literature review impact analysis

• Open access
• Published: 18 March 2015

A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods

• Andrew J Milat 1 , 2 ,
• Adrian E Bauman 2 &
• Sally Redman 2 , 3  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  13 , Article number:  18 ( 2015 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

101 Citations

36 Altmetric

Metrics details

Research funding agencies continue to grapple with assessing research impact. Theoretical frameworks are useful tools for describing and understanding research impact. The purpose of this narrative literature review was to synthesize evidence that describes processes and conceptual models for assessing policy and practice impacts of public health research.

The review involved keyword searches of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, and Google Scholar in July/August 2013. Review search terms included ‘research impact’, ‘policy and practice’, ‘intervention research’, ‘translational research’, ‘health promotion’, and ‘public health’. The review included theoretical and opinion pieces, case studies, descriptive studies, frameworks and systematic reviews describing processes, and conceptual models for assessing research impact. The review was conducted in two phases: initially, abstracts were retrieved and assessed against the review criteria followed by the retrieval and assessment of full papers against review criteria.

Thirty one primary studies and one systematic review met the review criteria, with 88% of studies published since 2006. Studies comprised assessments of the impacts of a wide range of health-related research, including basic and biomedical research, clinical trials, health service research, as well as public health research. Six studies had an explicit focus on assessing impacts of health promotion or public health research and one had a specific focus on intervention research impact assessment. A total of 16 different impact assessment models were identified, with the ‘payback model’ the most frequently used conceptual framework. Typically, impacts were assessed across multiple dimensions using mixed methodologies, including publication and citation analysis, interviews with principal investigators, peer assessment, case studies, and document analysis. The vast majority of studies relied on principal investigator interviews and/or peer review to assess impacts, instead of interviewing policymakers and end-users of research.

Conclusions

Research impact assessment is a new field of scientific endeavour and there are a growing number of conceptual frameworks applied to assess the impacts of research.

Peer Review reports

There is increasing recognition that health research investment should lead to improvements in policy [ 1 - 3 ], practice, resource allocation, and, ultimately, the health of the community [ 4 , 5 ]. However, research impacts are complex, non-linear, and unpredictable in nature and there is a propensity to ‘count what can be easily measured’, rather than measuring what ‘counts’ in terms of significant, enduring changes [ 6 ].

Traditional academic-oriented indices of research productivity, such as number of papers, impact factors of journals, citations, research funding, and esteem measures, are well established and widely used by research granting bodies and academic institutions [ 7 ], but they do not always relate well to the ultimate goals of applied health research [ 6 , 8 , 9 ]. Governments are signaling that research metrics of research quality and productivity are insufficient to determine research value because they say little about the real world benefits of research [ 10 - 12 ]. At the same time, research funders continue to grapple with the fundamental problem of assessing broader impacts of research. This task is made more challenging because there are currently no agreed systematic approaches to measuring broader research impacts, particularly impacts on health policy and practice [ 13 , 14 ].

Recent years have seen the development of a number of frameworks that can assist in better describing and understanding the impact of research. Conceptual frameworks can help organize data collection, analysis, and reporting to promote clarity and consistency in the impact assessments made. In the context of this review, research impact is defined as: “… any type of output of research activities which can be considered a ‘positive return’ for the scientific community, health systems, patients, and the society in general ” [ 13 ], p. 2.

In light of these gaps in the literature, the purpose of this narrative literature review was to synthesize evidence that describes processes and conceptual models for assessing research impacts, with a focus on policy and practice impacts of public health research.

Literature review search strategy

The review involved keyword searches of electronic databases including MEDLINE (general medicine), CINAHL (nursing and allied health), PsycINFO (psychology and related behavioural and social sciences), EBM Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005 to May 2013, and Google Scholar. Review search terms included ‘research impact’ OR ‘policy and practice’ AND ‘intervention research’ AND ‘translational research’ AND ‘health promotion’ AND ‘public health’.

The review included theoretical and opinion pieces, case studies, descriptive studies, frameworks and systematic reviews describing processes, and conceptual models for assessing research impact.

The review was conducted in two phases in July/August 2013. In phase 1, abstracts were retrieved and assessed against the review criteria. For abstracts that met the review criteria in phase 1, full papers were retrieved and were assessed for inclusion in the final review. Studies included in the review met the following criteria: i) published in English from January 1990 to June 2013; ii) described processes, theories, or frameworks associated with the assessment of research impact; and iii) were theoretical and opinion pieces, case studies, descriptive studies, frameworks, or systematic reviews.

Due the dearth of public health and health promotion-specific research impact assessment, papers with a focus on clinical or health services research impact assessment were included. The reference lists of the final papers were checked to ensure inclusion of further relevant papers; where such articles were considered relevant, they were included in the review. The search process is shown in Figure  1 .

Literature search process and numbers of papers identified, excluded, and included in the review of research impact assessment.

Findings of the literature review

An initial review of abstracts in electronic databases against the inclusion criteria yielded 431 abstracts and searches of reference lists and the grey literature identified a further 9 documents. Of the 434 abstracts and documents reviewed, 39 met the inclusion criteria and full papers were retrieved. Upon review of the full publications against the review criteria, a further 7 papers were excluded as they did not meet the review criteria, leaving 32 publications in the review [ 8 , 9 , 13 , 15 - 44 ]. A summary of characteristics of studies included in the review that have a focus on processes, theories, or frameworks associated with the assessment of research impact including reference details, study type, domains of impact, methods and indicators, frameworks applied or proposed, and key lessons learned is provided in Additional file 1 : Table S1.

Study characteristics

The review identified 31 primary studies and 1 systematic review that met the review criteria. Six of the studies were reports found in the grey literature. Interestingly, 88% of studies that met the review criteria were published since 2006. The studies in the review included assessments of the impacts of a wide range of health-related research, including basic and biomedical research, clinical trials, health service research, as well as public health research. Six studies [ 22 , 23 , 34 , 36 , 40 , 43 ] had an explicit focus on assessing impacts of health promotion or public health research and 1 had a specific focus on intervention research impact assessment [ 36 ].

The majority of studies were conducted in Australia, United Kingdom, and North America, noting that the review was limited to studies published in English. The unit of assessment varied greatly from researchers (research teams [ 22 ] to whole institutions [ 15 ]) to research disciplines (e.g., prevention research [ 23 ], cancer research [ 41 ], tobacco control research [ 43 ]) or type of grants, for example, from public funding bodies [ 17 , 24 ]. The most frequently applied research methods across studies in rank order were publication and citation analysis, interviews with principal investigators, peer assessment, case studies, and document analysis. The nature of frameworks and methods used to measure research impacts will now be examined in greater detail.

Frameworks and methods for measuring research impacts

Indices of traditional research productivity such as number of papers, impact factors of journals, and citations figured prominently in studies in the literature review [ 18 , 23 , 41 ].

Across the majority of studies in this review, research impact was assessed using multiple dimensions and methodological approaches. A total of 16 different impact assessment models were identified, with the ‘payback model’ being the most frequently used conceptual framework [ 15 , 24 , 29 , 31 , 44 ]. Other frequently used models included health economics frameworks [ 19 , 21 , 37 ], variants of Research Program Logic Models [ 9 , 35 , 42 ], and the Research Impact Framework [ 8 , 30 ]. A number of recent frameworks, including the Health Services Research Impact Framework [ 20 ] and the Banzi Health Research Impact Framework [ 13 , 34 , 36 ], are hybrids of previous conceptual approaches and categorize impacts and benefits in many dimensions, trying to integrate them. Commonly applied frameworks identified in the review, including the Payback model, Research Impact Framework, health economics models, and the new hybrid Health Research Impact Framework, will now be examined in greater detail.

The payback model was developed by Buxton and Hanney [ 45 ] and takes into account resources, research processes, primary outputs, dissemination, secondary outputs and applications, and benefits or final outcomes provided by the research. Categories of outcome in the ‘payback’ framework include i) knowledge production (journal articles, books/book chapters, conference proceeding, reports); ii) use of research in the research system (acquisition of formal qualifications by members of the research team, career advancement, and use of project findings for methodology in subsequent research); iii) use of research project findings in health system policy/decision making (findings used in policy/decision making at any level of the health service such as geographic level and organisation level); iv) application of the research findings through changed behaviour (changes in behaviour observed or expected through the application of findings to research-informed policies at a geographical, organisation and population level); v) factors influencing the utilization of research (impact of research dissemination in terms of policy/decision making/behavioural change); and vi) health/health service/economic benefits (improved service delivery, cost savings, improved health, or increased equity).

The model is usually applied as a semi-structured interview guide for researchers to identify the impact of their research and is often accompanied by bibliometric analysis and verification processes. The payback categories have been found to be applicable to assessing impact of research [ 15 , 24 , 29 ], especially the more proximal impacts on knowledge production, research targeting, capacity building and absorption, and informing practice, policy, and product development. The model has been found to be less effective in eliciting information about the longer term categories of impact on health and health sector benefits and economics [ 29 ].

The Research Impact Framework was developed in the UK by Kuruvilla et al. [ 8 , 30 ], and draws upon both the research impact literature and UK research assessment criteria for publically funded research, and was validated through empirical analysis of research projects at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. The framework is built around four categories of impact, namely i) research related, ii) policy, iii) service, and iv) societal. Within each of these areas, further descriptive categories are identified. For example, the nature of research impact on policy can be described using the Weiss categorisation of ‘instrumental use’, where research findings drive policy-making; ‘mobilisation of support’, where research provides support for policy proposals; ‘conceptual use’, where research influences the concepts and language of policy deliberations; and ‘redefining/wider influence’, where research leads to rethinking and changing established practices and beliefs [ 30 ]. The framework is applied as a semi-structured interview guide for researchers to identify the impact of their research. Users of the framework have reported that it enables the systematic identification of a range of specific and verifiable impacts and allows consideration of the unintended effects of research [ 30 ].

The framework proposed by Banzi et al. [ 13 ] is an adaption of the Canadian Academy of Health Science impact model [ 25 ] in light of a systematic review and includes five broad categories of research impact, namely i) advancing knowledge, ii) capacity building, iii) informing decision-making, iv) health and other sector benefits, and v) broad socio-economic benefits. The Banzi framework proposes a set of indicators for each domain. To illustrate, indicators for informing decision making include citation in guidelines, policy documents, and plans; references used as background for successful funding proposals; consulting, support activity, and contributing to advisory committees; patents and industrial collaboration; packages of material and communication to key target audiences about findings. This multidimensional framework takes into account several aspects of research impact and use, as well as comprehensive analytical approaches including bibliometric analysis, surveys, audit, document review, case studies, and panel assessment. Panel assessments generally involve a process asking experts to assess the merits of research against impact criteria.

Economic models used to assess impacts of research varied from cost benefit analysis to return on investment and employed a variety of methods for determining economic benefits of research. The National Institutes of Medicine study in 1993 was among the first studies to attempt to systematically monetize the benefits of medical research. It provided estimates of savings for health care systems (direct costs) and savings for the community as a whole (indirect costs), and quantified benefits in terms of quality adjusted life years. On the other hand, the Deloitte Access Economics study [ 21 ] built on the foundations of the 1993 analysis to estimate the returns on investment in research in Australia for the main disease areas and employed of health system expenditure modelling and monetised total quality adjusted life years gained. According to Buxton et al. [ 19 ], measuring only health care savings is generally seen as too narrow a focus, and their analysis considered the benefits, or indirect cost savings, in avoiding lost production and the further activity stimulated by research.

The aforementioned models all attempted to quantify a mix of more proximal research and policy and practice impacts, as well as more distal societal and economic benefits of research. It is also interesting to note that across the studies in this review, only four [ 16 , 29 , 34 , 36 ] interviewed non-academic end-users of research in impact assessment processes, with the vast majority of studies relying on principal investigator interviews and/or peer review processes to assess impacts.

Comprehensive monitoring and measurement of research impact is a complex undertaking requiring the involvement of many actors within the research pipeline [ 13 ]. Interestingly, 90% of studies that met the review criteria were published since 2006, indicating that this is a new field of research. Given the dearth of literature on public health research impact assessment, this review included assessments of the impacts of a wide range of health-related research, including basic and biomedical research, clinical trials, and health service research as well as public health research.

The review of both the published and grey literature also revealed that there are a number of conceptual frameworks currently being applied that describe processes of assessing research impact. These frameworks differ in their terminology and approaches. The lack of a common understanding of terminology and metrics makes the task of quantifying research efforts, outputs, and, ultimately, performance in this area more difficult.

Most of the models identified in the review used multidimensional conceptualization and categorization of research impact. These multidimensional models, such as the Payback model, Research Impact Framework, and Banzi Health Research Impact Framework, shared common features including assessment of traditional research outputs, such as publication and research funding, but also a broader range of potential benefits, including capacity, building, policy and product development, and service development, as well as broader societal and economic impacts. Assessments that considered more than one category were valued for their ability to capture multifaceted impact processes [ 13 , 36 , 44 ]. Interestingly, these frameworks recognised that research often impacts not only in the country within which research is conducted, but also internationally. However, for practical reasons, most studies limited assessment and verification of impacts to a single country [ 19 , 34 , 36 ].

Several methods were used to practically assess research impact, including desk analysis, bibliometrics, panel assessments, interviews, and case studies. A number of studies highlighted the utility of case study methods noting that a considerable range of research paybacks and perspectives would not have been identified without employing a structured case study approach [ 13 , 36 , 44 ]. However, it was noted that case studies can be at risk of ‘conceptualization bias’ and ‘reporting bias’ especially when they are designed or carried out retrospectively [ 13 ]. The costs of conducting case studies can also be a barrier when assessing large volumes of research [ 13 , 36 ].

Despite recent efforts, little is known about the nature and mechanisms that underpin the influence that health research has on health policy or practice. This review suggests that, to date, most primary studies of health research impacts have been small scale case studies or reviews of medical and health services research funding [ 27 , 31 , 35 , 39 , 41 ], with only two studies offering comprehensive assessments of the policy and practice impacts of public health research, with both focusing on prevention research in Australia.

The first of these aforementioned studies examined impact of population health surveillance studies on obesity prevention policy and practice [ 34 ], while the second [ 36 ] examined the policy and practice impacts of intervention research funded through the NSW Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme 2000–2006. Both of these studies utilised comprehensive mixed methods to assess impacts that included semi-structured interviews with both investigators and end-users, bibliometric analysis, document review, verification processes, and case studies. These studies concluded that research projects can achieve the greatest policy and practice impacts if they address proximal needs of the policy context by engaging end-users from the inception of research projects and utilizing existing policy networks and structures, as well as using a range of strategies to disseminate findings that go beyond traditional peer review publications.

This review suggests that the research sector often still uses bibliometric indices to assess research impacts, rather than measuring more enduring and arguably more important policy and practice outcomes [ 6 ]. However, governments are increasingly signaling that research metrics of research quality are insufficient to determine research value because they say little about real world benefits of research [ 10 - 12 ]. The Australian Excellence in Innovation trial [ 26 ] and the UK’s Research Excellence Framework trials [ 28 , 46 ] were commissioned by governments to determine the public benefit from research spending [ 10 , 16 , 47 ].

These attempts raise an important question of how to construct an impact assessment process that can assess multi-dimensional impacts while being feasible to implement on a system level. For example, can 28 indicators across 4 domains of Research Impact Framework be realistically measured in practice? This could also be said of the Research Impact Model [ 13 ], which has 26 indicators, and the Research Excellent Framework by Ovseiko et al. [ 38 ], which has a total of 20 impact indicators. If such methods are to be widely used in practice by research funders and academic institutions to assess research impacts, the right balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility must be struck.

Though a number of studies suggest it is difficult to determine longer-term societal and economic benefits of research as part of multi-dimensional research impact assessment processes [ 13 , 36 , 44 ], the health economic impact models presented in this review and the broader literature demonstrate that it is feasible to undertake these analyses, particularly if the right methods are used [ 19 , 21 , 37 , 48 ].

The review revealed that, where broader policy and practice impacts of research have been assessed in the literature, the vast majority of studies have relied on principal investigator interviews and/or peer review to assess impacts, instead of interviewing policymakers and other important end-users of research. This would seem to be a methodological weakness of previous research, as solely relying on principal investigator assessments, particularly of impacts of their own research, has an inherent bias, leaving the research impact assessment process open to ‘gilding the lily’. In light of this, future impact assessment processes should routinely engage end-users of research in interviews and assessment processes, but also include independent documentary verification, thus addressing methodological limitations of previous research.

One of the greatest practical issues in measuring research impact, including the impact of public health research, are the long lag times before impacts manifest. It has been observed that, on average, it takes over 6 years for research evidence to reach reviews, papers, and textbooks, and a further 9 years for this evidence to be implemented into practice [ 49 ]. In light of this, it is important to allow sufficient time for impacts to manifest, while not waiting so long that these impacts cannot be verified by stakeholders involved in the production and use of the research. Studies in this review have addressed this issue by only assessing studies that had been completed for at least 24 months [ 36 ].

As identified in previous research [ 13 ], a major challenge is attribution of impacts and understanding what would have happened without individual research activity or what some describe as the ‘counterfactual’. Creating a control situation for this type of research is difficult, but, where possible, identification of baseline measures and contextual factors is important in understanding what counterfactual situations may have arisen. Confidence in attribution of effects can be improved by undertaking independent verification of processes and engaging end-users in assessments instead of solely relying on investigators accounts of impacts [ 36 ].

The research described in this review has some limitations that merit closer examination. Given the paucity of research in this area, review criteria had to be adjusted to include assessment of impacts beyond public health research to include all health research. It was also challenging to make direct comparisons across studies mostly due to the heterogeneity of studies and the lack of a standard terminology, hence the broad definition of ‘research impact’ finally applied in the review criteria. Although the majority of studies were found in the traditional biomedical databases (i.e., Medline, etc.), 18% were found in the grey literature highlighting the importance of using multiple data sources in future review processes. Another methodological limitation also identified in previous reviews [ 13 ], is that we did not estimate the level of publication bias and selective publication in this emerging field. Finally, as our analysis included studies published up to June 2013, we may not have captured more recent approaches to impact assessment.

Research impact assessment is a new field of scientific endeavour and typically impacts are assessed using mixed methodologies, including publication and citation analysis, interviews with principal investigators, peer assessment, case studies, and document analysis. The literature is characterised by an over reliance on bibliometric methods to assess research impact. Future impact assessment processes could be strengthened by routinely engaging the end-users of research in interviews and assessment processes. If multidimensional research impact assessment methods are to be widely used in practice by research funders and academic institutions, the right balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility must be determined.

Anderson W, Papadakis E. Research to improve health practice and policy. Med J Aust. 2009;191(11/12):646–7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. London: HMSO; 2006.

Google Scholar  

Health and Medical Research Strategic Review Committee. The virtuous cycle: working together for health and medical research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1998.

National Health and Medical Research Council Public Health Advisory Committee. Report of the Review of Public Health Research Funding in Australia. Canberra: NHMRC; 2008.

Campbell DM. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009;6:21.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wells R, Whitworth JA. Assessing outcomes of health and medical research: do we measure what counts or count what we can measure? Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:14.

Australian Government Australian Research Council. Excellence in Research in Australia 2012. Canberra: Australian Research Council; 2012.

Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Walt G. Describing the impact of health services and policy research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12 Suppl 1:S1. -23-31.

Weiss AP. Measuring the impact of medical research: moving from outputs to outcomes. Am J Psychiatr. 2007;164(2):206–14.

Bornmann L. Measuring the societal impact of research. Eur Mol Biol Organ. 2012;13(8):673–6.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Holbrook JB. Re-assessing the science–society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s broader impacts merit review criterion (1997–2011). In: Frodeman R, Holbrook JB, Mitcham C, Xiaonan H, editors. Peer Review, Research Integrity, and the Governance of Science–Practice, Theory, and Current Discussions. Dalian: People’s Publishing House and Dalian University of Technology; 2012. p. 328–62.

Holbrook JB, Frodeman R. Science’s social effects. Issues in Science and Technology. 2007. http://issues.org/23-3/p_frodeman-3/ .

Banzi R, Moja L, Pistotti V, Facchini A, Liberati A. Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews. health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:26.

Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B. Assessing the impact of research on policy: A review of the literature for a project on bridging research and policy through outcome evaluation. London: Policy Studies Institute London; 2008.

Aymerich M, Carrion C, Gallo P, Garcia M, López-Bermejo A, Quesada M, et al. Measuring the payback of research activities: a feasible ex-post evaluation methodology in epidemiology and public health. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(3):505–10.

Barber R, Boote JD, Parry GD, Cooper CL, Yeeles P, Cook S. Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2012;15(3):229–41.

Barker K, The UK. Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Res Eval. 2007;16(1):3–12.

Boyack KW, Jordan P. Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(4):423–31.

Buxton M, Hanney S, Morris S, Sundmacher L, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, et al. Medical research: what’s it worth. Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. Report for MRC, Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences. 2008. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@sitestudioobjects/documents/web_document/wtx052110.pdf .

Buykx P, Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Perkins D, Lyle D, McGrail M, et al. ‘Making evidence count’: A framework to monitor the impact of health services research. Aust J Rural Health. 2012;20(2):51–8.

Deloitte Access Economics. Extrapolated returns on investment in NHMRC medical research. Canberra: Australian Society for Medical Research; 2012.

Derrick GE, Haynes A, Chapman S, Hall WD. The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e18521.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Franks AL, Simoes EJ, Singh R, Gray BS. Assessing prevention research impact: a bibliometric analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(3):211–6.

Graham KE, Chorzempa HL, Valentine PA, Magnan J. Evaluating health research impact: development and implementation of the Alberta Innovates–Health Solutions impact framework. Res Eval. 2012;21(5):354–67.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Developing a CIHR framework to measure the impact of health research. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2005.

Group of Eight. Excellence in innovation: research impacting our nation’s future – assessing the benefits. Adelaide: Australian Technology Network of Universities; 2012.

Hanney S. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Southampton: National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton; 2007.

Higher Education Funding Council for England. Panel criteria and working methods. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England; 2012.

Kalucy EC, Jackson-Bowers E, McIntyre E, Reed R. The feasibility of determining the impact of primary health care research projects using the Payback Framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7:11.

Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Pleasant A, Walt G. Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):134.

Kwan P, Johnston J, Fung AYK, Chong DSY, Collins RA, Lo SV. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):121.

Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M. Climbing the ladder of research utilization: Evidence from social science research. Sci Commun. 2001;22:396–422.

Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–70.

Laws R, King L, Hardy LL, Milat AJ, Rissel C, Newson R, et al. Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:4.

Liebow E, Phelps J, Van Houten B, Rose S, Orians C, Cohen J, et al. Toward the assessment of scientific and public health impacts of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Extramural Asthma Research Program using available data. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(7):1147.

Milat AJ, Laws R, King L, Newson R, Rychetnik L, Rissel C, et al. Policy and practice impacts of applied research: a case study analysis of the New South Wales Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme 2000–2006. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:5.

National Institutes of Health. Cost savings resulting from NIH research support. Bethesda, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Health; 1993.

Ovseiko PV, Oancea A, Buchan AM. Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:478.

Schapper CC, Dwyer T, Tregear GW, Aitken M, Clay MA. Research performance evaluation: the experience of an independent medical research institute. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36(2):218–23.

Spoth RL, Schainker LM, Hiller-Sturmhöefel S. Translating family-focused prevention science into public health impact: illustrations from partnership-based research. Alcohol Res Health. 2011;34(2):188.

Sullivan R, Lewison G, Purushotham AD. An analysis of research activity in major UK cancer centres. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(4):536–44.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C. International principles of social impact assessment: lessons for research? J Res Nurs. 2011;16(2):133–45.

Warner KE, Tam J. The impact of tobacco control research on policy: 20 years of progress. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):103–9.

Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J. The returns from arthritis research. Volume 1: Approach analysis and recommendations. Netherlands: RAND Europe; 2004.

Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1(1):35–43.

Higher Education Funding Council for England. Decisions on assessing research impact. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England; 2011.

Grant J, Brutscher P-B, Kirk SE, Butler L, Wooding S. Capturing research impacts: a review of international practice. Documented Briefing. RAND Corporation; 2010. http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB578.html .

Murphy KM, Topel RH. Measuring the gains from medical research: an economic approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2010.

Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In: Bemmel J, McCray AT, editors. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000: Patient-Centered Systems. Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2000. p. 65–70.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

New South Wales Ministry of Health, 73 Miller St North, Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia

Andrew J Milat

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Level 2, Medical Foundation, Building, K25, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

Andrew J Milat, Adrian E Bauman & Sally Redman

Sax Institute, Sydney, Level 2, 10 Quay, St Haymarket, NSW, 2000, Australia

Sally Redman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J Milat .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

AJM conceived the study, designed the methods, and conducted the literature searches. AJM drafted the manuscript and all authors contributed to data interpretation and have read and approved the final manuscript.

Additional file

Additional file 1: table s1..

Characteristics of studies focusing on processes, theories, or frameworks assessing research impact.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. 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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Milat, A.J., Bauman, A.E. & Redman, S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Res Policy Sys 13 , 18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1

Download citation

Received : 07 November 2014

Accepted : 16 February 2015

Published : 18 March 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1

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

• Policy and practice impact
• Research impact
• Research returns

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 

How to write a good literature review 

• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal? 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal  

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!    

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.   

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!  

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 
• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.  

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

Systematic Literature Review of Guidelines on Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment

• Systematic Review
• Published: 06 May 2021
• Volume 19 , pages 825–838, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Yashika Chugh 1 ,
• Maria De Francesco 2 &
• Shankar Prinja   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7719-6986 1  

670 Accesses

9 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The objective of this systematic review was to review the recommendations for the conduct of a budget impact analysis in national or organisational guidelines globally.

We searched several databases including MELDINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, HTA Database (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment), Econlit and IDEAS Database (RePEc, Research Papers in Economics). The OVID platform was used to run the search in all databases simultaneously. In addition, a search of the grey literature was also conducted. The timeframe was set from 2000 to 2020 with language of publication restricted to English.

A total of 13 publications were selected. All the countries where financing of health is predominantly tax funded with public provisioning recommend a healthcare payer (government) perspective. However, countries where a healthcare payer includes a mix of federal government, communities, hospital authorities and patient communities recommend a complementary analysis with a wider societal perspective. While four guidelines prefer a simple cost calculator for costing, the rest rely on a decision modelling approach. None of the guidelines recommend discounting except the Polish guidelines, which recommend discounting at 5%. Only two countries, Belgium and Poland, mention that indirect costs, if significant, should be included in addition to direct costs.

Conclusions

The comparative cross-country analysis shows that a standard set of recommendations cannot be directly useful for all as there are contextual differences. Thus, budget impact analysis guidelines must be carefully contextualised in the policy environment of a country so as to reflect the dynamics of health systems.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

National Methodological Guidelines to Conduct Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment in India

The french national authority for health (has) guidelines for conducting budget impact analyses (bia).

A comprehensive review of official discount rates in guidelines of health economic evaluations over time: the trends and roots

Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins CD, Nuijten M, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices: budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(4):336–47.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Caro JJ, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis: principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17:4–14.

Bilinski A, Neumann P, Cohen J, Thorat T, McDaniel K, Salomon JA. When cost-effective interventions are unaffordable: integrating cost-effectiveness and budget impact in priority setting for global health programs. PLoS Med. 2017;14(10):e1002397.

Ghabri S, Mauskopf J. The use of budget impact analysis in the economic evaluation of new medicines in Australia, England, France and the United States: relationship to cost-effectiveness analysis and methodological challenges. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;19(2):173–4.

Mauskopf J. Prevalence-based economic evaluation. Value Health. 1998;1(4):251–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(6):609–21.

Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health. 2004;7(1):1–10.

The National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System. Budget impact analysis guidelines: guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada. Canada: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van de Sande S, Thiry N. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition. Health technology assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). 2012. KCE Report 183C. D/2012/10.273/54.

Leelahavarong P. Budget impact analysis. J Med Assoc Thai 2014;97:S65–71.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Neyt M, Cleemput I, Van de Sande S, Thiry N. Belgian guidelines for budget impact analyses. Acta Clin Belg. 2014;70:174–80.

Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. The Netherlands: The National Health Care Institute; 2016.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Guidelines for preparing a submission to the PBAC. Version 4. Draft for public consultation. 2016. http://www.pbs.gov.au/reviews/pbacguidelines-review-files/draft-revised-pbac-guidelines-version4.0part-a-and-b.docx . Accessed 24 Feb 2016.

Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the budget impact analysis of health technologies in Ireland; 2018.

Ghabri S, Autin E, Poullié AI, Josselin JM. The French National Authority for Health (HAS) guidelines for conducting budget impact analyses (BIA). Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):407–17.

Ferreira-Da-Silva AL, Ribeiro RA, Santos VC, Elias FT, d’Oliveira AL, Polanczyk CA. Proposal of Brazilian guidelines for conducting budget impact analysis for health technologies. Cad Saude Publica. 2012;28(7):1223–38.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of economic appraisal 2013. 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-themethods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf . Accessed 24 Feb 2016.

Garattini L, van de Vooren K. Budget impact analysis in economic evaluation: a proposal for a clearer definition. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(6):499–502.

Nuijten MJ, Mittendorf T, Persson U. Practical issues in handling data input and uncertainty in a budget impact analysis. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):231–41.

Foroutan N, Tarride JE, Xie F, Levine M. A methodological review of national and transnational pharmaceutical budget impact analysis guidelines for new drug submissions. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:821.

Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York: Wiley; 2019.

Tacconelli E. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10(4):226.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Assessing resource impact process manual: technology appraisals and highly specialised technologies. 2017. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/Into-practice/assessing-resource-impact-process-manual-ta-hst.pdf .

Chugh Y, Dhiman RK, Premkumar M, Prinja S, Singh Grover G, Bahuguna P. Real-world cost-effectiveness of pan-genotypic sofosbuvir-velpatasvir combination versus genotype dependent directly acting anti-viral drugs for treatment of hepatitis C patients in the universal coverage scheme of Punjab state in India. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221769.

Nemati E, Nosratnejad S, Doshmangir L, Gavgani VZ. The out of pocket payments in low and middle-income countries and the affecting factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bali Med J. 2019;8(3):733.

Brandt J, Shearer B, Morgan SG. Prescription drug coverage in Canada: a review of the economic, policy and political considerations for universal pharmacare. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2018;11(1):1–3.

Van de Vooren K, Duranti S, Curto A, Garattini L. A critical systematic review of budget impact analyses on drugs in the EU countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(1):33–40.

Mauskopf J, Earnshaw S. A methodological review of US budget-impact models for new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(11):1111–31.

Ghabri S, Mauskopf J. The use of budget impact analysis in the economic evaluation of new medicines in Australia, England, France and the United States: relationship to cost-effectiveness analysis and methodological challenges. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(2):173–5.

Snider JT, Sussell J, Tebeka MG, Gonzalez A, Cohen JT, Neumann P. Challenges with forecasting budget impact: a case study of six ICER reports. Value Health. 2019;22(3):332–9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh, 160012, India

Yashika Chugh & Shankar Prinja

International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

Maria De Francesco

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shankar Prinja .

Ethics declarations

No funding was received for the preparation of this article.

Conflict of Interest

Yashika Chugh, Maria De Francesco, and Shankar Prinja have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article. Maria De Francesco received a consulting fee by International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), Imperial College, London.

Ethics Approval

thics approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Availability of data and material.

All the data required to replicate the analysis are either mentioned in the text or given as ESM.

Code Availability

Author contributions.

Conception or design of the work: SP, YC; data analysis: MDF, YC; interpretation of data: YC, MF, SP; writing the first draft: YC, MDF, SP; revising critically for important intellectual content: SP; approved the version to be published: all authors; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work: all authors.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Supplementary file2 (xlsx 317 kb), rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chugh, Y., De Francesco, M. & Prinja, S. Systematic Literature Review of Guidelines on Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 19 , 825–838 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00652-6

Download citation

Accepted : 17 April 2021

Published : 06 May 2021

Issue Date : November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00652-6

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 July 1, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

Table of Contents – Types, Formats, Examples

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

References in Research – Types, Examples and...

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility help

Information

We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Impact assessment in governments: literature review

This report reviews literature regarding five types of policy level impact assessments (environment, equity, health, regulatory, rural) in five countries (Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden & Wales). It was commissioned by the Scottish Government to inform their approach to impact assessment.

Key messages from this review

This literature review was commissioned by the Scottish Government to inform their approach to impact assessment. We reviewed the literature regarding five types of policy level impact assessments (environment, equity, health, regulatory, rural) in five countries (Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and Wales). These countries were most likely to require regulatory impact assessment, and least likely to require rural proofing.

More than 1000 potentially useful documents were identified using search engines. Of these, more than 110 plus legislation and guidance informed this report. Much of the literature is somewhat dated; relies on a limited number of case studies; and is carried out by academics who may be testing a hypothesis rather than presenting a balanced view. As such, the findings of this research need to be taken with caution.

What types of assessments are carried out? Scotland has more different types of impact assessment than any other countries studied. New Zealand has climate impact assessment and Wales has wellbeing of future generations assessment, neither of which is carried out in Scotland. Several countries have integrated impact assessments ( e.g. Ireland's RIA , Wales' wellbeing assessment).

What assessment systems are particularly interesting? Welsh wellbeing assessment is interesting because it covers a wide range of impacts, is clearly future-looking, and seems to have strong government support. US 'environmental justice' assessment brings together environmental, health and equality dimensions, and seems effective at leading to changes. These assessment systems apply at the programme or plan level, rather than at policy level.

Are assessments actually carried out? Legally-required assessments are generally carried out, but based on evidence from this review many seem to be a formality, carried out late and/or with little influence on policy-making. However, gaps in the literature were identified relating to the timing of actual assessments and how their findings are used in policy-making.

How effective are the assessments that are carried out? In terms of:

• changes to policies – assessment effectiveness is mixed/limited
• public participation – this is very important for transparency and policy improvement. In practice public engagement is limited, but stakeholder engagement is more common.
• knowledge and learning – there is often learning by policy-makers, with consequent long-term organisational change
• costs v. benefits – not enough information exists to be able to come to a conclusion

In particular, even where an impact assessment does not lead to changes in a policy, it can have benefits in terms of improved transparency and accountability of decision-making, increased awareness of the public, and increased trust between stakeholders.

Is integration of impact assessments advisable? Integration of impact assessments – for instance bringing together environmental, social and economic impact assessment into a 'sustainability assessment' - may promote a more holistic approach to assessment, but care needs to be taken in terms of which elements get the most emphasis. Integration is not just a matter of new legal requirements and guidance: it involves issues of data availability, the number of indicators to use, terminology and frames of reference, build-up of expertise, and intersectoral cooperation. The level of integration depends on issues like what minimum standards or thresholds must be achieved and what trade-offs are permitted.

There is also the 'detail paradox', which states that the power of each objective diminishes with the addition of other objectives: in other words, the more detailed the assessment is, the less significance, on average, is attached to each detail.

What are preconditions for effective assessment? In rough order of importance:

• High-level commitment and supportive organisations
• Policy-makers' willingness to learn and change in response to the assessment findings
• Legal requirement for the impact assessment to be carried out
• Oversight and quality review of the assessments
• Fitting the assessment to the decision in terms of timing, types of alternatives considered, recommendations etc.
• Involvement of the public/stakeholders
• Starting the impact assessment early in the policy-making process
• Adequate funding
• Adequate data and expertise
• Collaboration and information sharing between assessors and government departments
• Follow up to check whether the policy incorporated the assessment recommendations, whether the assessment adequately identified impacts, and how the assessment process can be improved

Email: [email protected]

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Long-Term Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Respiratory Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T6, Canada.
• 2 School of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China.
• 3 Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8320000, Chile.
• PMID: 34440104
• PMCID: PMC8389585
• DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9080900

Background: The long-term impact of COVID-19 is still unknown. This study aimed to explore post COVID-19 effects on patients chest computed tomography (CT), lung function, respiratory symptoms, fatigue, functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the ability to return to work beyond 3 months post infection.

Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE on 22 May 2021, to identify studies that reported persistent effects of COVID-19 beyond 3 months follow-up. Data on the proportion of patients who had the outcome were collected and analyzed using a one-group meta-analysis.

Results: Data were extracted from 24 articles that presented information on a total of 5323 adults, post-infection, between 3 to 6 months after symptom onset or hospital discharge. The pooled prevalence of CT abnormalities was 59% (95% CI 44-73, I 2 = 96%), abnormal lung function was 39% (95% CI 24-55, I 2 = 94%), fatigue was 38% (95% CI 27-49, I 2 = 98%), dyspnea was 32% (95% CI 24-40, I 2 = 98%), chest paint/tightness was 16% (95% CI 12-21, I 2 = 94%), and cough was 13%, (95% CI 9-17, I 2 = 94%). Decreased functional capacity and HRQoL were found in 36% (95% CI 22-49, I 2 = 97%) and 52% (95% CI 33-71, I 2 = 94%), respectively. On average, 8 out of 10 of the patients had returned to work or reported no work impairment.

Conclusion: Post-COVID-19 patients may experience persistent respiratory symptoms, fatigue, decreased functional capacity and decreased quality of life up to 6 months after infection. Further studies are needed to establish the extent to which post-COVID-19 effects continue beyond 6 months, how they interact with each other, and to clarify their causes and their effective management.

Keywords: COVID-19; fatigue; follow-up; functional capacity; long-term effects; lung function; persistent symptoms; quality of life; respiratory symptoms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Diagram flow of studies screened…

Diagram flow of studies screened and included in the review and meta-analysis.

Similar articles

• Impact of COVID-19 critical illness on functional status, fatigue symptoms, and health-related quality of life one-year after hospital discharge: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gesser AF, Campos ML, Artismo RS, Karloh M, Matte DL. Gesser AF, et al. Disabil Rehabil. 2023 Oct 11:1-12. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2023.2266365. Online ahead of print. Disabil Rehabil. 2023. PMID: 37818936 Review.
• Long-Term Effect of COVID-19 on Lung Imaging and Function, Cardiorespiratory Symptoms, Fatigue, Exercise Capacity, and Functional Capacity in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Campos C, Prokopich S, Loewen H, Sanchez-Ramirez DC. Campos C, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Dec 9;10(12):2492. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10122492. Healthcare (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36554016 Free PMC article. Review.
• Radiological and functional lung sequelae of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. So M, Kabata H, Fukunaga K, Takagi H, Kuno T. So M, et al. BMC Pulm Med. 2021 Mar 22;21(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s12890-021-01463-0. BMC Pulm Med. 2021. PMID: 33752639 Free PMC article.
• A Follow-Up Study of Lung Function and Chest Computed Tomography at 6 Months after Discharge in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019. Wu Q, Zhong L, Li H, Guo J, Li Y, Hou X, Yang F, Xie Y, Li L, Xing Z. Wu Q, et al. Can Respir J. 2021 Feb 13;2021:6692409. doi: 10.1155/2021/6692409. eCollection 2021. Can Respir J. 2021. PMID: 33628349 Free PMC article.
• Long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreaks after hospitalisation or ICU admission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ahmed H, Patel K, Greenwood DC, Halpin S, Lewthwaite P, Salawu A, Eyre L, Breen A, O'Connor R, Jones A, Sivan M. Ahmed H, et al. J Rehabil Med. 2020 May 31;52(5):jrm00063. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2694. J Rehabil Med. 2020. PMID: 32449782
• Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre. Cooper A, Lewis R, Gal M, Joseph-Williams N, Greenwell J, Watkins A, Strong A, Williams D, Doe E, Law RJ, Edwards A. Cooper A, et al. Glob Health Res Policy. 2024 May 31;9(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s41256-024-00354-1. Glob Health Res Policy. 2024. PMID: 38822437 Free PMC article.
• CT abnormalities 3 and 12 months after hospitalization for COVID-19 and association with disease severity: A prospective cohort study. Aaløkken TM, Ashraf H, Einvik G, Lerum TV, Meltzer C, Rodriguez JR, Skjønsberg OH, Stavem K. Aaløkken TM, et al. PLoS One. 2024 May 6;19(5):e0302896. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302896. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38709747 Free PMC article.
• Impact of Long COVID on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients After Acute COVID-19 Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sun C, Liu Z, Li S, Wang Y, Liu G. Sun C, et al. Inquiry. 2024 Jan-Dec;61:469580241246461. doi: 10.1177/00469580241246461. Inquiry. 2024. PMID: 38646896 Free PMC article.
• Dark Side of the COVID-19 Pandemic; 'Long COVID' . Sarıcaoğlu EM, Çınar G, Azap A, Bayar MK, Togay-Işıkay C, Kutlay Ş, İbiş S. Sarıcaoğlu EM, et al. Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2023 Sep 30;5(3):205-211. doi: 10.36519/idcm.2023.213. eCollection 2023 Sep. Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2023. PMID: 38633561 Free PMC article.
• Managing long COVID symptoms and accessing health services in Brazil: A grounded theory analysis. Marques FRDM, Laranjeira C, Carreira L, Gallo AM, Baccon WC, Goes HF, Salci MA. Marques FRDM, et al. Heliyon. 2024 Mar 22;10(7):e28369. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28369. eCollection 2024 Apr 15. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38571660 Free PMC article.
• John Hopkins University of Medicine Coronavirus Resource Center. [(accessed on 21 July 2021)]; Available online: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/
• Shi H., Han X., Jiang N., Cao Y., Alwalid O., Gu J., Fan Y., Zheng C. Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: A descriptive study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020;20:425–434. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30086-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Wu Z., McGoogan J.M. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020;323:1239–1242. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648. - DOI - PubMed
• Nöbauer-Huhmann I.-M., Eibenberger K., Schaefer-Prokop C., Steltzer H., Schlick W., Strasser K., Fridrich P., Herold C.J. Changes in lung parenchyma after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): Assessment with high-resolution computed tomography. Eur. Radiol. 2001;11:2436–2443. doi: 10.1007/s003300101103. - DOI - PubMed
• Xie L., Liu Y., Xiao Y., Tian Q., Fan B., Zhao H., Chen W. Follow-up Study on Pulmonary Function and Lung Radiographic Changes in Rehabilitating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Patients After Discharge. Chest. 2005;127:2119–2124. doi: 10.1378/chest.127.6.2119. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• DOI: 10.61656/sbamr.v6i2.213
• Corpus ID: 270843051

A Literature Review of Corporate Social Responsibility Implementation in the Manufacturing Industry: Impact on Financial and Environmental Performance

• Bella Monica , Putri Rima Nirwana , +1 author Hwihanus Hwihanus
• Published in Sustainable Business… 30 June 2024
• Business, Environmental Science

Tables from this paper

19 References

Corporate social responsibility, corporate financial performance and the confounding effects of economic fluctuations, understanding corporate green competitive advantage through green technology adoption and green dynamic capabilities: does green product innovation matter, corporate social responsibility (csr): the role of government in promoting csr, mergers and acquisitions: does performance depend on managerial ability, the impact of corporate social responsibility and environmental performance to improve return on asset in manufacturing company, corporate social responsibility decoupling in developing countries: current research and a future agenda, implementation of corporate social responsibility on financial performance of manufacturing companies in indonesia, analysis of the influence of fundamental macro and fundamental micro to discolure of corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, financial performance, going concern audit opinion and value of the firm at state-owned enterprises in indonesia, the effect of csr on financial performance: a study of plantation companies in indonesia and malaysia, making sustainability work : best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Environmental impact assessment with rapid impact assessment matrix method: during disaster conditions.

• 1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
• 2 Department of Operations Research, Modibbo Adama University, Yola, Nigeria
• 3 Department of Applied Mathematics, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
• 4 Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
• 5 Department of Industrial Engineering, South-Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

In the last several decades, Iran’s ecosystem has suffered due to the careless usage of natural resources. Cities have grown in an uneven and non-normative way, and poor project management has been a major issue, particularly in large cities. An even greater number of environmental factors and engineering regulations are not relevant to projects. Because of this, in order to ascertain a project’s environmental impact, an environmental impact assessment (EIA), is required. Using the rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) is one method of applying it to EIA. Reducing subjectivity brings objectivity and transparency. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a thorough EIA was carried out for the Tehran project utilizing the RIAM and other possibilities. This research is the first to combine the methodology that was discussed during the incident. Through the use of the RIAM technique, the environmental impact of COVID-19 was to be quantified in this inquiry. The research examined lockdown procedures and the COVID-19 pandemic to create an EIA indicator. In a real-world case study conducted in Tehran, Iran, the impact of the initiative was evaluated using the RIAM methodology during the COVID-19 epidemic. The results demonstrated that COVID-19 had both beneficial and harmful effects. Decision-makers were effectively informed about the COVID-19 pandemic’s environmental consequences on people and the environment, as well as how to minimize negative effects, according to the EIA technique that used RIAM. This is the first research to integrate the EIA during a crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, with the RIAM approach.

1 Introduction

COVID-19 impacted waste collection and organization in various ways, affecting waste segregation and recycling. The raised utilization of single-use plastics is responsible for averting the extension of COVID-19 in various sectors since the beginning of the pandemic. Waste management problems can be exacerbated by environmentally friendly alternatives to single-use plastics ( 1 ). Even though multiple initiatives are being taken to deal with the increase of MSW and SMW and to prevent infectious disease outbreaks, Movable grate burning technology, combined with a suitable disinfection process, could be a viable solution to COVID-19’s waste problem. Waste management systems can be made more sustainable if disinfection methods and technological choices are chosen appropriately ( 2 ). Multiple initiatives are in progress to control the spread of infectious diseases, while also managing an increase in MSW and SMW. Waste management systems, especially those that deal with contaminated waste, can become more sustainable if disinfection methods and technology choices are made appropriately ( 1 – 9 ).

Using environmental impact assessments (EIAs), a project can be evaluated for its effects on different sectors and activities, and finally, solutions are offered based on the results of this assessment ( 10 ). Since 1975, major construction projects have been required to prepare an EIA report by government approvals and legislative assemblies to ensure environmental protection and sustainable development. The preparation of this report was a requirement of national laws after the completion of municipal waste landfill plans ( 11 ). Increasing amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) are a concern for people all over the world ( 12 ). In developing countries, urbanization and improving living standards have increased the amount and complexity of MSW ( 13 ). In the absence of an EIA, a MSW disposal site can lead to severe negative environmental impacts. Environmental risks from unsanitary landfills, especially within hospitals and industries that dispose of waste, resulted in the replacement of traditional methods with environmentally sound and sustainable ones ( 14 ).

During EIA projects, the primary objective is to achieve a better knowledge of the existing landfill situation and, based on that, to present appropriate enforcement strategies for improving the environment and reducing pollution caused by landfills ( 15 ). One way to assess landfills is through a rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) ( 16 ). As a result of its ability to integrate all parts and parameters, this method is ideal for determining a project’s environmental impacts rapidly and transparently ( 17 ). The use of RIAM is also recommended, because of its advantages. This eliminates subjectivity and facilitates transparency and objectivity. The process of operation is documented concurrently with the EIA for the project, reducing the amount of time required for the process ( 18 ). As a practical matter, RIAM provides an easy way to utilize distinguish procedures; due to each cell, a specialist will have information on the magnitude and importance of impact, and lastly, the user will be can conclude. RIAM uses a range of environmental scores (ES) to calculate the overall results that can be compared to each other. The ES is assigned to each component and is classified into ranges ( 19 – 24 ).

Figure 1 shows the trend chart of the creation of MSW flow. To predict the environmental consequences of any development project, an EIA is one of the proven legal and predictive tools. Impact studies employ a variety of EIA methods, but not all of them are equally effective. EIA methods and their interrelationships are most encouraging as a result of the dissemination of information. In addition to being time-consuming and costly, conventional EIAs are often subjectively biased ( 26 ). An EIA based on conventional procedures is not sufficient for comprehensively managing environmentally sensitive development projects. Consequently, GIS provides unbiased and interpretable EIAs that overcome the limitations of conventional EIAs. To evaluate road development’s environmental impacts, GIS is considered the best technique. The waste flow rate in municipal waste management facilities is normally predictable and steady, with seasonal fluctuations. Medical waste volumes increased dramatically during COVID−19, while MSW volumes increased and decreased in different regions ( 27 , 28 ). According to state statistics ( 29 ), MSW and organic waste generated in New York were both up 3.3 and 13.3% during the COVID−19 pandemic, respectively ( 9 , 30 – 39 ).

Figure 1 . Trend chart of the creation of MSW flow rate during and after the COVID-19 period in (A) developed (more industrial) and (B) developing (less industrial) societies (city or nation) ( 25 ).

Several municipal essential services were disrupted by COVID-19, including the management of municipal solid waste (MSW). By segregating waste streams and treating them separately, waste and waste management can reduce environmental, health, and social impacts ( 40 ). Depending on disposal activities, MSW and SMW have a global warming potential ranging from 0.64 to 520 (kg) carbon equivalence/tonne and 52.1–3,730 (kg) carbon equivalence/tonne, ordinary. According to Nabavi-pelesaraei et al. ( 41 ), MSW disposal costs ranged from 90 to $242/tonne, and SMW disposal costs ranged from 12 to $1,530/tonne. Impact of zinc oxide doping on the optical, surface, and structural characteristics of thin films of titanium dioxide ( 42 ). Utilizing generative adversarial networks for color correction of images ( 43 ). Image processing methods for early detection of breast cancer ( 44 ). Water usage trends and projections in southwest Ethiopia ( 45 ). Smeein et al. ( 46 ) suggested the approach of spline scaling functions for addressing optimum control problems has been optimized. Concentrated on the viability of using a convolutional neural network for breast cancer diagnosis by Faris and Badamasi ( 47 ). Possibility of using a convolutional neural network in mammography to identify breast cancer ( 48 ).

COVID-19/IT the digital aspect of COVID-19: An Italian image with taxonomy and grouping ( 49 ). The effect of COVID-19 on the virtual learning environment was assessed by Torres Martín et al. ( 50 ). The COVID-19 period waste management organization is depicted in Figure 2 .

Figure 2 . The COVID-19 waste management hierarchy ( 25 ).

Uncertainty was first included in EIAs by Cardenas et al. ( 51 ). Caro-Gonzalez et al.’s review ( 52 ) on the development of EIA effectiveness. Using a case study from Colombia, Caro-Gonzalez et al. ( 53 ) examined the influence of environmental impact statement techniques. Insufficient information might lead to uncertainty difficulties, as discussed by Kamal and Burkell ( 54 , 55 ). Loomis and Dziedzic ( 56 ) assessed the efficacy of EIA systems. A sophisticated network method for evaluating the effects on the environment. Martínez et al.’s impact assessment ( 10 ). For EIA, Pastakia and Jensen ( 57 ) proposed the quick impact assessment matrix approach. Resulting from EIA Forecast Uncertainty regarding post-auditing, follow-up, and mitigation ( 58 ). Predictions made by EIAs are uncertain, necessitating improved communication and more openness ( 59 ). Research on the efficacy of EIAs and the philosophical underpinnings of an integrated ( 60 ).

Catalonia and Barcelona, however, have produced less municipal waste, respectively, by 16.7 and 25.0%. Some Chinese provinces have also produced less MSW ( 61 , 62 ). SMW was managed by 46 mobile waste management plants deployed by the city. Healthcare waste generation is expected to increase in Romania, with medical waste contributing 10.9 percent, and quarantine waste contributing 17.2 percent, respectively, to total waste generation. Several regions have experienced increases in agricultural waste generation because of disruptions in supply chains (SC) and processing facility closures that caused perishable foods to spoil ( 63 ). Multiple causes and effects led to the decrease in MSW during COVID-19. Takeout food and food delivered to residences have been packaged with single-use plastics following the implementation of quarantine ( 64 ). In addition to technical, economic, and environmental factors, social acceptance contributes to the process as well as the choice of disinfection technology ( 65 ). As a result of the outbreak, the current waste management (WM) systems have been swamped with waste ( 66 ). The United States reported that COVID-19 generated 530 million tonnes of waste in a given year ( 67 ). According to estimates, there will be 63,000 tonnes of plastic waste produced in Canada from personal protective equipment (PPE)related to COVID-19 ( 68 ). Tehran experienced significant air quality challenges during the excessive outbreak. Air quality could be improved by lockdowns and urban activity limitations ( 67 ). COVID-19 affected urban air quality in a variety of ways across countries, but various economic and social situations affected responses alternatively, resulting in significant environmental justice implications ( 6 ). COVID-19 resulted in residents of Tehran continuing to work despite the infrequent nationwide stay-at-home orders ( 69 ). Many developing countries have been affected by COVID-19 based on their lifestyles, the kind and quantity of waste they produce, and how they manage it. COVID-19 has been reported to have caused 14,205,416 instances confirmed worldwide and 599,716 deaths ( 69 ) in Iran, where 269,440 affirmed items have resulted in 13,791 deaths. In Iran, solid waste is often disposed of in inefficiently managed landfills where waste pickers could scavenge for recyclable materials without wearing appropriate PPE. Over 18 million metric tons of MSW are produced each year in Iran, the 18th most populous country globally ( 70 ).

During a medical emergency, Abbasi et al. ( 71 ) created the home healthcare SC. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Abbasi et al. ( 72 ) created the green closed-loop supply chain network (GCLSCN). Ahmadi et al.’s study ( 73 ) focused on power plant portfolio optimization in Iran utilizing renewable energy. To achieve sustainable development goals through financial inclusion, Danladi et al. ( 74 ) investigated cooperative methods for fintech uptake in developing nations. A stochastic bi-objective simulation optimization model for the plasma SC in the event of a COVID-19 epidemic was proposed by Shirazi et al. ( 75 ). The literature on green supply chain network design (GSCND) with an emphasis on carbon policy was evaluated by Abbasi and Choukolaei ( 76 ). A state-of-the-art evaluation of operation research models and applications for home healthcare was conducted by Goodarzian et al. ( 77 ).

Using the COVID-19 outbreak as a case study, Ghasemi et al. ( 78 ) examined the DEA-based simulation-optimization strategy for designing a resilient plasma supply chain network(SCN). Using a real-world example, Abbasi et al. ( 79 ) created a sustainable network for recovering end-of-life items during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospital rankings in the COVID-19 epidemic utilizing a novel, integrated methodology based on patient satisfaction ( 80 ). The GCLSCNs’ reaction to different carbon policies during COVID-19 was provided by Abbasi and Erdebilli ( 81 ). Pricing techniques for hotel searches conducted online: a fuzzy inference system process ( 82 ). Creating The COVID-19 pandemic’s sustainable CO 2 emissions SC ( 83 ).

Using a mix of machine learning and meta-heuristic algorithms to design a sustainable bioethanol SCN ( 84 ). Evaluation of the sustainable SC’s performance in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, a case study from actual life ( 85 ). Using a case study of palm oil buying businesses, Ahmadi and Peivandizadeh ( 86 ) developed a sustainable portfolio optimization approach based on Promethean ranking. During the COVID-19 pandemic, designing a vaccine SCN with the environment in mind ( 87 ). Creating a closed-loop, multi-echelon, tri-objective, sustainable supply chain (SSC) amid COVID-19 and lockdowns ( 88 ).

The production-distribution planning issue for multi-product SCs was proposed by Khalili-Damghani and Ghasemi ( 89 ) considering fuzzy mathematical optimization methodologies. Constructing the essential item delivery network under COVID-19 and seismically unstable situations ( 90 ). In the crisis time, Gonzalez et al. ( 91 ) created a dependable aggregate production planning issue. Utilizing meta-heuristic algorithms, Goodarzian et al. ( 92 ) examined a citrus fruit supply chain network taking CO 2 emissions into account. Using the COVID-19 pandemic when designing the location–routing problem for a cold SC ( 93 ). In the COVID-19 Era, Abbasi et al. ( 94 ) examined the model for financial SCNs. COVID-19 medical waste SCN, a fuzzy sustainable model ( 95 ). An overview of the obstacles and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for global waste management for a sustainable future ( 96 ).

2 Literature review

2.1 waste management during the covid-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many cities in the United States and Europe banned or restricted municipal solid waste recycling centers owing to concerns regarding the spread of the infection ( 97 , 98 ). It is also prohibited to separate household waste in countries, for instance, Italy, where suspected or affected individuals are isolated or cared for at home, thus reducing the amount of recyclable waste entering the waste stream. The reduced recycling of waste during the pandemic has led to environmental concerns ( 99 ). By contrast, waste pickers (informal sector) in developing countries separate waste at the disposal stage and dump it at landfills. It is very difficult and complicated to change the situation in this section. Therefore, developing countries are expected to have a greater risk of disease transmission from poor waste management ( 100 ), making garbage collection and waste management programs very important in refugee camps and slums ( 101 ).

In contrast, disease outbreaks and lockdown rules may force citizens to move from their primitive homes to secondary, which may put a strain on village WM systems, so equipment and staff capacity must be increased in these areas to improve waste management systems. Occasionally, urban waste management is impacted by pandemics ( 102 , 103 ). Isfahanian citizens are discarding more than 1.49 million plastic gloves and 1.49 million facemasks, which disrupts waste composting, and landfilling increases 3.6 times compared to the period before COVID-19 ( 69 ).

According to past experiences or experiences achieved in other countries, infectious disease outbreaks caused a change in waste management. Several prior operations were stopped or resumed with notable distinctions in provisions resulting in a change in waste management ( 104 ). A behavioral change like this is essential in diminishing the likelihood of disease transmission and preventing the transfer of pollution from contaminated waste. The virus may spread to the air through compactor waste collection vehicles, for instance ( 105 ). As a result, waste management will require trucks, human resources, and more expenses. Municipal solid waste recycling will likely decrease significantly in a pandemic situation because waste recycling is the most affected part of WM. Compared to the previous epidemic, COVID-19 has seen a decrease in the waste-to-material industry ( 105 ).

Tehran has increased its landfill capacity by 35% as well ( 9 ). Since the health protocols have been implemented, the waste management system has improved ( 33 ). To limit poor waste management that leads to damage, there has to be a greater emphasis on the guidelines set out in the waste management pandemic conditions ( 106 ). Medical waste management has been significantly affected by the pandemic. To store, collect, and transport this potentially contaminated waste, separate pathways have been adopted for storing, collecting, and transporting these medical wastes ( 107 ). The pandemic has been controlled and transmission risks reduced using waste incineration, according to a report from a Chinese hospital ( 108 ).

2.2 Environmental management during the COVID-19

COVID-19 also improved Tehran’s air quality indicators. Also, quieter conditions were created in Tehran due to a reduction in commercial activity and a reduction in the use of public and private transportation. As of now, Tehran is experiencing a reopening of most businesses, including restaurants. Social distancing measures are encouraged by the government, but the government enforcing them in most public places is not strict. Residents wear facemasks and follow guidelines for social distancing ( 109 ).

COVID-19 has been reduced from spreading from human to human according to guidelines issued by the WHO and other national disease control centers. Iranian National Headquarters for Managing Coronavirus (INHMC) advises the use of PPE-like facemasks for everyone. In the act of preventing or controlling the spread of COVID-19 in Iran, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education formed the INHMC. In defending against COVID-19, every governmental and private entity and sector has a responsibility to consider necessary administrative measures and collaborate with the INHMC ( 23 , 110 – 112 ). In preventing the transmission of COVID-19, the INHMC recommends single-use gloves, tissues, aprons, and facemasks for medical professionals treating patients with COVID-19. Several other service employees have been praised for using facemasks and gloves, which include barbers, cooks, taxi drivers, street sweepers, and waste collectors ( 62 , 113 – 117 ).

A new law is being proposed by the INHMC to require all residents to wear facemasks in public areas. On average, 10.78 million facemasks were disposed of every day in March 2020. People would be discouraged from using PPEs if the price of PPEs in Iran increased significantly after COVID-19 spread. In Tehran, every day 1.9 million masks and 3.8 million gloves are deleted. In particular, street sweepers and waste scavengers are at risk of becoming infected with the viral disease from the utilization of PPE. Due to changes in people’s habits and the rise in plastic waste, Tehran’s waste production has increased in volume and weight since the outbreak of COVID-19. During COVID-19 time, people tend to spend more time at home, which results in more waste being produced ( 112 , 114 , 118 ).

There has been a rise in the production and use of food waste and detergents among Tehran residents. During the pandemic, Tehran City’s waste stream has seen a dramatic increase in packaging waste from detergents and disinfectants. The literature describes human COVID-19 like SARS and MERS COVID-19 have been reported to survive up to 9 days on non-living surfaces ( 119 , 120 ). As a result, most people prefer single-use plastics as a safer alternative. As a result of the lockdown measures in Tehran, restaurant and grocery store delivery staff have increased their use of packaging materials. However, if discarded PPEs are not handled properly, they can aggravate health and environmental issues. A poor waste management system usually makes these environmental hazards more severe in developing countries. A typical waste collection truck in Tehran, for example, is equipped with a compactor to enable larger collections ( 112 , 121 ). When COVID-19 broke out in Iran, compactors for garbage trucks were not restricted or recommended. As long as 3 months can pass before landfall leachates become contaminated ( 122 ). It may result in the spread of COVID-19 in Tehran if this strategy for collecting waste is carried out ( 112 ).

The environment may be negatively impacted by COVID-19. COVID-19 could have some positive environmental impacts due to its reduced energy consumption, according to initial reports. It has been observed that the CO 2 , NO 2 , and PM2.5 emissions in China have been drastically reduced as a result of the halting of the power plant and industrial activities also decreased utilization of vehicles, although such a short-term decline in emissions would not be a sustainable way for the protection of the environment since the outbreak of COVID-19 has occurred ( 123 ).

The social distancing guidelines and PPE were used by 62 and 23% of Tehran residents, respectively, during March and April. The recommended measures are currently followed by only 11% of the residents. Due to this, the only positive impact of COVID-19 on the environment has disappeared quickly, namely the reduced emissions of air pollutants ( 124 , 125 ).

After the outbreak of COVID-19 in Tehran, cities are prohibited from separating and recycling urban waste for districts 6, 21, and 22 of Tehran, a pilot source separation program was launched right before the COVID-19 pandemic, where people were instructed to store their waste in three sealed containers labeled with their names. Every other day, organic waste was collected, and every other or twice a week separated recyclable wastes were collected. To encourage residents to participate in the source separation program, WMOTM paid residents according to the weight of the collected recycled waste. COVID-19 also ended this pilot program. COVID-19 has not significantly changed Tehran’s waste collection procedure except for this pilot program ( 108 , 126 , 127 ).

It has now been declared that Tehran faces several environmental challenges related to COVID-19, like the raised utilization of particular vehicles versus public transportation, increased water utilization, and increased detergent loads in domestic wastewater. COVID-19 poses many environmental challenges in Tehran, but solid WM is particularly problematic ( 108 ). Tehran generates approximately one-fifth of all MSW in Iran, according to statistics ( 70 ).

2.3 Tehran’s MSW disposal during the COVID-19

Before the outbreak of COVID-19, they were separated, composted, incinerated, or landfilled. Tehran used to bury/landfill about 4,900 tonnes of its collected waste every day ( 62 ). Additionally, around 200 tonnes of the collected waste are burnt at Aradkouh every day. Nevertheless, the Aradkouh disposal center cannot burn hazardous wastes like hospital waste because the associated disposal costs will be significantly higher, and no authorized organization is willing to take on these expenses. There is an estimated 20–30-fold increase in incineration costs for medical wastes in China in comparison to urban wastes, mainly due to the need to modify therapy and CO 2 control systems planned for the standard of quality for general waste. According to WHO guidelines, healthcare waste should be treated at temperatures between 900 and 1,200°C when incinerated in Germany ( 128 ). Additionally, the Aradkouh composting facility was able to handle 3,500 tonnes per day at its nominal capacity. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, wastes in Tehran have been buried 34.7% more often ( 112 , 129 , 130 ).

3 Research gaps and motivation of research

We describe innovation in the following categories and fill some literature gaps:

• This investigation aimed to measure the environmental impact of COVID-19.

• Analyzed lockdowns and COVID-19 pandemics to develop an indicator.

• During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid impact assessment matrix approach was utilized to measure the effect of the project.

• To evaluate the study, we used a real-life case study.

• Both negative and positive effects were shown to have been caused by COVID-19.

4 Environmental impact assessment methodology

EIAs serve primarily as a tool for informing decision-makers about the environmental impacts of a project on people and the environment, as well as to minimize adverse effects resulting from a project or a phenomenon such as COVID-19, involving engineering and other limitations.

4.1 Rapid impact assessment matrix

To gain a SRN, we need to have methods and tools to measure the environmental impact (EI). The RIAM is a useful tool for the performance of an EIA. The impacts of COVID-19 are assessed on environmental components, and for each component, a score, which is a measure of the component’s expected impact, is determined. There are two groups of important evaluation criteria:

(A) Several criteria can have an impact on the final score, and that is relevant to the situation. (B) Scores should not be affected by factors that are relevant to the situation but are not capable of changing individually. There is a simple formula for determining the value assigned to each of these criteria groups. In these formulas, you can specify the weights of each component based on a defined set of criteria. To calculate the score, simply multiply the scores assigned to each of the criteria in group (A). To calculate the score of group (B), we add the scores of the value criteria. As a result, all values in group (B) are considered equally, regardless of their scores. To determine the final evaluation score (ES) for the condition, the sum of the scores of group (B) is multiplied by the result of group (A) scores.

Below is a description of the process:

A scale ranging from negative to positive values to zero can be used to assess the positive and negative impacts of group (A) criteria. Thus, zero is an “insignificant” or “unchanged” value. In group (A), zeros are used to separate unimportant or unchanged conditions with a single measure. In group (B) criteria, zero is avoided. A zero result for all criteria in group (B) will also result in a zero score for the ES. Despite the criteria for group (A) indicating an important condition, this condition can still occur. The “unchanged/insignificant” score is “1” in group (B) criteria to prevent this.

4.2 Assessment criteria

Instead of changes associated with SC projects, criteria should be determined for both groups based on basic situations that are possibly affected. Theoretically, some criteria could be defined, but two principles must always be met: As the criterion is universal, it can be used in a variety of EIAs. Whether a condition should be treated as being in a group (A) or group (B) will depend on the significance of the criterion. Table 1 shows the criteria for assessment. In this study, five criteria were used in the RIAM. These criteria, together with their suitable judgment scores are specific.

Table 1 . Criteria for assessment.

4.2.1 Environmental components

There are four categories of environmental components, which are as follows:

Physical/Chemical (PC): Environmental aspects that are physical and chemical.

Biological/Ecological (BE): Environment’s biological components.

Sociological/Cultural (SC): Environmental aspects related to humans.

Economic/Operational (EO): Impacts of environmental change on the economy.

4.2.2 Ranges

There are cells in the matrix that show which criteria were used when comparing the defined components to the criteria. Scores are set for each criterion within each cell. The formula above is used to calculate and record each ES number. For a more accurate rating system, ES values are grouped into comparable ranges (Scale) without claiming sensitivity. As a result of group (A) changes, these conditions are combined with the highest or lowest possible scores on group (B) criteria. The conditions are defined so that a range of ±5 can be created, and the boundaries of the bands in this range can be determined as follows ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 . RIAM’s range of bands.

5 Case study

It was confirmed on 19 February 2020 that Iran had the first cases of COVID-19. The data for the assumed case study are used to assess the validity of the created environmental model and the functionality of the solution approach. The Company’s management provided the data. The results of the model were assessed in a real-life case study. By using the data for the considered real-life case study, the precision, and functionality of the proposed model can be assessed. At last, it should be noted that the proposed model is dependable and responsive. This case study emphasizes the impact of air pollution, noise pollution, and soil and water pollution. We used COVID-19 baseline data as a basis for developing matrix alternatives for each environmental component. Figure 3 shows the situation of the real case study.

Figure 3 . The map real case study in Iran ( 67 ).

6 Environmental components during the COVID-19

6.1 physical/chemical components.

• PC1: Reducing CO 2 emissions because of decreasing recovery activities.

• PC2: Reducing CO 2 emissions because of decreasing shipping activities.

• PC3: Increasing medical waste amount.

• PC4: Increasing PPE waste.

• PC5: Reducing noise pollution.

• PC6: Bad effects of COVID-19 on WM.

6.2 Biological/ecological components

• BE1: Protection of species of flora and fauna.

• BE2: Harmful effect on human health.

• BE3: Densification of the population is reduced.

6.3 Social/cultural components

• SC1: Outcomes of the modality for healthcare, prevention, and control of COVID-19.

• SC2: There are several job openings regarding COVID-19.

• SC3: COVID-19 damages caused an average number of lost days.

6.4 Economical/operational components

• EO1: The risk of infection limits manual sorting and recycling.

• EO2: Separation costs of COVID-19 waste and from normal waste.

• EO3: Hygienic costs.

The ES is calculated as follows:

(AT) × (BT) = ES

(Importance of condition) × (Magnitude of change/effect) = AT

(Permanence) + (Reversibility) + (Cumulative) = BT

PC1: A1 × A2 = 2 × (+2), B1 + B2 + B3 = 2 + 2 + 2, ES = +24

PC2: A1 × A2 = 2 × (+1), B1 + B2 + B3 = 2 + 2 + 2, ES = +12

PC3: A1 × A2 = 3 × (−1), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 1, ES = −18

PC4: A1 × A2 = 2 × (−1), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 1, ES = −12

PC5: A1 × A2 = 1 × (+2), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 1, ES = +12

PC6: A1 × A2 = 2 × (−1), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 1, ES = −12

PC1 + PC2 + PC3 + PC4 + PC5 + PC6 ≥ 0

BE1: A1 × A2 = 2 × (+1), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 1, ES = +12

BE2: A1 × A2 = 4 × (−3), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 3 + 3, ES = −108

BE3: A1 × A2 = 4 × (+3), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 3, ES = +96

BE1 + BE2 + BE3 ≥ 0

SC1: A1 × A2 = 1 × (+2), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 2 + 2, ES = +14

SC2: A1 × A2 = 3 × (+3), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 1 + 1, ES = + 45

SC3: A1 × A2 = 3 × (−2), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 1 + 1, ES = − 30

SC1 + SC2 + SC3 ≥ 0

EO1: A1 × A2 = 4 × (+3), B1 + B2 + B3 = 3 + 3 + 3, ES = +108

EO2: A1 × A2 = 3 × (−2), B1 + B2 + B3 = 2 + 3 + 2, ES = −42

EO3: A1 × A2 = 3 × (−2), B1 + B2 + B3 = 2 + 3 + 2, ES = −42

EO1 + EO2 + EO3 ≥ 0

Figure 4 illustrates the RIAM results for the PC components. Figure 5 shows the RIAM results for the BE components. Figure 6 shows the RIAM results for the SC components. Figure 7 depicts the total results. Figure 8 illustrates RIAM results for the EO components. Figure 9 shows the RIAM results for the four components. Although COVID-19 has damaged our environment the most important of which has been the increase in infectious, hospital, and plastic waste, in general as you see in this real case all of the ES has been positive (≥ 0), and it is shown that RN has been sustainable and greener during the pandemic and lockdown periods. So this pandemic helps the environment to reconstruct ( Tables 3 , 4 ).

Figure 4 . RIAM results for the PC components.

Figure 5 . RIAM results for the BE components.

Figure 6 . RIAM results for the SC components.

Figure 7 . Total results.

Figure 8 . RIAM results for the EO components.

Figure 9 . RIAM results for the four components.

Table 3 . RIAM analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 4 . COVID-19 RIAM summary scores.

7 Conclusion and future recommendation

Based on the study’s findings, RIAM is an effective tool for decision-makers as it displays the results of different options and can produce transparent environmental solutions even with particularly complex scenarios. Data from different sectors can be examined within a typical matrix by common significant indicators, which provides a clear understanding of major impacts in a multi-disciplinary EIA. Assessors can rapidly record their judgments by following the discipline imposed by the matrix. Several scales are used to determine the value of a judgment, ensuring objectivity. Using a matrix with outlined components, it is possible to compare the with- and without-project conditions, compare different development options, and use “what if” scenarios when planning. Comparing alternative development strategies and options can be achieved through multiple matrices that identify the major positive and negative effects, show the interim and long-term effects, as well as display where mitigation can be implemented and reduce negative effects. It is important to note, however, that the initial step in a system is the definition of components, and these definitions are related to the specific conditions of the project. In specific stages in a project development process, RIAM can serve as an instrument for screening and also some methodologies for detailed impact assessment. EISs can be evaluated quickly and effectively using this system of checking with defined components. The RIAM is an ideal gadget for both Initial Environmental Evaluations (IEEs) and recording the findings of a full EIA. Due to its simple nature and the ability to use the matrix even when data is scarce. In this study, RIAM was found to be a highly effective tool for applying a consistent, transparent, and easily recordable assessment of the different components of an environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, with RIAM, strategies can be compared holistically to get a better understanding of what is most appropriate for the future. Further studies on other environmental projects should be conducted during COVID-19, such as waste disposal sites in Tehran. This study was carried out from the beginning of the epidemic to its end.

In this investigation, we focused on the environmental effects according to indicators such as the emission of CO 2 and other dangerous gases, and noise pollution. It has caused ecological restoration by reducing pressure in tourism destinations, protecting plant and animal species, reducing densely populated areas, and on the other hand, increasing medical waste and disposal of protective waste and infectious waste along the project in environmental dimensions in this issue. The total amount of bad environmental effects on the project in the state of coronavirus disease has decreased and improved. Also, the average amount of these effects in the coronavirus era has improved compared to normal conditions. This trend is logical because during the coronavirus era, due to the extensive quarantines of the mentioned items, including reducing the level of pollutants due to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and CO 2 release and the reduction of a loud environment, the damage to the environment has decreased.

Here is a succinct and precise answer to the query based on the search results that were found. According to the search results, the RIAM approach is a helpful resource for carrying out EIAs of different industrial and infrastructural projects, such as parks, landfills, and coal mining. Using a systematic evaluation process, the RIAM method assesses a project’s positive and negative environmental consequences across several components, including physical/chemical, biological/ecological, social/cultural, and economic/operational elements. This enables decision-makers to pinpoint the most important environmental effects and create effective mitigation plans. The RIAM technique has been successfully used in several studies to evaluate the environmental effects of projects under typical operating circumstances. Nevertheless, there is little information about the use of RIAM, particularly during disaster crisis.

An EIA would need to take into account any new environmental factors that the COVID-19 pandemic may have brought about, such as adjustments to resource usage, waste creation, or worker safety procedures. The RIAM technique would probably need to be modified to take these particular pandemic-related aspects into account to analyze environmental consequences during the epidemic in a comprehensive manner. In summary, the search results do not directly address how the RIAM technique may be used during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though it is a useful tool for environmental impact assessment. To comprehend the applicability and possible adjustments of RIAM for EIAs carried out in the context of the ongoing public health emergency, more investigation would be required.

Several suggestions can be made for future work. Including the use, of the other methods of evaluating the reset environment and comparing it with the method used in this paper. Increasing the scope of knowledge by examining the number of cities and geographical extent. Establishing other new indicators and expanding these indicators.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

SA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. UM: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. HJ: Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. IA: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. NK: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. However, the article publication charges of this paper have been supported by UM of the Department of Operations Research, Modibbo Adama University, Yola, Nigeria via the frontiers Journal.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Tushar, SR, Alam, MFB, Bari, AM, and Karmaker, CL. Assessing the challenges to medical waste management during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for the environmental sustainability in the emerging economies. Socio Econ Plan Sci . (2023) 87:101513. doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101513

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Ilyas, S, Srivastava, RR, and Kim, H. Disinfection technology and strategies for COVID-19 hospital and bio-medical waste management. Sci Total Environ . (2020) 749:141652. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141652

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Wilkinson, A, Ali, H, Bedford, J, Boonyabancha, S, Connolly, C, Conteh, A, et al. Local response in health emergencies: key considerations for addressing the COVID-19 pandemic in informal urban settlements. Environ Urban . (2020) 32:503–22. doi: 10.1177/0956247820922843

4. Rubab, S, Khan, MM, Uddin, F, Abbas Bangash, Y, and Taqvi, SAA. A study on AI-based waste management strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic. ChemBioEng Rev . (2022) 9:212–26. doi: 10.1002/cben.202100044

5. World Health Organization (2022). Tonnes of COVID-19 healthcare waste exposes the urgent need to improve waste management systems.

Google Scholar

6. Uhar, I, Luhar, S, and Abdullah, MMAB. Challenges and impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on global waste management systems: a review. J Compos Sci . (2022) 6:271. doi: 10.3390/jcs6090271

7. Anazonwu, NP, Nnamani, KE, Osadebe, N, Anichebe, O, Ezeibe, CC, Mbah, PO, et al. State actors, human rights violations and informal livelihoods during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria. Territ, Politics, Gov . (2022) 10:876–95. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2021.1976262

8. De Vet, J. M., Nigohosyan, D., Ferrer, J. N., Gross, A. K., Kuehl, S., and Flickenschild, M. (2021). Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on EU Industries . Strasbourg, France: European Parliament, 1–86

9. Torkashvand, J, Jonidi Jafari, A, Godini, K, Kazemi, Z, Kazemi, Z, and Farzadkia, M. Municipal solid waste management during COVID-19 pandemic: a comparison between the current activities and guidelines. J Environ Health Sci Eng . (2021) 19:173–9. doi: 10.1007/s40201-020-00591-9

10. Martínez, LF, Toro, J, and León, JC. A complex network approach to environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais . (2019) 37:407–20. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1552442

11. Monavari, M. (2002). “Environmental impact assessment pattern of municipal solid waste disposal site” in Organization of Tehran Municipality’s recycling and conversion materials, Department of Education and Research. Sineh Sorkh Publication, Tehran.

12. Ayeleru, OO, Okonta, FN, and Ntuli, F. Municipal solid waste generation and characterization in the City of Johannesburg: a pathway for the implementation of zero waste. Waste Manag . (2018) 79:87–97. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.026

13. Khajuria, A, Yamamoto, Y, and Morioka, T. Estimation of municipal solid waste generation and landfill area in Asian developing countries. J Environ Biol . (2010) 31:649–54.

14. El-Naqa, A . Environmental impact assessment using rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for Russeifa landfill, Jordan. Environ Geol . (2005) 47:632–9. doi: 10.1007/s00254-004-1188-8

15. Aliakbari-Beidokhti, Z, Ghazizade, MJ, and Gholamalifard, M. Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste disposal site using rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) analysis in Mashhad city, Iran. Environ Eng Manag J . (2017) 16:2361.

16. Silsilah, UP, and Gandhimathi, A. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) and prediction method: case study. J Technic Educ Sci . (2023) 74:65–74.

17. Ghanbaripour, AN, Langston, C, Tumpa, RJ, and Skulmoski, G. Validating and testing a project delivery success model in construction: a mixed-method approach in Australia. Smart Sustain Built Environ . (2023) 13:532–59. doi: 10.1108/SASBE-09-2022-0200

18. Zhao, Y, Chen, Y, Lu, X, Zhou, L, and Xiong, S. Aerial image recognition in discriminative bi-transformer. Signal Process . (2023) 207:108963. doi: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2023.108963

19. Sluser, B, Plavan, O, and Teodosiu, C. Environmental impact and risk assessment In: Assessing Progress Towards Sustainability : Elsevier (2022), 189–217.

20. Chen, T . Communicating appropriate cleaning and disinfection practices and health risks in environmental public health practice. Environ Health Rev . (2021) 63:96–100. doi: 10.5864/d2020-026

21. Rand, T, Haukohl, J, and Marxen, U. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: Requirements for a Successful Project . vol. 462. World Bank Publications (2000).

22. Yousefi, M, Oskoei, V, Jonidi Jafari, A, Farzadkia, M, Hasham Firooz, M, Abdollahinejad, B, et al. Municipal solid waste management during COVID-19 pandemic: effects and repercussions. Environ Sci Pollut Res . (2021) 28:32200–9. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14214-9

23. Ahmadini, AAH, Modibbo, UM, Shaikh, AA, and Ali, I. Multi-objective optimization modelling of sustainable green supply chain in inventory and production management. Alex Eng J . (2021) 60:5129–46.

24. Kalantary, S, Khadem, M, and Golbabaei, F. Personal protective equipment for protecting healthcare staff during COVID-19 outbreak: a narrative review. Front Emerg Med . (2020) 4:e61.

25. Mahyari, KF, Sun, Q, Klemeš, JJ, Aghbashlo, M, Tabatabaei, M, Khoshnevisan, B, et al. To what extent do waste management strategies need adaptation to post-COVID-19? Sci Total Environ . (2022) 837:155829. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155829

26. Wilkins, H . The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact Assess Rev . (2003) 23:401–14. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00044-1

27. del Carmen Munguía-López, A, Ochoa-Barragán, R, and Ponce-Ortega, JM. Optimal waste management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif . (2022) 176:108942. doi: 10.1016/j.cep.2022.108942

28. Roy, P, Mohanty, AK, Wagner, A, Sharif, S, Khalil, H, and Misra, M. Impacts of COVID-19 outbreak on the municipal solid waste management: now and beyond the pandemic. ACS Environ . (2021) 1:32–45. doi: 10.1021/acsenvironau.1c00005

29. Mihai, FC . Assessment of COVID-19 waste flows during the emergency state in Romania and related public health and environmental concerns. Int J Environ Res Public Health . (2020) 17:5439. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155439

30. Aragaw, TA, and Mekonnen, BA. Current plastics pollution threats due to COVID-19 and its possible mitigation techniques: a waste-to-energy conversion via pyrolysis. Environ Syst Res . (2021) 10:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s40068-020-00217-x

31. Hantoko, D, Li, X, Pariatamby, A, Yoshikawa, K, Horttanainen, M, and Yan, M. Challenges and practices on waste management and disposal during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Environ Manag . (2021) 286:112140. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112140

32. Manzoor, J, and Sharma, M. Impact of biomedical waste on the environment and human health. Environ Claims J . (2019) 31:311–34. doi: 10.1080/10406026.2019.1619265

33. Das, AK, Islam, MN, Billah, MM, and Sarker, A. COVID-19 pandemic and healthcare solid waste management strategy–a mini-review. Sci Total Environ . (2021) 778:146220. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146220

34. Molloy, S, Varkey, P, and Walker, TR. Opportunities for a single-use plastic reduction in the food service sector during COVID-19. Sustain Product Consump . (2022) 30:1082–94. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.023

35. Lyu, W, and Wehby, GL. Community use of face masks and COVID-19: evidence from a natural experiment of state mandates in the US: the study examines the impact on COVID-19 growth rates associated with state government mandates requiring face mask use in public. Health Aff . (2020) 39:1419–25. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

36. Fadare, OO, and Okoffo, ED. Covid-19 face masks: a potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci Total Environ . (2020) 737:140279. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140279

37. Ibn-Mohammed, T, Mustapha, KB, Godsell, J, Adamu, Z, Babatunde, KA, Akintade, DD, et al. A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resour Conserv Recycl . (2021) 164:105169. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105169

38. Haque, MS, Sharif, S, Masnoon, A, and Rashid, E. SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-induced PPE and single-use plastic waste generation scenario. Waste Manag Res . (2021) 39:3–17. doi: 10.1177/0734242X20980828

39. Otter, JA, Yezli, S, and French, GL. The role played by contaminated surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol . (2011) 32:687–99. doi: 10.1086/660363

40. Pinto, AD, Jalloul, H, Nickdoost, N, Sanusi, F, Choi, J, and Abichou, T. Challenges and adaptive measures for US municipal solid waste management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain For . (2022) 14:4834. doi: 10.3390/su14084834

41. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A, Mohammadkashi, N, Naderloo, L, Abbasi, M, and Chau, KW. Principal of environmental life cycle assessment for medical waste during the COVID-19 outbreak to support sustainable development goals. Sci Total Environ . (2022) 827:154416. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154416

42. Magid, HC, Rasheed, HS, and Al-Wardy, RA. Effect of doping with zinc oxide on the structural, surface, and optical properties of titanium dioxide thin films. Reason . (2023) 29:5.

43. Chen, M, Shi, Y, and Zhu, L. Application of generative adversarial network in image color correction. Int J Image Graph . (2024) 2550069:25–69. doi: 10.1142/S021946782550069X

44. Younis, YS, Ali, AH, Alhafidhb, OKS, Yahia, WB, Alazzam, MB, Hamad, AA, et al. Early diagnosis of breast cancer using image processing techniques. J Nanomater . (2022) 2022:1–6. doi: 10.1155/2022/2641239

45. Enbeyle, W, Hamad, AA, Al-Obaidi, AS, Abebaw, S, Belay, A, Markos, A, et al. Trend analysis and prediction on water consumption in southwestern Ethiopia. J Nanomater . (2022) 2022:1–7. doi: 10.1155/2022/3294954

46. Smeein, SB, Shihab, S, and Delphi, M. Operational spline scaling functions method for solving optimal control problems. Samarra J Pure Appl Sci . (2023) 5:160–172.

47. Faris, A, and Badamasi, M. Feasibility of breast cancer detection through a convolutional neural network in mammographs. Tamjeed J Healthc Eng Sci Technol . (2023) 1:36–43.

48. Ahmed, FM, and Mohammed, BS. Feasibility of breast cancer detection through a convolutional neural network in mammographs. Tamjeed J Healthcare Eng Sci Technol . (2023) 1:36–43. doi: 10.59785/tjhest.v1i2.24

49. Bonnici, V, Cicceri, G, Distefano, S, Galletta, L, Polignano, M, and Scaffidi, C. Covid19/IT the digital side of Covid19: a picture from Italy with clustering and taxonomy. PLoS One . (2022) 17:e0269687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269687

50. Torres Martín, C, Acal, C, El Homrani, M, and Mingorance Estrada, ÁC. Impact on the virtual learning environment due to COVID-19. Sustain For . (2021) 13:582. doi: 10.3390/su13020582

51. Cardenas, ICIC, and Halman, JIMJIMJ. Coping with uncertainty in environmental impact assessments: open techniques. Environ Impact Assess Rev . (2016) 60:24–39. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.006

52. Caro-Gonzalez, AL, Nita, A, Toro, J, and Zamorano, M. From procedural to transformative: a review of the evolution of effectiveness in EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev . (2023) 103:107256. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107256

53. Caro-Gonzalez, AL, Toro, J, and Zamorano, M. Effectiveness of environmental impact statement methods: a Colombian case study. J Environ Manag . (2021) 300:113659. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113659

54. Kamal, A, and Burkell, J. Uncertainty: when information is not enough. Can J Inf Libr Sci . (2011) 4:384–96.

55. Leung, W, Noble, B, Gunn, J, and Jaeger, JAGG. A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev . (2015) 50:116–23. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.005

56. Loomis, JJ, and Dziedzic, M. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art. Environ Impact Assess Rev . (2018) 68:29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005

57. Pastakia, CMR, and Jensen, A. The rapid impact assessment matrix (Riam) for environmental impact assess. Review . (1998) 18:461–82. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00018-3(98)00018-3

58. Tennøy, A . Consequences of EIA prediction uncertainty on mitigation, follow-up and post-auditing In: M Schmidt, J Glasson, L Emmelin, and H Helbron, editors. Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment . Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer (2008). 447–61.

59. Tennøy, A, Kværner, J, and Gjerstad, K. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Proj Apprais . (2006) 24:45–56. doi: 10.3152/147154606781765345

60. Veronez, F.-A., and Montaño, M., (2015). “EIA effectiveness: Conceptual basis for an integrative approach” in IAIA15 Conference Proceedings: Impact Assessment in the Digital Era. 35th Annual Conference of International Association for Impact Assessment . p. 6.

61. Leal Filho, W, Lange Salvia, A, Sierra, J, Fletcher, CA, Banks, CE, Velazquez, L, et al. COVID-19 and households waste in Hispanic America: an assessment of trends. Sustain For . (2022) 14:16552. doi: 10.3390/su142416552

62. Barma, M, Biniyamin, HK, Modibbo, UM, and Gaya, HMA. Mathematical model for the optimization of municipal solid waste management. Front Sustain . (2022) 3:880409. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.880409

63. Clavreul, J, Baumeister, H, Christensen, TH, and Damgaard, A. An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies. Environ Model Softw . (2014) 60:18–30. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.007

64. Bhar, A, Biswas, RK, and Choudhury, AK. The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on biomedical waste management, the impact beyond infection. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad . (2022) 88:117–28. doi: 10.1007/s43538-022-00070-9

65. Yuan, X, Wang, X, Sarkar, B, and Ok, YS. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a shift to a plastic circular economy. Nat Rev Earth Environ . (2021) 2:659–60. doi: 10.1038/s43017-021-00223-2

66. Udaykumar, MS, Vazhacharickal, PJ, Bellundagi, V, Hamsa, KR, and Umesh, KB. Atma Nirbhar and other agricultural relief packages with a special focus on the COVID-19 pandemic situation in India. History . (2019) 2:59.

67. Maghrebi, M, Danandeh Mehr, A, Karrabi, SM, Sadegh, M, Partani, S, Ghiasi, B, et al. Spatiotemporal variations of air pollution during the COVID-19 pandemic across Tehran, Iran: commonalities with and differences from global trends. Sustain For . (2022) 14:16313. doi: 10.3390/su142316313

68. Tanvir, S, Ravichandran, D, Ivey, C, Barth, M, and Boriboonsomsin, K. Traffic, air quality, and environmental justice in the south coast air basin during California’s COVID-19 shutdown In: A Loukaitou-Sideris, AM Bayen, G Circella, and R Jayakrishnan, editors. Pandemic in the Metropolis: Transportation Impacts and Recovery . Cham: Springer International Publishing (2023). 131–48.

69. Zand, AD, and Heir, AV. Environmental impacts of new coronavirus outbreak in Iran with an emphasis on waste management sector. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag . (2021) 23:240–7.

70. Zand, AD, Heir, AV, and Tabrizi, AM. Investigation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of Tehrani a woman apropos of reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovery of urban solid waste. Environ Monit Assess . (2020) 192:1–13.

71. Abbasi, S, Sıcakyüz, Ç, and Erdebilli, B. Designing the home healthcare supply chain during a health crisis. J Eng Res . (2023) 11:100098. doi: 10.1016/j.jer.2023.100098

72. Abbasi, S, Daneshmand-Mehr, M, and Ghane Kanafi, A. Green closed-loop supply chain network design during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: a case study in the Iranian automotive industry. Environ Model Assess . (2023) 28:69–103. doi: 10.1007/s10666-022-09863-0

73. Ahmadi, SA, Mirlohi, SM, Ahmadi, MH, and Ameri, M. Portfolio optimization of power plants by using renewable energy in Iran. Int J Low-Carbon Technol . (2021) 16:463–75. doi: 10.1093/ijlct/ctaa079

74. Danladi, S, Prasad, MSV, Modibbo, UM, Ahmadi, SA, and Ghasemi, P. Attaining sustainable development goals through financial inclusion: exploring collaborative approaches to Fintech adoption in developing economies. Sustain For . (2023) 15:13039. doi: 10.3390/su151713039

75. Shirazi, H, Kia, R, and Ghasemi, P. A stochastic bi-objective simulation–optimization model for plasma supply chain in case of COVID-19 outbreak. Appl Soft Comput . (2021) 112:107725. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107725

76. Abbasi, S, and Choukolaei, HA. A systematic review of green supply chain network design literature focusing on carbon policy. Decis Analy J . (2023) 6:100189. doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100189

77. Goodarzian, F, Garjan, HS, and Ghasemi, P. A state-of-the-art review of operation research models and applications in home healthcare. Healthcare Analy . (2023) 4:100228. doi: 10.1016/j.health.2023.100228

78. Ghasemi, P, Goodarzian, F, Simic, V, and Tirkolaee, EB. A DEA-based simulation-optimisation approach to design a resilience plasma supply chain network: a case study of the COVID-19 outbreak. Int J Syst Sci: Oper Logist . (2023) 10:2224105.

79. Abbasi, S, Daneshmand-Mehr, M, and Ghane Kanafi, A. Designing sustainable recovery network of end-of-life product during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real and applied case study. Discret Dyn Nat Soc . (2022) 2022:1–21. doi: 10.1155/2022/6967088

80. Shirazi, H, Kia, R, and Ghasemi, P. Ranking of hospitals in the case of COVID-19 outbreak: a new integrated approach using patient satisfaction criteria. Int J Healthc Manag . (2020) 13:312–24. doi: 10.1080/20479700.2020.1803622

81. Abbasi, S, and Erdebilli, B. Green closed-loop supply chain networks’ response to various carbon policies during COVID-19. Sustain For . (2023) 15:3677. doi: 10.3390/su15043677

82. Ahmadi, SA, and Ghasemi, P. Pricing strategies for online hotel searching: a fuzzy inference system procedure. Kybernetes . (2023) 52:4913–36. doi: 10.1108/K-03-2022-0427

83. Abbasi, S, Daneshmand-Mehr, M, and Ghane Kanafi, A. The sustainable supply chain of CO 2 emissions during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. J Ind Eng Int . (2021) 17:83–108. doi: 10.30495/JIEI.2022.1942784.1169

84. Momenitabar, M, Ebrahimi, ZD, and Ghasemi, P. Designing a sustainable bioethanol supply chain network: a combination of machine learning and meta-heuristic algorithms. Ind Crop Prod . (2022) 189:115848. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115848

85. Abbasi, S, Khalili, HA, Daneshmand-Mehr, M, and Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Performance measurement of the sustainable supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic: a real-life case study. Found Comput Decis Sci . (2022) 47:327–58. doi: 10.2478/fcds-2022-0018

86. Ahmadi, SA, and Peivandizadeh, A. Sustainable portfolio optimization model using promethee ranking: a case study of palm oil buyer companies. Discret Dyn Nat Soc . (2022) 2022:1–11. doi: 10.1155/2022/8935213

87. Abbasi, S, Zahmatkesh, S, Bokhari, A, and Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Designing a vaccine supply chain network considering environmental aspects. J Clean Prod . (2023) 417:137935. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137935

88. Abbasi, S, Daneshmand-Mehr, M, and Kanafi, AG. Designing a tri-objective, sustainable, closed-loop, and multi-echelon supply chain during the COVID-19 and lockdowns. Found Comput Decis Sci . (2023) 48:269–312. doi: 10.2478/fcds-2023-0011

89. Khalili-Damghani, K, and Ghasemi, P. Uncertain centralized/decentralized production-distribution planning problem in multi-product supply chains: fuzzy mathematical optimization approaches. Indus Eng Manag Syst . (2016) 15:156–72. doi: 10.7232/iems.2016.15.2.156

90. Abbasi, S, Vlachos, I, Rekabi, S, and Talooni, M. Designing the distribution network of essential items in the critical conditions of earthquakes and COVID-19 simultaneously. Sustain For . (2023) 15:15900. doi: 10.3390/su152215900

91. Gonzalez, EDS, Abbasi, S, and Azhdarifard, M. Designing a reliable aggregate production planning problem during the disaster period. Sustain Operat Comp . (2023) 4:158–71. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2023.08.004

92. Goodarzian, F, Kumar, V, and Ghasemi, P. Investigating a citrus fruit supply chain network considering CO2 emissions using meta-heuristic algorithms. Ann Oper Res . (2022) 317:1–57. doi: 10.1007/s10479-022-05005-7

93. Abbasi, S, Moosivand, M, Vlachos, I, and Talooni, M. Designing the location–routing problem for a cold supply chain considering the COVID-19 disaster. Sustain For . (2023) 15:15490. doi: 10.3390/su152115490

94. Abbasi, S, Vlachos, I, Samadzadeh, A, Etemadifar, S, Afshar, M, and Amra, M. Modelling a logistics and financial supply chain network during the COVID-19 era. Logistics . (2024) 8:32. doi: 10.3390/logistics8010032

95. Goodarzian, F, Ghasemi, P, Gunasekaran, A, and Labib, A. A fuzzy sustainable model for COVID-19 medical waste supply chain network. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making . (2024) 23:93–127. doi: 10.1007/s10700-023-09412-8

96. Abbasi, S, and Sıcakyüz, Ç. A review of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects and challenges on worldwide waste management for sustainable development. Int J Environ Sci Technol . (2024) 21:1–30. doi: 10.1007/s13762-024-05610-y

97. Kahlert, S, and Bening, CR. Plastics recycling after the global pandemic: resurgence or regression? Resour Conserv Recycl . (2020) 160:104948. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104948

98. Nzediegwu, C, and Chang, SX. Improper solid waste management increases the potential for COVID-19 spread in developing countries. Resour Conserv Recycl . (2020) 161:104947. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104947

99. Corburn, J, Vlahov, D, Mberu, B, Riley, L, Caiaffa, WT, Rashid, SF, et al. Slum health: arresting COVID-19 and improving well-being in urban informal settlements. J Urban Health . (2020) 97:348–357.

100. Dente, SMR, and Hashimoto, S. COVID-19: a pandemic with positive and negative outcomes on resource and waste flows and stocks. Resour Conserv Recycl . (2020) 161:104979. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104979

101. Zand, AD, and Heir, AV. Emanating challenges in urban and healthcare waste management in Isfahan, Iran after the outbreak of COVID-19. Environ Technol . (2021) 42:329–36. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2020.1866082

102. Hemidat, S, Achouri, O, El Fels, L, Elagroudy, S, Hafidi, M, Chaouki, B, et al. Solid waste management in the context of a circular economy in the MENA region. Sustain For . (2022) 14:480. doi: 10.3390/su14010480

103. Tsai, W-T . Analysis of medical waste management and impact analysis of COVID-19 on its generation in Taiwan. Waste Manag Res . (2021):0734242X21996803

104. Zhou, C, Yang, G, Ma, S, Liu, Y, and Zhao, Z. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waste-to-energy and waste-to-material industry in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev . (2021) 139:110693. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110693

105. Zambrano-Monserrate, MA, Ruano, MA, and Sanchez-Alcalde, L. Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment. Sci Total Environ . (2020) 728:138813. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138813

106. Zhao, H, Liu, H, Wei, G, Zhang, N, Qiao, H, Gong, Y, et al. A review on emergency disposal and management of medical waste during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Sci Total Environ . (2022) 810:152302. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152302

107. Rume, T, and Islam, SDU. Environmental effects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential strategies of sustainability. Heliyon . (2020) 6:e04965. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04965

108. Tondelli, S, Farhadi, E, Akbari Monfared, B, Ataeian, M, Tahmasebi Moghaddam, H, Dettori, M, et al. Air quality and environmental effects due to COVID-19 in Tehran, Iran: lessons for sustainability. Sustain For . (2022) 14:15038.

109. Rassouli, M, Ashrafizadeh, H, Shirinabadi Farahani, A, and Akbari, ME. COVID-19 management in Iran as one of the most affected countries in the world: advantages and weaknesses. Front Public Health . (2020) 8:510. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00510

110. Pourghaznein, T, and Salati, S. The national approach in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. Int J Commun Nurs Midwifery . (2020) 8:275–6. doi: 10.30476/IJCBNM.2020.85928.1308

111. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-mask

112. Samimiardestani, S, Sharifi, M, and Ranjbar, MF. Personal protective equipment usage among Iranian police officers during COVID-19 pandemic; a cross-sectional study. Front Emerg Med . (2023) 7:e5. doi: 10.18502/fem.v7i1.11695

113. Hossini, H, Atashkar, S, and Massahi, T. Face mask consumption and medical waste generation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran: challenges and problems. Int J Health Life Sci . (2021) 7. doi: 10.5812/ijhls.115046

114. Allahyari, MS, Marzban, S, El Bilali, H, and Hassen, TB. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on household food waste behavior in Iran. Heliyon . (2022) 8:e11337. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11337

115. World Health Organization . (2020). Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance, 6 April 2020 (No. WHO/2019-nCov/IPC_Masks/2020.3). World Health Organization.

116. Rahman, MZ, Hoque, ME, Alam, MR, Rouf, MA, Khan, SI, Xu, H, et al. Face masks to combat coronavirus (covid-19)—processing, roles, requirements, efficacy, risk and sustainability. Polymers . (2022) 14:1296. doi: 10.3390/polym14071296

117. Fixler, AL, Jacobs, LA, Jones, DB, Arnold, A, and Underwood, EE. There goes the neighborhood? The public safety enhancing effects of a mobile harm reduction intervention. Int J Drug Policy . (2024) 124:104329. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104329

118. Bolwig, S., Tanner, A. N., Riemann, P., Redlingshöfer, B., and Zhang, Y. (2021). Reducing consumer food waste using green and digital technologies.

119. Rupani, PF, Maleki Delarestaghi, R, Asadi, H, Rezania, S, Park, J, Abbaspour, M, et al. Current scenario of the Tehran municipal solid waste handling rules towards green technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health . (2019) 16:979. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16060979

120. Jaafari, J, Dehghani, MH, Hoseini, M, and Safari, GH. Investigation of hospital solid waste management in Iran. World Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev . (2015) 12:111–25. doi: 10.1504/WRSTSD.2015.073820

121. Valizadeh, J, Hafezalkotob, A, Alizadeh, SMS, and Mozafari, P. Hazardous infectious waste collection and government aid distribution during COVID-19: a robust mathematical leader-follower model approach. Sustain Cities Soc . (2021) 69:102814. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102814

122. Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-policy-and-standards/assistive-and-medical-technology/medical-devices/ppe/ppe-covid

123. Raoofi, A, Takian, A, Sari, AA, Olyaeemanesh, A, Haghighi, H, and Aarabi, M. COVID-19 pandemic and comparative health policy learning in Iran. Arch Iran Med . (2020) 23:220–34. doi: 10.34172/aim.2020.02

124. Zand, AD, and Heir, AV. Emerging challenges in urban waste management in Tehran, Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic. Resour Conserv Recycl . (2020) 162:105051. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105051

125. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/13-01-2023-who-updates-covid-19-guidelines-on-masks--treatments-and-patient-care

126. Kumar, R, Verma, A, Shome, A, Sinha, R, Sinha, S, Jha, PK, et al. Impacts of plastic pollution on ecosystem services, sustainable development goals, and the need to focus on circular economy and policy interventions. Sustain For . (2021) 13:9963. doi: 10.3390/su13179963

127. Mol, MPG, and Caldas, S. Can the human coronavirus epidemic also spread through solid waste? Waste Manag Res . (2020) 38:485–6. doi: 10.1177/0734242X20918312

128. Upham, P, Thomas, C, Gillingwater, D, and Raper, D. Environmental capacity and airport operations: current issues and future prospects. J Air Transp Manag . (2003) 9:145–51. doi: 10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00078-9

129. Ali, I, Charles, V, Modibbo, UM, Gherman, T, and Gupta, S. Navigating COVID-19: unraveling supply chain disruptions through best-worst method and fuzzy TOPSIS. Bijdragen . (2023). doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2022-0708

130. Barma, M, and Modibbo, UM. Multiobjective mathematical optimization model for municipal solid waste management with economic analysis of reuse/recycling recovered waste materials. J Computat Cogn Eng . (2022) 1:122–37. doi: 10.47852/bonviewJCCE149145

Keywords: environmental consequences, disaster situation, environmental management, real case study, sustainability

Citation: Abbasi S, Modibbo UM, Jafari Kolashlou H, Ali I and Kavousi N (2024) Environmental impact assessment with rapid impact assessment matrix method: during disaster conditions. Front. Appl. Math. Stat . 10:1344158. doi: 10.3389/fams.2024.1344158

Received: 25 November 2023; Accepted: 16 May 2024; Published: 05 June 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Abbasi, Modibbo, Jafari Kolashlou, Ali and Kavousi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Umar Muhammad Modibbo, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 29 June 2024

Impact of passive ultrasonic irrigation on the outcome of non-surgical root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

• Leandro Bueno Gobbo 1 ,
• Lucas Peixoto de Araújo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2893-1416 2 ,
• Walbert de Andrade Vieira 1 ,
• Adriana de-Jesus-Soares 1 ,
• José Flávio Affonso de Almeida 1 &
• Caio Cezar Randi Ferraz 1  

Evidence-Based Dentistry ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Dental pulp
• Root canal treatment

This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on the periapical healing rate of primary root canal treatment compared to conventional syringe irrigation.

Registered a priori in the PROSPERO database, this review was conducted by two independent reviewers who performed an electronic search up to December 2023. The search included databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Library, as well as grey literature. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that focused on patients undergoing primary root canal treatments. The study compared intervention groups using PUI with control groups that did not use activation techniques. Periapical healing was assessed over follow-up periods of at least six months, utilizing either periapical radiographs or cone-beam computed tomography. To synthesize the findings, a meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis were conducted, employing the Relative Risk as the measure of effect, with a 95% confidence interval. The GRADE approach was utilized to assess the certainty of the evidence.

The meta-analysis incorporated three RCTs, involving 474 patients (501 teeth). The analysis revealed that PUI led to a higher rate of periapical healing compared to CSI (Relative Risk: 1.10; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.01-1.21, I² = 0%), with moderate certainty of evidence.

Conclusions

Despite the limited number of high-quality RCTs, the findings showed a positive impact of PUI on periapical healing rates in primary root canal treatments, in comparison to CSI.

CRD42021290894.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 4 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 62,85 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

Data is available upon request from the corresponding author.

Nair PNR. Pathogenesis of apical periodontitis and the causes of endodontic failures. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2004;15:348–81.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: Part 1: periapical health. Int Endod J. 2011;44:583–609.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Burns LE, Kim J, Wu Y, Alzwaideh R, McGowan R, Sigurdsson A. Outcomes of primary root canal therapy: an updated systematic review of longitudinal clinical studies published between 2003 and 2020. Int Endod J. 2022;55:714–31.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of non-surgical root canal treatment: Part 2: tooth survival. Int Endod J. 2011;44:610–25.

Mohammadi Z. Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an update review. Int Dent J. 2008;58:329–41.

Gomes BPFA, Vianna ME, Zaia AA, Almeida JFA, Souza-Filho FJ, Ferraz CCR. Chlorhexidine in endodontics. Braz Dent J. 2013;24:89–102.

Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Br Dent J. 2014;216:299–303.

Herrera DR, Martinho FC, De-Jesus-Soares A, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR, Almeida JFA, et al. Clinical efficacy of EDTA ultrasonic activation in the reduction of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria. Int Endod J. 2017;50:933–40.

Aveiro E, Chiarelli-Neto VM, de-Jesus-Soares A, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR, Almeida JFA, et al. Efficacy of reciprocating and ultrasonic activation of 6% sodium hypochlorite in the reduction of microbial content and virulence factors in teeth with primary endodontic infection. Int Endod J. 2020;53:604–18.

Abu Hasna A, Monteiro JB, Abreu RT, Camillo W, Nogueira Matuda AG, De Oliveira LD, et al. Effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation over organic tissue of simulated internal root resorption. Casarin R, editor. Int J Dent. 2021;2021:1–5.

Google Scholar  

Zuolo ML, Zaia AA, Belladonna FG, Silva EJNL, Souza EM, Versiani MA, et al. Micro-CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval-shaped canals. Int Endod J. 2018;51:564–71.

Urban K, Donnermeyer D, Schäfer E, Bürklein S. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:2681–7.

Abbara MT, Akil S, Hamadah O, Achour H, Mahayni G, Tolibah YA. The effect of the irrigant activation protocol on postoperative pain in maxillary incisors with asymptomatic apical periodontitis: A three-arm randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9:868–78.

Azarpazhooh A, Cardoso E, Sgro A, Elbarbary M, Laghapour Lighvan N, Badewy R, et al. A scoping review of 4 decades of outcomes in nonsurgical root canal treatment, nonsurgical retreatment, and apexification studies—part 1: process and general results. J Endod. 2022;48:15–28.

Kato AS, Cunha RS, Da Silveira Bueno CE, Pelegrine RA, Fontana CE, De Martin AS. Investigation of the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation: an environmental scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2016;42:659–63.

Desai P, Himel V. Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod. 2009;35:545–9.

Uroz-Torres D, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the endoactivator system in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod. 2010;36:308–11.

Kimura Y, Wilder-Smith P, Matsumoto K. Lasers in endodontics: a review. Int Endod J. 2000;33:173–85.

Wang X, Cheng X, Liu B, Liu X, Yu Q, He W. Effect of laser-activated irrigations on smear layer removal from the root canal wall. Photomed Laser Surg. 2017;35:688–94.

Crozeta BM, Chaves de Souza L, Correa Silva-Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD, Jaramillo DE, Silva RM. Evaluation of passive ultrasonic irrigation and gentlewave system as adjuvants in endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 2020;46:1279–85.

Van Der Sluis LWM, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: A review of the literature. Int Endod J. 2007;40:415–26.

Verma N, Sangwan P, Tewari S, Duhan J. Effect of different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on outcome of primary root canal treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Endod. 2019;45:357–63.

de Oliveira HF, da Silva Júnior IF, Teixeira LCG, Camilo NG, de Almeida Decurcio D, Guedes OA, et al. Influence of different agitation techniques on bacterial reduction in curved root canals. Aust Endod J. 2022;49:104–10.

Silva EJNL, Rover G, Belladonna FG, Herrera DR, De-Deus G, da Silva Fidalgo TK. Effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation on periapical healing and root canal disinfection: a systematic review. Br Dent J. 2019;227:228–34.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1–10.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - Study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–15.

Verma A, Yadav RK, Tikku AP, Chandra A, Verma P, Bharti R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of endodontic treatment using ultrasonic irrigation and laser activated irrigation to evaluate healing in chronic apical periodontitis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12:e821–9.

Tang Z, Wang H, Jiang S. Clinical study of single-visit root canal treatment with a nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) rotary instrument combined with different ultrasonic irrigation solutions for elderly patients with chronic apical periodontitis. Biomed Mater Eng. 2015;26:S311–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liang YH, Jiang LM, Jiang L, Chen XB, Liu YY, Tian FC, et al. Radiographic healing after a root canal treatment performed in single-rooted teeth with and without ultrasonic activation of the irrigant: a randomized controlled trial. J Endod. 2013;39:1218–25.

Rödig T, Sedghi M, Konietschke F, Lange K, Ziebolz D, Hülsmann M. Efficacy of syringe irrigation, RinsEndo and passive ultrasonic irrigation in removing debris from irregularities in root canals with different apical sizes. Int Endod J. 2010;43:581–9.

Donnermeyer D, Wyrsch H, Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Removal of calcium hydroxide from artificial grooves in straight root canals: sonic activation using EDDY versus passive ultrasonic irrigation and XPendo finisher. J Endod. 2019;45:322–6.

Orlowski NB, Schimdt TF, Teixeira CdaS, Garcia LdaFR, Savaris JM, Tay FR, et al. Smear layer removal using passive ultrasonic irrigation and different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 2020;46:1738–44.

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–32.

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al. PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development. Int Endod J. 2020;53:764–73.

Mohammadi Z, Yaripour S, Shalavi S, Palazzi F, Asgary S. Root canal irrigants and dentin bonding: an update. Iran Endod J. 2017;12:131–6.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Martins JNR, Marques D, Mata A, Caramês J. Clinical efficacy of electronic apex locators: systematic review. J Endod. 2014;40:759–77.

Kostis JB, Dobrzynski JM. Limitations of randomized clinical trials. Am J Cardiol. 2020;129:109–15.

Leonardi Dutra K, Haas L, Porporatti AL, Flores-Mir C, Nascimento Santos J, Mezzomo LA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and conventional radiography on apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2016;42:356–64.

Estrela C, Bueno MR, Leles CR, Azevedo B, Azevedo JR. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis. J Endod. 2008;34:273–9.

de Sousa ET, Pinheiro MA, Maciel PP, Sales MAO. Influence of enhancement filters in apical bone loss measurement: a cone-beam computed tomography study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e516–9.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Estrela CRA, Bueno MR, Estrela MRA, Estrela LRA, Guedes OA, Azevedo BC, et al. Frequency and risk factors of maxillary sinusitis of endodontic origin evaluated by a dynamic navigation and a new filter of cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2022;48:1263–72.

Paiva SSM, Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Carmo FL, Leite DCA, Ferreira DC, et al. Molecular microbiological evaluation of passive ultrasonic activation as a supplementary disinfecting step: a clinical study. J Endod. 2013;39:190–4.

Nagendrababu V, Jayaraman J, Suresh A, Kalyanasundaram S, Neelakantan P. Effectiveness of ultrasonically activated irrigation on root canal disinfection: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:655–70.

Barbosa AFA, de Lima CO, Sassone LM, Fares RD, Fidalgo TKDS, Silva EJNL. Effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation on hard tissue debris removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res. 2021;35:e123.

Dioguardi M, Di Gioia G, Illuzzi G, Ciavarella D, Laneve E, Troiano G, et al. Passive ultrasonic irrigation efficacy in the vapor lock removal: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci World J. 2019;2019:6765349.

Jamali S, Jabbari G, Mousavi E, Ahmadizadeh H, Khorram M, Jamee A. The comparison of different irrigation systems to remove calcium hydroxide from the root canal: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2019;20:e5404

Topçuoğlu HS, Topçuoğlu G, Arslan H. The effect of different irrigation agitation techniques on postoperative pain in mandibular molar teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod. 2018;44:1451–6.

Decurcio DA, Rossi-Fedele G, Estrela C, Pulikkotil SJ, Nagendrababu V. Machine-assisted agitation reduces postoperative pain during root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis from randomized clinical trials. J Endod. 2019;45:387–393.e2.

Download references

This study was partially supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) – Finance code 001.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Endodontics, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil

Leandro Bueno Gobbo, Walbert de Andrade Vieira, Adriana de-Jesus-Soares, José Flávio Affonso de Almeida & Caio Cezar Randi Ferraz

School of Dentistry, Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil

Lucas Peixoto de Araújo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LBG and LPA conceived the work, performed the search, and wrote the manuscript. TAS and WVA have collected data and performed the statistical analysis. AJS and JFAA are project administrators and have contributed to the accuracy and integrity of the study. CCRF has revised the final version of the manuscript and supervised the whole process. Leandro Bueno Gobbo and Lucas Peixoto de Araújo equally contributed to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Peixoto de Araújo .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Si file 1: database search strategy, si figure 1: meta-analysis evaluating two groups, si file 2: prisma, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gobbo, L.B., de Araújo, L.P., Vieira, W.d.A. et al. Impact of passive ultrasonic irrigation on the outcome of non-surgical root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Evid Based Dent (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01033-3

Download citation

Received : 12 March 2024

Accepted : 18 June 2024

Published : 29 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01033-3

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

How does the one belt one road initiative affect the chinese international architecture, engineering, and construction firms empirical analysis based on propensity score matching and difference-in-differences method.

1. Introduction

2. the literature review, 2.1. the obor initiative, 2.2. the obor initiative and chinese international aec firms, 2.3. overseas development indicators, 3. methodology, 3.1. data sources, 3.2. data analysis tool, 4.1. analysis of propensity score matching results, 4.2. difference-in-differences analysis results, 5. robustness tests, 5.1. parallel trend test, 5.2. placebo test, 6. discussion, 7. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Du, J.; Zhang, Y. Does one belt one road initiative promote Chinese overseas direct investment? China Econ. Rev. 2018 , 47 , 189–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MOC. 2013 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment. 2014. Available online: http://fec.mofcom.gov.cn/article/tjsj/tjgb/201511/20151101190468.shtml (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• MOC. 2021 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment. 2022. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2022-11/08/content_5725358.htm (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• Li, Y.; Shou, Y.; Ding, R.; Sun, T.; Zhou, Q. Governing local sourcing practices of overseas projects for the Belt and Road Initiative: A framework and evaluation. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2019 , 126 , 212–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MOC. 2020 Statistical Bulletin on China International Project Contracting. 2021. Available online: http://hzs.mofcom.gov.cn/article/date/202109/20210903196388.shtml (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• ENR. The Top 250 International Contractors. 2022. Available online: https://www.enr.com/toplists/2022-Top-250-International-Contractors-Preview (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• ENR. The Top 225 International Design Firms. 2022. Available online: https://www.enr.com/toplists/2023-Top-225-International-Design-Firms-Preview (accessed on 26 June 2024).
• Huang, Y. Understanding China’s Belt & Road initiative: Motivation, framework and assessment. China Econ. Rev. 2016 , 40 , 314–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berggren, C.; Söderlund, J.; Anderson, C. Clients, contractors, and consultants: The consequences of organizational fragmentation in contemporary project environments. Proj. Manag. J. 2001 , 32 , 39–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, S.; Qian, X.; Liu, T. Belt and road initiative and Chinese firms’ outward foreign direct investment. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2019 , 41 , 100629. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y. From “Lamb Kebabs” to “Shared Joy”: Cultural Appropriation, Ignorance and the Constrained Connectivity within the “One Belt, One Road” Initiative ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Albalate, D. High speed rail and tourism: Empirical evidence from Spain. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016 , 85 , 174–185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Beule, F.; De Lombaerde, P.; Zhang, H. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative: Strategic responses of governments and multinational companies. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2024 , 30 , 209–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, W.; Zhang, H.; Lin, Y. Trade sustainability and efficiency under the belt and road initiative: A stochastic frontier analysis of China’s trade potential at industry level. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2022 , 58 , 1740–1752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nikjow, M.A.; Liang, L.; Qi, X.; Sepasgozar, S. Engineering procurement construction in the context of belt and road infrastructure projects in west Asia: A SWOT analysis. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021 , 14 , 92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, G.; Li, J. How does infrastructure construction affect economic development along the “Belt and Road”: By promoting growth or improving distribution? Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2018 , 55 , 3332–3348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, R.; Li, Q.; Deng, X.; Zhao, X.; Yuan, J. Entry mode taxonomy and choice of Chinese international construction companies. J. Manag. Eng. 2017 , 33 , 04016058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, J.; Liu, Y.; Yin, Z. Relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and China’s Industrial Upgrading in the Background of the Belt and Road Initiative: An Empirical Study of the Marine Silk Route Enterprises. J. Coastal Res. 2020 , 104 , 695–699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Liu, W. The Belt and Road Strategy in International Business and Administration: Corporate Social Responsibility ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 28–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu, L.; Zhao, D.; Niu, H.; Lu, F. Does the belt and road initiative expand China’s export potential to countries along the belt and road? China Econ. Rev. 2020 , 60 , 101419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Jin, X.; Li, H.; Gong, L.; Zhou, D. Exploring the impact of policy interventions on project performance through a PSM-DID approach: Evidence from the Hong Kong construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, L.K. Three questions on China’s “belt and road initiative”. China Econ. Rev. 2016 , 40 , 309–313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miao, J. Expectations and realities: Managing the risks of the" Belt and Road" Initiative. China Q. Int. Strateg. 2015 , 1 , 497–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fardella, E.; Prodi, G. The belt and road initiative impact on Europe: An Italian perspective. China World Econ. 2017 , 25 , 125–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, Q.; Ma, X.; Wang, Y. How does the one belt one road initiative affect the green economic growth? Energy Econ. 2021 , 101 , 105429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Enderwick, P. The economic growth and development effects of China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative. Strateg. Chang. 2018 , 27 , 447–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, S.; Su, J.; Liu, Y.; Lepech, M.D.; Wang, J. How “Belt and Road” initiative implementation has influenced R&D outcomes of Chinese enterprises: Asset-exploitation or knowledge transfer? R&D Manag. 2021 , 51 , 273–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramasamy, B.; Yeung, M.C.H. China’s one belt one road initiative: The impact of trade facilitation versus physical infrastructure on exports. World Econ. 2019 , 42 , 1673–1694. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, Y. RMB Internationalization and Financing Belt-Road Initiative: An MMT Perspective. Chin. Econ. 2020 , 53 , 317–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siddiqui, K. One Belt and One Road, China’s Massive Infrastructure Project to Boost Trade and Economy: An Overview. Int. Crit. Thought 2019 , 9 , 214–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, F.; Zhang, X.; Hu, M.; Cook, D.L. Chinese enterprises’ investment in infrastructure construction in Cambodia. Asian Perspect. 2019 , 43 , 177–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Lim, M.K.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, L.; Lee, P.T.-W. Railway and road infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative countries: Estimating the impact of transport infrastructure on economic growth. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020 , 134 , 288–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Upadhyay, S. The Belt and Road Initiative: Issues and Future Trends. IQ 2023 , 79 , 175–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, Z.; Deng, F.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M. Practical Framework for Measuring Performance of International Construction Firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013 , 139 , 1154–1167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Zhang, H.; Xia, B.; Wu, G.; Han, Y. Relationship between internationalization and financial performance: Evidence from ENR-listed Chinese firms. J. Manag. Eng. 2020 , 36 , 04019044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y.; Sun, H.; Chen, L.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F.; Zhao, G. Impact of natural-resource dependence on foreign contracting projects of China: A spatial panel threshold approach. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0234057. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leung, M.; Wei, X.; Wang, C. Demystifying Critical Success Factors for Applying Value Management in Construction Projects along the Belt and Road Regions: Focus Group Study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023 , 149 , 04023066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, S.H.; Kim, D.Y.; Jang, H.S.; Choi, S. Strategies for contractors to sustain growth in the global construction market. Habitat Int. 2010 , 34 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Loo, S.C.; Yap, J.B.H.; Abdul-Rahman, H. Novel capability-based risk assessment calculator for construction contractors venturing overseas. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019 , 145 , 04019059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Z.Y.; Xu, K.; Zuo, J.; Tang, C. Developing the international construction contracting market: Enterprise niche approach. J. Manag. Eng. 2017 , 33 , 04016027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gu, N.; London, K. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automat. Constr. 2010 , 19 , 988–999. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, K.-W.; Kim, D.Y. Market structure analysis of international construction revenue: A country level analysis. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022 , 26 , 4960–4970. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brida, J.G.; Driha, O.; Ramón-Rodriguez, A.B.; Such-Devesa, M.J. The inverted-U relationship between the degree of internationalization and the performance: The case of Spanish hotel chains. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016 , 17 , 72–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.; Mirsardin, I.; Sun, Y.; Yang, X. The internationalization of Chinese multinational enterprises under the Belt-and-Road Initiative. Strateg. Chang. 2021 , 30 , 509–515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, D.Y.; Ashuri, B.; Han, S.H. Financial valuation of investments in international construction markets: Real-options approach for market-entry decisions. J. Manag. Eng. 2013 , 29 , 355–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daniels, J.D.; Bracker, J. Profit performance: Do foreign operations make a difference? Manag. Int. Rev. 1989 , 29 , 46–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullivan, D. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1994 , 25 , 325–342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buckley, P.J.; Dunning, J.H.; Pearce, R.D. The influence of firm size, industry, nationality, and degree of multinationality on the growth and profitability of the World’s largest firms, 1962–1972. Rev. World Econ 1978 , 114 , 243–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duanmu, J.-L. Firm heterogeneity and location choice of Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs). J. World Bus. 2012 , 47 , 64–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Q.; She, S. Research on the transformation and upgrading effect of industrial structure implemented by the ‘belt and road’ initiative—Based on the test of PSM + DID in 285 cities in China. Inq. Into Econ. Issues 2020 , 2 , 132–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shao, X. Chinese OFDI responses to the B&R initiative: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. China Econ. Rev. 2020 , 61 , 101435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benito-Osorio, D.; Colino, A.; Guerras-Martín, L.Á.; Zúñiga-Vicente, J.Á. The international diversification-performance link in Spain: Does firm size really matter? Int. Bus. Rev. 2016 , 25 , 548–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ganvir, M.B.; Dwivedi, N. Internationalization and performance of Indian born globals: Moderating role of presence of foreign equity. IJoEM 2017 , 12 , 108–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Ge, Y.; Bao, H. The Influence of Administrative Division Adjustment on Enterprise Earnings Management: A Quasi-Natural Experiment on City–County Consolidation. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 951. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Z. The capitalization of School Quality in rents in the Beijing Housing Market: A propensity score matching method. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983 , 70 , 41–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qin, J.; Cao, J. Carbon emission reduction effects of green credit policies: Empirical evidence from China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022 , 10 , 798072. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, L.; Li, W. Has the opening of high-speed rail reduced urban carbon emissions? Empirical analysis based on panel data of cities in China. J. Clean. 2021 , 321 , 128958. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Zhang, H.; Li, Y. High-speed railway, factor flow and enterprise innovation efficiency: An empirical analysis on micro data. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022 , 82 , 101305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, B.; Zhang, X.; Qiu, B.; Zuo, J. Does the “Belt and Road” initiative impact a firm’s green investments? Appl. Econ. 2023 , 55 , 155–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Lin, S.; Li, Y.; He, M. Can high-speed rail reduce environmental pollution? Evidence from China. J. Clean. 2019 , 239 , 118135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y. The impact of the green credit policy on the short-term and long-term debt financing of heavily polluting enterprises: Based on PSM-DID method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 11287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Adnan, H.; Yusuwan, N.M.; Yusof, F.; Bachik, F. Critical Success Factors for Contractors. Int. J. Eng. Tech. Res. (IJETR) 2014 , 2 , 107–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu, D.J.; Kleindorfer, P.R.; Zhang, J.E. Optimal bidding and contracting strategies for capital-intensive goods. EJOR 2002 , 137 , 657–676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Woiceshyn, J.; Falkenberg, L. Value creation in knowledge-based firms: Aligning problems and resources. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2008 , 22 , 85–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teece, D.J. A Dynamic Capabilities-Based Entrepreneurial Theory of the Multinational Enterprise ; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 8–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pantic-Dragisic, S.; Söderlund, J. Swift transition and knowledge cycling: Key capabilities for successful technical and engineering consulting? Res. Policy 2020 , 49 , 103880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Ye, J.; Zhang, N.; Deng, X.; Niu, Y. How Does the One Belt One Road Initiative Affect the Chinese International Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Firms? Empirical Analysis Based on Propensity Score Matching and Difference-in-Differences Method. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072016

Ye J, Zhang N, Deng X, Niu Y. How Does the One Belt One Road Initiative Affect the Chinese International Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Firms? Empirical Analysis Based on Propensity Score Matching and Difference-in-Differences Method. Buildings . 2024; 14(7):2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072016

Ye, Jinglei, Na Zhang, Xiaopeng Deng, and Yanliang Niu. 2024. "How Does the One Belt One Road Initiative Affect the Chinese International Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Firms? Empirical Analysis Based on Propensity Score Matching and Difference-in-Differences Method" Buildings 14, no. 7: 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14072016

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Submit a Manuscript
• Advanced search

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Advanced Search

Does Long-term Surveillance Imaging Improve Survival in Patients Treated for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma? A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• Info & Metrics

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

BACKGROUND: Long-term post-treatment surveillance imaging algorithms for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma are not standardized due to debates over optimal surveillance strategy and efficacy. Consequently, current guidelines do not provide long-term surveillance imaging recommendations beyond 6 months.

PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of long-term imaging surveillance (i.e., imaging beyond 6 months following treatment completion) on survival in patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for English literature published between 2003 and 2024 evaluating the impact of long-term surveillance imaging on survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

STUDY SELECTION: 718 abstracts were screened and 9 5 underwent full-text review, with 2 articles meeting inclusion criteria. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessment tool was used.

DATA ANALYSIS: A qualitative assessment without a pooled analysis was performed for the two studies meeting inclusion criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS: No randomized prospective controlled trials were identified. Two retrospective two-arm studies were included comparing long-term surveillance imaging with clinical surveillance and were each rated as having moderate risk of bias. Each study included heterogeneous populations with variable risk profiles and imaging surveillance protocols. Both studies investigated the impact of long-term surveillance imaging on overall survival and came to a different conclusion with one study reporting a survival benefit for long-term surveillance imaging with FDG PET/CT in patients with stage III or IV disease or an oropharyngeal primary tumor and the other study demonstrating no survival benefit.

LIMITATIONS: Limited heterogeneous retrospective data available precludes definitive conclusions on the impact of long-term surveillance imaging in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient quality evidence regarding the impact of long-term surveillance imaging on survival in patients treated definitively for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. There is a lack of standardized definition of long-term surveillance, variable surveillance protocols, and inconsistencies in results reporting, underscoring the need for a prospective multi-center registry assessing outcomes.

ABBREVIATIONS: HNSCC = Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma; RT= radiotherapy; NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network; MPC = metachronous primary cancer; CR = complete response; OS = overall survival; CRT = chemoradiotherapy; HPV = human papillomavirus; PFS = progression-free survival; CFU = clinical follow up; NI-RADS = Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.

• © 2024 by American Journal of Neuroradiology

Log in using your username and password

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

Jump to section

Related articles.

• No related articles found.
• Google Scholar

Cited By...

• No citing articles found.

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

• Endovascular Thrombectomy for Carotid Pseudo-occlusion in the Setting of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
• Double stent-retriever technique for mechanical thrombectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Similar Articles