Public_Health_Threaths_2023.pdf .

Kaufmann D, Vicente PC. Legal corruption. Econ Polit. 2011;23:195–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2010.00377.x .

Cesi B, D’Amato A, Zoli M. Corruption in environmental policy: the case of waste. Econ Polit. 2019; 65–78.

Download references

AD, CCA, JC and TLP acknowledge internal research support from York University. CCA acknowledges internal research support from the Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research. KML acknowledges funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through a Health System Impact Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Global Food Systems & Policy Research, School of Global Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Anastassia Demeshko, Chloe Clifford Astbury, Kirsten M. Lee, Janielle Clarke & Tarra L. Penney

Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Chloe Clifford Astbury, Kirsten M. Lee & Tarra L. Penney

School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Katherine Cullerton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: TLP, AD. Acquisition of data: AD, CCA. Analysis and interpretation of data: AD, JC. Drafting of the manuscript: AD. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: CCA, JC, KML, KC, TLP. Obtaining funding: TLP.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarra L. Penney .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

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.

Demeshko, A., Clifford Astbury, C., Lee, K.M. et al. The role of corruption in global food systems: a systematic scoping review. Global Health 20 , 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01054-8

Download citation

Received : 16 February 2024

Accepted : 24 May 2024

Published : 15 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01054-8

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

• Global food system

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

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