review article and research article difference

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

35 about the library
28 articles & journals
1 Borrowing
9 citing sources
17 company & industry
11 computers
1 copyright compliance
5 countries & travel
2 course registration
10 culinary
51 databases
3 education
2 Interlibrary loan
5 job search
6 libguides
9 market research
25 my library account
12 requests
24 research basics
18 research topics
2 study rooms
16 technology
7 textbooks
42 university
3 video tutorial
1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 212532

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

Review vs. Research Articles

How can you tell if you are looking at a research paper, review paper or a systematic review examples and article characteristics are provided below to help you figure it out., research papers.

A research article describes a study that was performed by the article’s author(s). It explains the methodology of the study, such as how data was collected and analyzed, and clarifies what the results mean. Each step of the study is reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat the experiment.

To determine if a paper is a research article, examine its wording. Research articles describe actions taken by the researcher(s) during the experimental process. Look for statements like “we tested,” “I measured,” or “we investigated.” Research articles also describe the outcomes of studies. Check for phrases like “the study found” or “the results indicate.” Next, look closely at the formatting of the article. Research papers are divided into sections that occur in a particular order: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.

Let's take a closer look at this research paper by Bacon et al. published in the International Journal of Hypertension :

Review Papers

Review articles do not describe original research conducted by the author(s). Instead, they give an overview of a specific subject by examining previously published studies on the topic. The author searches for and selects studies on the subject and then tries to make sense of their findings. In particular, review articles look at whether the outcomes of the chosen studies are similar, and if they are not, attempt to explain the conflicting results. By interpreting the findings of previous studies, review articles are able to present the current knowledge and understanding of a specific topic.

Since review articles summarize the research on a particular topic, students should read them for background information before consulting detailed, technical research articles. Furthermore, review articles are a useful starting point for a research project because their reference lists can be used to find additional articles on the subject.

Let's take a closer look at this review paper by Bacon et al. published in Sports Medicine :

Systematic Review Papers

A systematic review is a type of review article that tries to limit the occurrence of bias. Traditional, non-systematic reviews can be biased because they do not include all of the available papers on the review’s topic; only certain studies are discussed by the author. No formal process is used to decide which articles to include in the review. Consequently, unpublished articles, older papers, works in foreign languages, manuscripts published in small journals, and studies that conflict with the author’s beliefs can be overlooked or excluded. Since traditional reviews do not have to explain the techniques used to select the studies, it can be difficult to determine if the author’s bias affected the review’s findings.

Systematic reviews were developed to address the problem of bias. Unlike traditional reviews, which cover a broad topic, systematic reviews focus on a single question, such as if a particular intervention successfully treats a medical condition. Systematic reviews then track down all of the available studies that address the question, choose some to include in the review, and critique them using predetermined criteria. The studies are found, selected, and evaluated using a formal, scientific methodology in order to minimize the effect of the author’s bias. The methodology is clearly explained in the systematic review so that readers can form opinions about the quality of the review.

Let's take a closer look this systematic review paper by Vigano et al. published in Lancet Oncology :

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These “limiters” can be useful when searching for research or review articles. PubMed has a limiter for article type, which is located on the left sidebar of the search results page. This limiter can filter the search results to show only review articles.

NFS 4021 Contemporary Topics in Nutrition: Research Articles vs Review Articles

Research Articles vs Review Articles
Citation Help

Agriculture Support Librarian

Research Articles and Review Articles Defined Review

"A research article is a primary source ...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors, and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

A review article is a secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own. Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among existing research studies. For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic. If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!"

From https://apus.libanswers.com/faq/2324 , "What's the difference between a research and a review article?"

Example of a RESEARCH Article Lin CL, Huang LC, Chang YT, Chen RY, Yang SH. Effectiveness of Health Coaching in Diabetes Control and Lifestyle Improvement: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2021 Oct 29;13(11):3878.
Example of a REVIEW Article Ojo O, Ojo OO, Adebowale F, Wang XH. The Effect of Dietary Glycaemic Index on Glycaemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2018 Mar 19;10(3):373.

Difference between Reviews and Research Articles

Review Article: Identifies previously published research on a topic and summarizes the information (secondary source). Discusses what is already known and can be used to identify gaps in the field. Usually no set layout. No original research is being presented. Written for a more general audience and easier to read. Both Written by a subject expert such as a scientist or researcher. Can be published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. Research Article: Follows the scientific method. Usually provides a brief background on prior research (introduction) Conducts an experiment and reports the findings. Authors have NEW original research data (primary source) and discusses their results. Written at an advanced level; usually contains lots of jargon.

Research Article Break Down Review

Research articles follow a particular format. Look for:

A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.
A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data. Statistical analysis are included.
A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis. Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
In the discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
References or works cited are always included. These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.
<< Previous: Welcome
Next: Databases >>
Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:14 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/NFS4021

Provide Website Feedback Accessibility Statement

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Review Article vs Research Article

Review Article vs Research Article

Table of Contents

Review articles and Research Articles are two different types of scholarly publications that serve distinct purposes in the academic literature.

Research Articles

A Research Article is a primary source that presents original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis. These articles typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Research articles often include detailed descriptions of the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and the results of statistical tests. These articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet rigorous scientific standards before publication.

Review Articles

A Review Article is a secondary source that summarizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic or research question. These articles provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic, including a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of previous research. Review articles often include a meta-analysis of the existing literature, which involves combining and analyzing data from multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about the research question or topic. Review articles are also typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles:

In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic or research question. Both types of articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet high standards of scientific rigor and accuracy.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Market Research Vs Marketing Research

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

Descriptive vs Experimental Research

Primary Vs Secondary Research

What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A Review Article?

If you are new in the academic world, you may find the types of academic articles dizziying. The more common ones include research articles, and also review articles. How are they similar and different from each other? Distinguishing between research and review articles is crucial.

In this post, let’s explore what research and review articles are, and how are they different.

Research Article vs. Review Article

What is a research article .

A research article serves as the cornerstone of the academic and scientific community, standing as a detailed report on original findings.

Unlike review articles which synthesise existing literature to provide an overview, research articles present primary research with fresh data, exploring uncharted territories within a specific field.

The devil is in the details when it comes to these scholarly works. Original studies not only pose a research question but delve into methodologies that range from complex experimental designs to detailed observations.

Scholarly articles are often peer-reviewed, meaning that other experts in the field scrutinise the work before publication to ensure its validity and contribution to the field.

The empirical nature of research articles means that the raw data and analysis methods are laid bare for replication—a fundamental tenet of scientific inquiry. These papers typically include:

Introduction: Introduces the problem
Methodology: T he means by which the study was conducted
Results: F indings from the study
Discussion: Connects the findings to the bigger picture, highlighting implications and potential for future research.

While some journals accept such articles readily, the journey of a paper from research question to published research is fraught with meticulous data collection and rigorous peer evaluation.

For the keen observer, it’s the systematic reviews and meta-analyses that truly offer a glimpse into the current state of understanding, weaving through the tapestry of existing knowledge to pinpoint gaps and suggest paths forward.

It’s this level of detail—often hidden in plain sight in methods and results—that serves as a rich vein of information for those looking to conduct systematic reviews or embark on a similar empirical journey.

Whether it’s a clinical case study or a large-scale trial, the research article is an essential treasure in the scholarly literature, serving as a building block for academic writing and future exploration.

What Is A Review Article?

A review article stands out in the scholarly world as a synthesis of existing research, providing a critical and comprehensive analysis of a particular topic.

Unlike original research articles that report new empirical findings, review articles serve as a bridge connecting a myriad of studies, offering an overview that discerns patterns, strengths, and gaps within published work.

Peer-reviewed and systematically organised, these articles are essential for scholars who wish to familiarise themselves with the current state of knowledge on a given subject without having to delve into each individual research paper.

Insiders know that the crafting of a review article is an art in itself. Authors meticulously collect and analyse data from various sources, often employing methods like meta-analysis or systematic review searches to compare and combine findings.

They don’t just summarise existing literature; they synthesise it, providing new insights or revealing unexplored areas that could benefit from future research. It’s a rigorous process, often involving the intricate task of:

Comparing clinical trials,
Conducting extensive literature reviews, or even
Generating new frameworks for understanding complex academic concepts.

The value of a well-conducted review is immense. Journals publishing these articles often see them as keystones, providing a foundation upon which other researchers can build.

Such reviews can point to the need for new primary research, challenge existing paradigms, or even sometimes shift the direction of scholarly inquiry.

For the discerning academic, a review article is not just a summary—it’s a roadmap for what comes next in the quest for knowledge.

How Are Review And Research Articles Different?

In the scholarly cosmos, the distinction between a research article and a review article is fundamental, yet it’s a source of perplexity for budding academics. Diving into the anatomy of these articles reveals their distinct roles in academia.

Original Research vs Synthesised Knowledge

A research article is an original study, presenting novel findings. It follows a stringent structure: an abstract to summarize the study, an introduction to set the stage, followed by methods, results, and a discussion that connects the findings to broader implications.

A review article instead synthesises the information from one or many of these original studies, into an article to allow easier reading. Some also offer additional insights for the readers.

Anatomy & Structure

An original research article is usually brimming with original data, charts, and perhaps phrases like “we investigated” or “the study found,” signifying fresh empirical insights. At the most basic, a research article usually contains sections such as:

Introduction
Methodology
Future research ideas

A review article usually begins with an abstract summarising the scope and findings of the review. The main body is divided into sections that often include:

An introduction to the topic
A discussion segment that synthesises and analyses the compiled research
Subtopics that further categorise the research by themes or methodologies.

Finally, it concludes with a summary or conclusion that reflects on the current state of research, identifies gaps, and may suggest directions for future studies, accompanied by a thorough list of references.

A research article is written to share new findings and original data on a particular research. This means the information are fresh, and new to the scientific community.

An example title of a research article may be “Investigating Necrotic Enteritis in 15 Californian Broiler Chicken Farms.”

A review article is more akin to an academic digest, offering a synthesis of existing research on a topic. It typically lacks the methodology and results sections found in research papers.

The main goal is to give a panoramic view of the existing literature, gaps, and sometimes, a meta-analysis combining findings from various studies to distill a more substantial conclusion.

An example of a review article about Necrotic Enteritis may be something like this: “Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens – What We Know So Far.”

Impact and Use in Academia

Research articles are the primary sources, documenting original work from scientists, as they conduct researches in their fields.

Original research articles are crucial in academia as they contribute new knowledge, support evidence-based advancements, and form the foundation for subsequent scholarly inquiry.

Research articles:

Provide detailed methodology and results for peer scrutiny
Foster academic dialogue,
Often the preferred source for cutting-edge information in a given field, and
Directly impacting teaching, policy-making, and further research.

Review articles are summaries that distill wisdom from multiple sources to shed light on the current state of knowledge, often guiding future research.

They are usually seen as secondary sources, containing insights that research articles might not individually convey.

Journals prize them for their ability to provide a systematic overview, and while they may not require the substantial funding necessary for conducting original research, their scholarly impact is substantial.

Wrapping Up

In the academic landscape, research articles and review articles form the backbone of knowledge dissemination and scholarly progress.

Research articles introduce novel insights, pushing the boundaries of understanding, while review articles offer a synthesis of existing findings, guiding future studies.

Both are essential: one for its fresh empirical contributions, the other for its comprehensive overviews and analytical prowess.

Together, they underpin the scientific method, spur academic debate, and serve as the keystones of educational advancement and informed decision-making in the quest for enlightenment and innovation.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Biological Sciences

Research vs. Review Articles
Find Books & eBooks
Reference/Web Resources
RefWorks This link opens in a new window

Defining Article Types

Research articles.

"A research article reports the results of original research, assesses its contribution to the body of knowledge in a given area, and is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal." - Pen & the Pad

The study design of research articles may vary, but in all cases some form of raw data have been collected and analyzed by the author(s).

Example of a research article Development of a nanoparticle-assisted PCR assay for detection of bovine respiratory syncytial virus

Review Articles

"A review article, also called a literature review, is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the theme and, unlike an original research article, won’t present new experimental results." - Taylor & Francis Author Services

Review articles provide a comprehensive foundation on a topic, and, as such, they are particularly useful for helping student researchers get an overview of the existing literature on a topic.

Example of a review article Mannheimia haemolytica growth and leukotoxin production for vaccine manufacturing — A bioprocess review

Differences between Research and Review Articles

Anatomy of a research article, title & abstract.

The title of an article is a brief descriptive overview of what was the focus of the study. The abstract is a mini-summary of the study.

Introduction

This section often included an overview of the existing literature on the topic and an explanation of why the author(s) conducted the study. It frequently contains references to previous work on the topic.

In this section, the authors explain what they did. For example, they may include how they collected or analyzed data. Descriptions of statistical analysis are also included in this section.

This is where the authors describe the outcomes of their analysis. They don't include interpretation in their area, but instead just use a straightforward explanation of the data. This is the section that usually makes use of charts and graphs.

Authors use the discussion section to explain how they interpret their results and situate them in relationship to existing and future research.

References/Works Cited

This is a list of sources the authors drew upon to plan their study, understand their topic, and/or support their discussion.

<< Previous: Find Articles
Next: Find Books & eBooks >>
Last Updated: Jan 31, 2024 11:56 AM
URL: https://clemson.libguides.com/biology

How to Write a Review Article

Types of Review Articles
Before Writing a Review Article
Determining Where to Publish
Searching the Literature
Citation Management
Reading a Review Article

What is a Review Article?

The purpose of writing a review article is for knowledge updating concerning a topic.

A review article aims to highlight:

What has been done?
What has been found?
What issues have not been addressed?
What issues remain to be debated?
What new issues have been raised?
What will be the future direction of research?

Similarities and Differences to Original Research Articles

Differences Between Original Research Articles and Review Articles

Venn Diagram original research vs review article

An original research article aims to: Provides background information (Intro.) on prior research, Reasons for present study, Issues to be investigated by the present study, Written for experts. Authors describe: Research methods & materials, Data acquisition/analysis tools, Results, Discussion of results.
Both are Peer-reviewed for: Accuracy, Quality, Biases, Conflict of interest.
A review article aims to: Extensive survey of published research articles about a specific topic, Critical appraising of research findings, summarize up-to-date research findings, Identify critical issues to be addressed, Written for experts and general audiences, Be a source of original research.

Figure by Zhiyong Han, PhD

<< Previous: Home
Next: Types of Review Articles >>

The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
123 Metro Boulevard
Nutley, NJ 07110
[email protected]
Visiting Campus
News and Events
Parents and Families
Web Accessibility
Career Center
Public Safety
Accountability
Privacy Statements
Report a Problem
Login to LibApps

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours:

Maxwell Library
Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Where Do I Start?
How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece: An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short.

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

Journal Title and Author
Abstract
Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
Literature Review
Methods/Methodology
Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions. Common sections of these articles include:

an Introduction
Discussion/Conclusion
works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
<< Previous: Where Do I Start?
Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Website Accessibility

PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)

Find Research Articles

Empirical vs. Review Articles

How to recognize empirical journal articles, scholarly vs. non-scholarly sources.

Cite Sources
Find Tests & Measures
Find Research Methods Materials
Post-Library Lab Activity on Finding Tests and Measures
Find Books, E-books, and Films

Psychology Librarian

Know the difference between empirical and review articles.

Empirical article An empirical (research) article reports methods and findings of an original research study conducted by the authors of the article.

Literature Review article A review article or "literature review" discusses past research studies on a given topic.

Definition of an empirical study: An empirical research article reports the results of a study that uses data derived from actual observation or experimentation. Empirical research articles are examples of primary research.

Parts of a standard empirical research article: (articles will not necessary use the exact terms listed below.)

Abstract ... A paragraph length description of what the study includes.
Introduction ...Includes a statement of the hypotheses for the research and a review of other research on the topic.
Who are participants
Design of the study
What the participants did
What measures were used
Results ...Describes the outcomes of the measures of the study.
Discussion ...Contains the interpretations and implications of the study.
References ...Contains citation information on the material cited in the report. (also called bibliography or works cited)

Characteristics of an Empirical Article:

Empirical articles will include charts, graphs, or statistical analysis.
Empirical research articles are usually substantial, maybe from 8-30 pages long.
There is always a bibliography found at the end of the article.

Type of publications that publish empirical studies:

Empirical research articles are published in scholarly or academic journals
These journals are also called “peer-reviewed,” or “refereed” publications.

Examples of such publications include:

Computers in Human Behavior
Journal of Educational Psychology

Examples of databases that contain empirical research: (selected list only)

Web of Science

This page is adapted from the Sociology Research Guide: Identify Empirical Articles page at Cal State Fullerton Pollak Library.

Know the difference between scholarly and non-scholarly articles.

"Scholarly" journal = "Peer-Reviewed" journal = "Refereed" journal

When researching your topic, you may come across many different types of sources and articles. When evaluating these sources, it is important to think about:

Who is the author?
Who is the audience or why was this written?
Where was this published?
Is this relevant to your research?
When was this written? Has it been updated?
Are there any citations? Who do they cite?

Helpful Links and Guides

Here are helpful links and guides to check out for more information on scholarly sources:

This database contains data on different types of serials and can be used to determine whether a periodical is peer-reviewed or not: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
The UC Berkeley Library published this useful guide on evaluating resources, including the differences between scholarly and popular sources, as well as how to find primary sources: UC Berkeley's Evaluating Resources LibGuide
<< Previous: Quick Poll
Next: Cite Sources >>
Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 3:32 PM
URL: https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/main/psyc200

Science Research: Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles

Additional Web Resources
Health & Science Databases
Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles
Citation Guides, Generators, and Tools

Original Research vs. Review Articles. How can I tell the Difference?

Research vs review articles.

It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a specific topic, field, or problem. They are not primary sources since they review previously published material. They can be of great value for identifying potentially good primary sources, but they aren't primary themselves. Primary research articles can be identified by a commonly used format. If an article contains the following elements, you can count on it being a primary research article. Look for sections titled:

Methods (sometimes with variations, such as Materials and Methods) Results (usually followed with charts and statistical tables) Discussion

You can also read the abstract to get a good sense of the kind of article that is being presented.

If it is a review article instead of a research article, the abstract should make that pretty clear. If there is no abstract at all, that in itself may be a sign that it is not a primary resource. Short research articles, such as those found in Science and similar scientific publications that mix news, editorials, and forums with research reports, however, may not include any of those elements. In those cases look at the words the authors use, phrases such as "we tested" and "in our study, we measured" will tell you that the article is reporting on original research."*

*Taken from Ithca College Libraries

Primary and Secondary Sources for Science

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.

EXAMPLES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

Source: The Evolution of Scientific Information (from Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , vol. 26).

Primary Vs. Secondary Vs. Tertiary Sources

<< Previous: Books
Next: Citation Guides, Generators, and Tools >>
Last Updated: Nov 16, 2023 1:58 PM
URL: https://andersonuniversity.libguides.com/ScienceResearch

Thrift Library | (864) 231-2050 | [email protected] | Anderson University 316 Boulevard Anderson, SC 29621

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
Advanced Search
Journal List
Turk J Urol
v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a review article?

In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.

The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. [ 1 , 2 ] The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. [ 3 ] As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. [ 4 ] In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. [ 5 ] Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). [ 6 ]

Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. [ 7 , 8 ] Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. meta-analysis). [ 8 ]

Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:

The question(s) to be dealt with
Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
To synthetize available, but quite different researches

For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem(s). Though starting to write the review article promptly seems to be very alluring, the time you spend for the determination of important issues won’t be a waste of time. [ 9 ]

The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a 27-item checklist ( Table 1 ). It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.

PRISMA statement: A 27-item checklist

Contents and format

Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.

Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits. [ 10 ]

Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias. The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.

As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion ( Table 2 ).

Structure of a systematic review

Preparation of the review article

Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]

Steps of a systematic review

The research question

It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).

Finding Studies

In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.

Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.

While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.

One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.

A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]

Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question

Formulating a Synthesis

Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.

Conclusions

In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

Published: 02 October 2017
Volume 46 , pages 1–5, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

Robert W. Palmatier 1 ,
Mark B. Houston 2 &
John Hulland 3

226k Accesses

424 Citations

63 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ).

In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ).

Purpose of review papers

In their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS.

The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to

Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic.

Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge.

Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches).

Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights.

Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research.

Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions.

Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate.

The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas.

This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization.

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

With a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.

As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target.

Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS .

The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published.

Domain-based review papers

Domain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings.

Theory-based review papers

Theory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory.

Method-based review papers

Method-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective.

Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal.

Process and structure for review papers

In this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here.

Systematic literature review process

Some review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact.

In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review.

Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work.

Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan.

Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2.

Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing.

Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice.

A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis.

Structure of systematic review papers

There is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute.

Depth and rigor

Systematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention.

Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant).

Replicability

Processes for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail.

We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field.

Helpful format

Because such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table.

In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers.

Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.

Article Google Scholar

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177.

Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.

Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615.

Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1).

Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y .

Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75.

Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155.

Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.

Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.

Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217.

Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134.

Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA

Robert W. Palmatier

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Mark B. Houston

Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

John Hulland

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Palmatier .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

Download citation

Published : 02 October 2017

Issue Date : January 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

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

SUNY Oswego, Penfield Library
Resource Guides

Biological Sciences Research Guide

Primary research vs review article.

Research Starters
Citing Sources
Open Educational Resources
Peer Review
How to Read a Scientific Article
Conducting a Literature Review
Interlibrary Loan

Quick Links

Penfield Library
Research Guides
A-Z List of Databases & Indexes

Characteristics of a Primary Research Article

Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge
Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article
Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.

Example of a Primary Research Article:

Flockhart, D.T.T., Fitz-gerald, B., Brower, L.P., Derbyshire, R., Altizer, S., Hobson, K.A., … Norris, D.R., (2017). Migration distance as a selective episode for wing morphology in a migratory insect. Movement Ecology , 5(1), 1-9. doi: doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0098-9

Characteristics of a Review Article

Goal is to summarize important research on a particular topic and to represent the current body of knowledge about that topic.
Not intended to provide original research but to help draw connections between research studies that have previously been published.
Help the reader understand how current understanding of a topic has developed over time and identify gaps or inconsistencies that need further exploration.

Example of a Review Article:

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.oswego.edu/science/article/pii/S0960982218302537

<< Previous: Plagiarism
Next: Peer Review >>

ARDA Conference

ARDA helps students and research scholars in attending conferences and journal publication

Home » Article Writing Services » Difference Between a Research Article and a Review Article

Difference Between a Research Article and a Review Article

Are you familiar with the differences between research articles and review articles? If not, then worry not; here we are going to let you know that these two have distinct purposes in the academic world, having unique roles and characteristics. In this blog, we will discuss the main difference points between a research article and a review article, like purpose, content, etc. So, keep reading!

What is a Research Article?

A research article is someone’s unique study essay in which their whole research process and results deliver new discoveries. The purpose of this is to add fresh knowledge to the particular field of study. This follows a standard format including an introduction, review of past research, process, results, discussions, and conclusion. This structure makes it easy for readers to understand the research journey and the author’s point.

What are Review Papers?

A review article is different from a regular research paper. A review paper essentially summarizes and assesses a recent research paper on a specific topic. This helps us find out what we already know and what we still need to find out. It is crucial because it points out what’s missing and suggests what researchers should study next.

Types of Review Paper

The review papers are of three types:

Narrative: It’s like gathering and sharing all the information we know about a particular topic using research that has already been done and published.

Meta-analysis: Think of it as a way to compare and put together the results of past research studies. Professionals do this regularly to see if a specific approach or treatment really works.

Systematic: This is like doing a thorough search of everything scientists have found about a topic.

Main Difference Points Between Review and Research Paper Publication

Ownership and purpose.

The main difference between research and review articles is in their rights and ultimate goals. A research article is like the brainchild of the author, who conducts original and thorough research for collecting and analyzing data. It represents the author’s sole contribution to the research disclosure for securing the recognition.

On the other hand, a review article is a collaborative approach. The motive of an author to publish review articles is to study and critique the work of others for the sake of establishing themselves as an expert in that particular field.

Research articles’ content presents new ideas and hypotheses and delivers discoveries for the first time. They serve as pioneers of knowledge, opening new paths to studying areas.

In contrast, review articles act as guides through the existing body of research. It includes the procedure of carefully examining previous studies and providing a simplified overview of the original research paper, which serves as a brief introduction to the topic.

Overall Difference

A research paper typically shows in-depth and comprehensive information compared to a review paper.
While research papers often undergo peer review, review papers may not always follow the same process.
Research papers adopt a more formal style than review papers.
Research papers maintain an objective tone, whereas review papers are a subjective approach.
Research papers are commonly crafted in accordance with APA style guidelines, while review papers might adopt different formatting conventions.

The Role of Review Article Writing and Editing Services

These articles need to be very detailed during the complex research and review articles for academic purposes. At this time, professional services can help you by providing advanced services by following all the standard rules.

If you need professional work, then you can hire experts from the ARDA Conference to fulfill all your academic needs. We know all the rules of academic writing and ensure that your articles meet your standards.

At the ARDA Conference, we’re experts at providing top-notch services for writing and editing review articles. We can customize our help to fit your needs perfectly.

In a final say, research and review articles are different types of documents in the academic world. Already mentioned are some of the aspects that help you to differentiate between research and review articles. However, when you are working on your projects, do not forget to get the best review article writing service from us to ensure your work is of the highest quality.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

WhatsApp us

Book a free consultation

+91-6364827406

[email protected]

+91-9360923317

Get Professional Expert guidance to finish your PhD at ease

Sep 14, 2021

What's the difference between a research article and a review article-The hidden secrets?

Are you getting more confused on what is review article and research article and what are their major differences? Here we have provided a clear idea to make you feel understand in a better way. Let’s see each one of the them more in detail.

What is a research article?

The research articles, occasionally termed to as primary sources or empirical paper which rely on original research report. They consist of the sections namely abstract, introduction, literature review, research methodology, results & discussion and conclusion. Primary or Empirical research studies report original research, highlighting the diverse steps involved in the research process.

The structure of an empirical paper is explained in detail as under:

Abstract : The abstract is the first and foremost section of the empirical paper and the content should be well written in a precise manner. The following key points are important for abstract formulation

It delivers a description of the research problem being examined

includes the contributors and relevant characteristics of those contributors

defines the research methodology of the study

précises the basic findings of the research study

contains the implications or applications and conclusions of the research study's findings.

Introduction: Traces the way the research problem that is being studied has developed and provides the determination for the examination.

Research Methodology : Specifies how the examination was conducted; what measures were used.

Results : intelligences the findings and analyses of the research study

Discussion : summarizes, infers and discusses the implications of the examination results

Conclusion : Concludes the research study and its outcomes in a precise manner.

What is a review article ?

The review article is also sometimes called as survey article or literature reviews or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research previously conducted in primary sources. The review articles usually summarize the current state of research on a given research topic.

The review articles critically evaluate the previously published research articles. The organization, combination of the previously published material, and evaluation of this material provide an understanding of the progress of research in clarifying a research problem. The Literature reviews provides the following key points:

gives a clear definition and explanation of the research problem

provides a summary of earlier research to inform the reader of what the research status is

identifies relationships, contradictions, problem gaps and discrepancies in the material

makes suggestions in the upcoming step to solve the problem.

The structure of a review paper is detailed as under:

Abstract: Notifies about the main objectives and result of each review article taken for development

Introduction: Provides information about the background, specifies the motivation for the review, describes the focus, the research question and describes the text structure.

Detailed literature survey and frame a Comparative table: In this section, we need to summarize each referred article in terms of author(s) name, year of publication, findings of the particular research article, advantages and limitations of the study

Future scope of the work (if applicable)

Below table gives you a clear understanding of the major difference between a review and a research article.

Hope this article is useful for the research aspirants and the scholars who are planning to publish their articles in journal

Literature Reviews, Critiquing, & Synthesizing Literature

Literature Review

Types of Literature Reviews

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

Literature Review Steps Videos
Critiquing Literature / Critical Review
Synthesizing Literature
Summarizing Articles

Types of Literature Reviews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs)

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

Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande S, Taylor A, Meyer S, Scott M. Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers. J Res Nurs. 2021 Aug;26(5):427-438. doi: 10.1177/1744987121997907. Epub 2021 Aug 5. PMID: 35251272; PMCID: PMC8894639.
The integrative review: Updated methodology. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Strategies for completing a successful integrative review Oermann, M. H., & Knafl, K. A. (2021). Strategies for completing a successful integrative review. Nurse Author & Editor, 31(3-4), 65-68.
<< Previous: Literature Review
Next: Literature Review Steps Videos >>
Last Updated: Dec 8, 2023 8:35 AM
URL: https://libguides.ahu.edu/LitReviewSum

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

DEGREES & PROGRAMS
Programs & Pathways
Courses & Catalogs
Online Learning
Academic Calendar
Short-Term Training
ADMISSIONS & AID
Financial Aid
Get Started
Paying for College
Michigan Reconnect
SERVICES & SUPPORT
Mentoring & Advising
Career Center
Registration & Records
Library & Learning Services
Student Wellness
Technology Services
Mid Foundation
Facilities & Features
Lifelong Learning
Safety & Security
Current Students
Area Businesses
Future Students
K-12 Counselors
Faculty & Staff

Academic vs Non-Academic Articles

Find Articles
Research Assistance

Academic vs. Non-Academic: What's the Difference?

The majority of your research will require academic and scholarly articles. Many students struggle with trying to determine what an academic source, or article, is.

Academic articles are written by professionals in a given field. They are edited by the author's peers and often take years to publish. Their language is formal and will contain words and terms typical to the field. The author's name will be present, as will their credentials. There will be a list of references that indicate where the author obtained the information they are using in the article.

Academic articles can be found in periodicals similar to the Journal of Psychology, Childhood Education, or The American Journal of Public Health.

The following link is an example of an academic article. Experimental educational networking on open research issues; Studying PSS applicability and development in emerging contexts .

This article is considered academic because the language is very formal and genre-specific, there are two authors and their credentials are listed (these are found at the end of the article), and most importantly there is a list of references.

Non-academic articles are written for the mass public. They are published quickly and can be written by anyone. Their language is informal, and casual and may contain slang. The author may not be provided and will not have any credentials listed. There will be no reference list. Non-academic articles can be found in periodicals similar to Time, Newsweek, or Rolling Stone.

As a general rule religious texts and newspapers are not considered academic sources. Do not use Wikipedia as an academic source. This website can be altered by anyone so any information found within its pages cannot be considered credible or academic.

The following link is an example of a non-academic article. Marketing News's Writers Rules

This article is non-academic because the language is very casual and includes some examples of slang, there is an author, but they chose to write anonymously so there are no credentials provided for the author, and no references were included to show where the author obtained their information.

YouTube Icon
Facebook Icon
Twitter Icon
LinkedIn Icon
Instagram Icon

Open access
Published: 13 March 2024

Correction: The complexity of leadership in coproduction practices: a guiding framework based on a systematic literature review

Sofia Kjellström 1 ,
Sophie Sarre 2 &
Daniel Masterson 1

BMC Health Services Research volume 24 , Article number: 335 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The Original Article was published on 17 February 2024

Correction to: BMC Health Services Research (2024) 24:219

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09522-4

In this article, affiliation 2 (Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK) was incorrectly assigned as a second affiliation for the author Sofia Kjellström due to a typesetting mistake. The sole affiliation for Sofia Kjellström should be affiliation 1 (The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, Jönköping, Sweden).

This error is corrected in the author list of this Correction article and the original article has been updated. The publisher apologises to the authors and readers for the inconvenience caused by this error.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, Jönköping, Sweden

Sofia Kjellström & Daniel Masterson

Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK

Sophie Sarre

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofia Kjellström .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10549-4 .

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kjellström, S., Sarre, S. & Masterson, D. Correction: The complexity of leadership in coproduction practices: a guiding framework based on a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 335 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10811-9

Download citation

Published : 13 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10811-9

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

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

General enquiries: [email protected]

Open access
Published: 08 March 2024

The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Jordana Barbosa-Silva 1 , 2 ,
Letícia Bojikian Calixtre 3 ,
Daniela Von Piekartz 2 ,
Patricia Driusso 1 &
Susan Armijo-Olivo 2 , 4

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 24 , Article number: 60 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

115 Accesses

Metrics details

The minimal important difference is a valuable metric in ascertaining the clinical relevance of a treatment, offering valuable guidance in patient management. There is a lack of available evidence concerning this metric in the context of outcomes related to female urinary incontinence, which might negatively impact clinical decision-making.

To summarize the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures associated with urinary incontinence, calculated according to both distribution- and anchor-based methods.

This is a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy including the main terms for urinary incontinence and minimal important difference were used in five different databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) in 09 June 2021 and were updated in January 09, 2024 with no limits for date, language or publication status. Studies that provided minimal important difference (distribution- or anchor-based methods) for patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence outcomes were included. The study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two different researchers. Only studies that reported the minimal important difference according to anchor-based methods were assessed by credibility and certainty of the evidence. When possible, absolute minimal important differences were calculated for each study separately according to the mean change of the group of participants that slightly improved.

Twelve studies were included. Thirteen questionnaires with their respective minimal important differences reported according to distribution (effect size, standard error of measurement, standardized response mean) and anchor-based methods were found. Most of the measures for anchor methods did not consider the smallest difference identified by the participants to calculate the minimal important difference. All reports related to anchor-based methods presented low credibility and very low certainty of the evidence. We pooled 20 different estimates of minimal important differences using data from primary studies, considering different anchors and questionnaires.

Conclusions

There is a high variability around the minimal important difference related to patient-reported outcome measures for urinary incontinence outcomes according to the method of analysis, questionnaires, and anchors used, however, the credibility and certainty of the evidence to support these is still limited.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The International Continence Society defines urinary incontinence as any loss of urine [ 1 ]. Stress urinary incontinence has been defined as urine loss associated with coughing, sneezing, exertion, or physical exertion; while urgent urinary incontinence is defined as loss of urine associated with urinary urgency (a sudden and strong urge to urinate) and mixed urinary incontinence combines both stress and urge incontinence, concomitantly [ 1 ].

According to the World Health Organization, urinary incontinence affects more than 200 million people worldwide [ 2 , 3 ] being more prevalent in women [ 4 ]. One in four women will be incontinent at some point in life [ 4 , 5 ]. The high prevalence of urinary incontinence concerns government institutions, as the costs related to urinary incontinence care are high, varying from around 117 million and $66 billion (2007 US dollars) per year in the United Kingdom [ 6 ] and the United States of America [ 7 ], respectively. The consequences of urinary incontinence are associated with impairment of social, psychological, financial, and sexual aspects of a woman’s life. This in turn can be related to reduced quality of life [ 8 ], self-esteem, and social isolation [ 9 ]. Moreover, urinary incontinence is a predictor of mortality, especially among the elderly [ 10 ].

Patient-reported outcome measures and voiding diaries are used to measure the quality of life of patients with urinary incontinence, as well as to quantify urinary loss. In both clinical practice and research, patient-reported outcome measures are useful for reporting the effects of interventions since they take into consideration the patients’ perspective regarding the changes observed after the treatment. However, the interpretation of scientific research results in general looks mainly at the interpretation of statistical analyses, that is, whether the result of any intervention may or may not be considered statistically significant [ 11 ]. The sole interpretation of the “p” values is insufficient to demonstrate the impact of the intervention on the health care of individuals [ 12 , 13 ], as sometimes the research findings may be statistically significant but cannot be considered clinically relevant, as the patient did not have a clinically significant improvement [ 14 ].

The analysis of clinical significance has increasingly been used in health research, enabling it to attest to whether the result from a treatment is perceived as beneficial by the patient or any stakeholder’s perspective [ 15 ]. One of the methods used to help with the interpretation of the clinical relevance of research results is the use of the minimal important difference of clinical outcome measures. The minimal important difference has been defined as “the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest that patients perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, and which would lead the clinician to consider a change in the patient’s management’’ [ 16 ].

There are two different methods to determine the minimal important difference: [ 17 ] (1) Distribution methods use statistical calculations based on the distribution of outcomes scores to determine how the scores differ among patients [ 18 ]. Although these methods are easily applied, they do not evaluate the clinical relevance of the intervention according to the patient's perception [ 16 ]. (2) Anchor-based methods take into consideration patients’ perceptions by using interpretive and self-reported tools such as the global rating of change scale [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] for assessing change in the outcome, which represents a meaningful degree of change [ 23 ]. In this case, the patient has the autonomy to add a numerical value to the status of the main complaint, considering their perception. Psychosocial factors, for example, could potentially influence the patient's global status, which may interfere with the variable of interest [ 16 ].

Previous systematic reviews have assessed the minimal important difference for outcomes related to the musculoskeletal [ 24 , 25 , 26 ] and oncological [ 27 ] areas but none of them have focused on evaluating minimal important difference for outcomes related to urinary incontinence, which has a negative impact on this research field, as it impairs the estimation of sample sizes and the interpretation of the results of clinical trials. This lack in the literature may directly affect the over- or underestimation of the clinical significance of studies that have already been published or will be in the future. In addition, the lack of clear guidance on how to interpret the clinical relevance of results from urinary incontinence outcomes does not contribute to evidence-based practice [ 28 ]. Synthesizing the evidence about the clinical relevance of instruments related to urinary incontinence may benefit clinicians and researchers, [ 29 ] improving decision-making, by informing the minimal important difference of specific instruments, which may be listed in clinical and scientific practice [ 30 ].

Therefore, the aims of the present systematic review were: I) to identify and synthesize all distribution-based and anchor-based methods to estimate minimal important difference for outcome measures related to urinary incontinence; II) to summarize minimal important difference estimates related to the most commonly used outcome measures related to urinary incontinence; III) to determine the credibility of minimal important difference reported in each study.

This is a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA [ 31 ] and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments [ 32 ] guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (protocol CRD42022299686).

Eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were based and adapted according to the PICOs and COSMIN frameworks, as described below:

Population : Women older than 18 years old, with stress, urge and/or mixed urinary incontinence according to International Continence Society definitions(1); with diagnostic of urinary incontinence according to the results of a subjective or objective assessment. Studies were excluded if the aim was to analyze urinary symptoms of children or men; if they included only continent women and/or if authors analyzed only other pelvic floor dysfunctions (i.e., fecal and/or anal incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, sexual dysfunctions).

Intervention/Instruments of interest (construct targeted) : Studies were included if they assessed any outcome measure related to urinary incontinence, such as quality of life and/or amount of leakage. We also looked for outcomes that assessed pelvic floor muscles function evaluated through by questionnaires or physical tests that include vaginal palpation, dynamometry, vaginal cones, manometry, electromyography, imaging exams, urodynamic and/or urine stream interruption test [ 33 ]. However, no studies were found during screening.

Comparison: Not applicable.

Outcomes: Studies that reported minimal important differences that could be derived from distribution- or anchor-based methods as described in a previous study [ 17 ] were included. A detailed description of the methods available to determine minimal important difference in clinical research are presented in Appendix 1 .

Study design: Any study generating minimal important differences for urinary incontinence outcomes (randomized control trials and controlled trials, secondary analysis of clinical trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, reliability, responsiveness, and validity studies) were included. The following types of studies were excluded: case reports, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries, letters to the editor, conference papers, books chapter, protocol registration, abstracts without full text, and experimental studies. Reviews were carefully looked for relevant references.

Searches were performed in June 09 2021 and updated in January 09 2024, including the main terms for urinary incontinence and minimal important difference. In addition, a search filter focusing on clinical significance keywords obtained from previous publications was used [ 34 ] (details available in Appendix 2 ). Five databases were consulted: Medline (Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL), Embase (Ovid interface), CINAHL PLUS with Full text (EBSSCOhost interface), Web of Science (Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI) and Scopus. No limits were applied for the date, language, or publication status. A manual search was performed to look for relevant references. Included studies were tracked with the web of Sciences database.

Study selection

Results from searchers were compiled into ENDNOTE software and imported to Covidence ( www.covidence.org ), which was used during the screening process. Two independent researchers evaluated the studies' eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria in two sequential evaluation phases: (I) analysis of titles and abstracts; and (II) analysis of full texts. In case of disagreement, a consensus meeting was performed. In any case of continuous discrepancy, a third evaluator makes the final decision. The PRISMA flowchart [ 35 ] was provided with the results of the selection process.

Data extraction

An Excel form was developed for data extraction. Pilot testing and regular revision through discussions were taken to standardize the data extraction form and process. One researcher conducted the data extraction and organized the data on the Excel form and a second researcher reviewed the extracted data for accuracy and completeness. Disagreements were solved in consensus meetings.

Data extracted was based on characteristics that include, but were not limited to: 1) article information (first author, year of publication, language, funding, country, aims, study design, and setting); 2) population information (age, diagnosis, tool for the diagnosis and other conditions or characteristics); 3) outcome measurements (minimal important difference determination (e.g. analytical approach, sample size, duration of follow-up when applicable); minimal important difference estimation methods (distribution- and/or anchor-based; the specific anchor applied during data collection, minimal important difference values); constructs evaluated (e.g. quality of life evaluated according to patient-reported outcome measures, pelvic floor function, urinary loss); tool description (categorical, ordinal, or numerical data); type of outcome (patient-reported outcome measures or physical test)); 4) summary of results (minimal important difference estimation, correlations between the outcome and anchor, precision of the minimal important difference (e.g. 95% confidence interval/ minimal important difference *100), time between baseline and follow-up, directions of both anchor and patient-reported outcome measures (e.g., if the increase of scores of both instruments reflect an improvement, worsened, or if the scores from both instruments have opposite meaning), correlations of the patient-reported outcome measures and the transition item during baseline and follow-up). In case of missing quantitative data, the authors of the primary studies were contacted in order to get unreported data. When the authors did not answer our request, data were extracted from the graphs available in the studies.

Credibility of minimal important difference estimates

Two independent researchers conducted the credibility assessment of the minimal important difference in each included study that used anchor-based methods. As far as the authors' knowledge, there is no specific tool to assess the credibility of minimal important differences reported according to distribution-based methods. The credibility was evaluated separately for each minimal important difference by two assessors and the final assessment was determined after a consensus meeting between the two reviewers. The instrument developed by Devji et al. [ 34 ] for this specific purpose was used under license authorization from McMaster University, as it is the only published tool created for evaluating the credibility of the minimal important difference generated by anchor-based methods. It is composed of 1) a core criterion with five items related to anchor-based methods, and 2) four items related to the transition rating anchors. The first item has a dichotomic yes/no response option, however, the other items from the instrument are composed by a five-point scale with the following response options: definitely yes, to a great extent, not so much, definitely no, or impossible to tell.

There is no specific guidance on how to summarize different domains of this tool as a final assessment of the credibility of the minimal important difference. Therefore, the final assessment for each minimal important difference was defined according to previous decision rules prepared by the team, to create three different categories of credibility: these were based on similar decision rules used when implementing the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool for randomized controlled trials. Three different categories were created to determine the final assessment of minimal important difference credibility as follows:

Low credibility: when most part or one of the items was scored with a negative answer (i.e., not so much or definitely no);

Some concerns: when no negative answers were assessed, and the rest of the questions were assessed as “impossible to tell”;

High credibility: when all the questions were assessed with a positive answer (i.e., to a great extent or definitely yes).

Data synthesis

The findings of this review were described in a narrative (descriptive) synthesis, organized in evidence tables that compiled study details, results, and data analysis. Data synthesis was performed according to the patient-reported outcome measures reported by the authors and the method of calculation for providing the minimal important difference. Minimal important difference provided by distribution-based methods were analyzed separately according to the type of calculation (i.e., effect size, standardized response mean, standard error of measurement, standard deviation) and time range of re-evaluation (e.g., 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 12 months). minimal important difference provided by anchor-based methods were performed following guidance from a previous systematic review about minimal important difference [ 26 ]. The absolute minimal important difference (mean difference associated with minimum improvement) was calculated for each study separately by checking the original papers and by extracting the mean change of the group of participants that reported a slight improvement, according to the anchor applied during data collection.

After data synthesis, we planned to plot all minimal important difference estimates based on anchor methods together by triangulation, in order to define a single value for each instrument included in the present review, considering that we would find evidence from multiple studies. However, the primary studies presented a high heterogeneity considering patient-reported outcome measures, anchors, and population characteristics, which violated the recommendations to perform the triangulation [ 36 ]. Also, a meta-analysis was not possible to conduct because of insufficient data.

Quality of evidence

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) [ 37 ] approach was applied in order to assess the overall certainty of the evidence and to grade the strength of recommendations from minimal important differences reported according to anchor-based methods. This assessment was based on the credibility of the minimal important difference (that was analog to the risk bias of studies), inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. We reported GRADE following previous recommendations on how to rate the certainly of evidence in the absence of pooled results and meta-analysis [ 38 ].

The level of evidence was downgraded for inconsistency and/or indirectness in cases where: minimal important differences from patient-reported outcome measures were reported by a single study; different anchors were applied in order to calculate the minimal important difference, studies included different population diagnoses or time-points when the minimal important differences were calculated; studies used different levels of improvement to determine the minimal important difference (minimal, moderate, or strong) when conducting their analysis. The imprecision was downgraded when the total sample size population was less than 300 participants.

The final rating of the studies was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low certainty of evidence [ 37 ].

A total of 1,662 papers were found through the database search, 719 references were duplicated, so the final number of studies included in the data screening was 943. According to the screening of titles and abstracts, 54 potential studies were selected for full-text review and 10 studies met the inclusion criteria [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Reasons for exclusion are available in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1 ) and details of exclusions are provided in Appendix 3 . After the manual search, two additional studies were included [ 49 , 50 ]. Therefore, 12 studies were analyzed.

PRISMA flowchart

Characteristics of included studies

The general information of the 12 studies included in the study is described in Table 1 . Most of the studies were conducted in the United States of America [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 46 ], and published after 2010 [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], and minimal important differences were derived mainly from data of randomized controlled trials [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 48 , 50 ], related to non-surgical [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 50 ] and surgical [ 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 ] interventions. One study conducted as a secondary analysis from two different trials assessed the surgical and conservative effectiveness of UI interventions [ 50 ]. Nine studies included participants with stress urinary incontinence [ 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], one study included participants with urgency stress urinary incontinence [ 42 ] and three included women with mixed stress urinary incontinence [ 39 , 47 , 50 ]. The diagnosis of the participants’ symptoms was assessed by subjective (i.e., self-reported, validated questionnaires, health professionals interviews) and objective tools and tests, specially by urodynamics. Eight studies reported minimal important differences according to distribution-based methods [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], while 10 studies reported minimal important difference according to anchor-based methods [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 ].

Analysis of credibility

Ten studies [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] determined minimal important differences of several patient-reported outcome measures using anchor-based methods and provided 78 different minimal important differences. Therefore, we performed one evaluation for each minimal important difference separately, resulting in 78 credibility assessments. All reports related to minimal important differences according to anchor-based methods presented low credibility. More details about the scores of the credibility tool are reported in Appendix 4 .

In most cases (n=78), the studies met the first criterion of the tool, that assesses if participants responded to the patient-reported outcome measures and the anchor directly. Moreover, anchors used during data collection were considered understandable (second criteria) in 75 cases.

In 24 derived minimal important difference calculations, the correlation between the patient-reported outcome measures and the anchor was not reported (third criteria), although most authors mentioned a general correlation of ≥0.3 between the instruments (n=52). Similarly, most authors failed to meet the fourth criteria of the tool that measured the precision estimate of the minimal important difference (n=61; 78.2%). In 42 cases, the criterion applied by the anchor did not reflect a small but important difference between the health status of the patients, which contradicts the definition of the minimal important difference.

For 63 minimal important difference estimates, the range of time between the first and the second assessments was considered long (more than two or three months); which is the sixth criteria. This can likely be linked to recall bias (i.e., biased perception of the actual health(34)) and difficulty in assessing the previous health status [ 34 ]. The correlation between the transition score and the prescore and postscore on the target instrument (seventh and eighth criteria) was reported only in few estimates in three different studies [ 42 , 43 , 46 ].

The risk of bias graph and the summary results are presented in Appendix 5 and 6, respectively.

Synthesis of results

All minimal important difference estimates were provided for 13 different patient-reported outcome measures. Although we targeted several types of outcomes in this review, no study reported minimal important difference estimates for physical assessment of pelvic floor muscles’ function, for example. Some authors also provided the minimally important difference for subscales of patient-reported outcome measures. This was the case for the Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL): Avoidance and Limiting Behavior, Psychosocial Impacts and Social Embarrassment domains [ 40 ]; Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) – UIQ subscale; Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) – general score for UDI [ 43 ], and stress and irritative subscales [ 41 ]; Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) – Symptom Severity subscore [ 42 ]; the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire – Bladder and global score [ 49 ]; and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) – incontinence domain [ 50 ].

Ten different subjective and objective anchors were found among the studies. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement also known as the Global Rating Scale was the most used, followed by the voiding diary, satisfaction with the treatment, and the pad test.

Table 2 describes the main details regarding the population, the patient-reported outcome measures, anchors, data analysis, and conclusions reported by the included studies. Although one study reported minimal important differences according to anchor methods for the Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (M-ISI) [ 44 ], results were not considered in the present review because the statistical method applied by the authors was not clear in the manuscript, and the authors did not respond our e-mail. Appendix 7 provides details about the methods and concepts used to provide minimal important differences using anchor-based methods. Appendix 8 presents a matrix table with a compilation of the minimal important differences extracted from the primary studies according to the distribution and anchor-based methods.

Tables 3 and 4 provide the qualitative data extracted from the studies that reported minimal important differences according to distribution- and anchor-based methods, respectively. Minimal important difference estimates for distribution-based methods represent the “points” for each patient-reported outcome measure. Three main distribution-based analyses were used by the included studies: effect size, standardized response mean, and standard error of measurement. For minimal important difference reported according to anchor method, it was reported by different estimates, including the mean, standard deviation, and absolute value, followed by the 95% confidence intervals and minimum-maximum values for the specific patient-reported outcome measures. Time points (follow-up) were different between studies (6, 10, 12, 14 weeks; and 4, 8, 12 and 12 months). In addition, there was a lack of clarity regarding the time point in four primary studies [ 42 , 44 , 46 , 47 ]. Table 4 also shows the level of improvement considered by the authors when calculating the minimally important differences by anchor-based methods according to different symbols. Although different patient-reported outcome measures and anchors were applied, most of the studies did not consider the smallest difference identified by the participants to calculate the minimal important difference. The most used level to generate the minimal important difference was moderate to strong improvement.

Figure 2 provides the minimal important difference estimates ranging from 0 to 10 points in their respective patient-reported outcome measures from included studies, considering the score of the patient-reported outcome measures related to the smallest improvement of UI. Figure 3 presents minimal important differences which had a higher range of scores in the patient-reported outcome measures (-150 to +150).

MIDs estimations and 95%CI considering the slight improvement reported by the authors, for MIDs ranging from 0 to 10 points in their respective PROMS. CI: confidence interval; ICIQ-SF: International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form; I-QOL: Incontinence Quality of Life; MID: minimal important difference; PGI-I: Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire

MIDs estimations and 95%CI considering a slight improvement reported by the authors, for MIDs ranging from -150 to +150 points in their respective PROMS. CI: confidence interval; MID: minimal important difference; PFDI: Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory; PFIQ: Pelvic Floor Impact questionnaire; PGI-I: Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire; UDI: Urogenital Distress Inventory; UIQ: Urinary Impact Questionnaire; VAS: visual analogue scale

Certainty of evidence

All the minimal important differences reported by anchor-based methods were considered with very low quality of evidence. For more details about GRADE, please check Appendix 9 .

All studies [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] presented very serious concerns about the risk of bias, which means that they presented low credibility in calculating and reporting the minimal important difference according to anchor-based methods. There was also serious and very serious inconsistency in the studies.

We downgraded the quality/certainty of the evidence for inconsistency (ICIQ-SF [ 45 , 46 , 48 ], ICIQ-LUTSqol [ 45 , 48 ], UDI [ 41 , 42 ]) and indirectness of studies that did not include in their analysis only the population with minimal improvement in their criteria (according to the minimal important difference definition and main question of the present review). Considering this last criterion, three patient-reported outcome measures presented “not serious” indirectness (Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire [ 49 ], IQOL-Subscores [ 40 ], UIQ [ 41 , 43 ]), while four studies showed “serious” indirectness (UDI [ 41 , 42 ], UDI-Irritative subscale [ 42 ], UDI-Stress subscale [ 41 ], OAB-q [ 42 ]) and three studies showed “very serious” indirectness (IQOL-Total score [ 39 , 40 ], ICIQ-SF [ 45 , 46 , 48 ], ICIQ-LUTSqol [ 45 , 48 ]).

Most parts of the outcomes included a sample size >300, although two patient-reported outcome measures were considered with a serious imprecision (UD/I-Irritative scale [ 42 ], OAB-q [ 42 ]), while one outcome was considered to have a very serious imprecision (Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire [ 49 ]).

Publication bias was not considered for this systematic review since the search process was comprehensive and exhaustive.

We included 12 studies that reported minimal important differences in outcome measures used when managing female urinary incontinence, with high variability in methods and values. The minimal important differences from thirteen different patient-reported outcome measures were reported, most of time according to anchor-based methods, using ten different anchors. However, all studies with anchor-based methods presented a low credibility and very low overall certainty. Also, minimally important differences values seem to change according to the time points that are used to generate the minimally important differences (i.e., follow-up of 4 or 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months), the characteristics of the population (i.e., type of urinary incontinence) and different anchors used.

Similar to a previous review [ 51 ], minimal important differences provided by distribution based-methods were smaller than the ones provided by anchor based-methods, which could possibly suggest that a smaller change is necessary to represent a clinically significant difference [ 52 ]. It is known that distribution based-methods only consider the distribution of the scores on their calculations and they are usually related to the variation/change that was observed in a standardized way around the mean. For this reason, previous literature suggested that anchor-based methods should be preferred over distribution-based methods [ 17 ].

A possible explanation for the wide variability around these minimal important differences may be related to the level of improvement of patients considered during data analysis. Although some authors already hypothesized that there is neither consensus nor evidence about what is the best criteria to determine the minimal important difference using anchor based-methods [ 17 , 53 ], it should be pointed out that calculations that include groups of participants who considered themselves to have improved moderately or greatly after an intervention could lead to different minimal important differences estimations and it does not follow the original concept of minimal important difference that includes the “smallest difference” in scores that the individuals consider to be beneficial [ 54 ]. In the present systematic review, the majority of studies did not consider the smallest change of improvement (as perceived by the patients) in their calculations, so future studies could be biased if they consider these values in the estimation of their sample size, or even on interpreting their results. Halme et al. [ 55 ] published a study that compiled estimations for calculating sample sizes of trials to treat female urinary incontinence according to minimal important differences. In their statistical analysis, the authors included participants that reported a “very much better” improvement after treatment, which does not represent the smallest difference perceived by the patient.

Previous studies [ 26 , 53 ] recognized the need of validating studies for anchors that are commonly used for data collection about the perception of patients regarding a treatment. Furthermore, there is a need for standardizing the procedures to assess important changes for the patient, by establishing a valid and specific question for that. The lack of validation a standardizing implies a variability in the results, due to the application of different anchors to calculate minimal important differences [ 53 ], generating inconsistency between studies that assess minimal important differences.

The literature suggests that anchors should be selected based on it´s relevance and should lay proximal to the construct assessed by the patient-reported outcome measures, which is usually analyzed by the correlation between the tools (anchor and patient-reported outcome measures). Also, researchers and clinicals should consider the characteristics of the sample and severity of the disease in order to define the adequate anchor. In addition, this rationale should be based on previous guidance and scientific evidence [ 29 ]. A previous study also found that derived minimal important differences are highly variable due to the discrepancy in study designs, methods, and concepts used when calculating the minimal important differences [ 26 ]. These results agree with the present review.

The newly developed tool used to assess the credibility of the derived minimal important differences according to anchor-based methods showed that the studies presented low credibility. Most studies did not report a pre-requisite of minimal important differences calculation, which is the correlation between the patient-reported outcome measures and the anchor. In addition, only three studies [ 42 , 43 , 46 ] reported the correlations between anchors and patient-reported outcome measure scores during follow-up. This missing information could also help to explain the variability found from the minimal important difference values [ 53 ]. Considering that anchor and patient-reported outcome measures should be measured in the same or similar underlying constructs, correlations between tools show that both tools are closely linked. Therefore, anchors with absence or low correlation will provide inaccurate minimal important difference estimates [ 34 ].

Attention should be drawn to methodological issues related to the calculations and reports of minimally important differences while interpreting the results reported by the literature. It is important to evaluate the credibility of minimal important difference since there is a substantial misunderstanding of methods and concepts that can lead to incorrect reporting of minimal important difference values. Authors should follow some guidance while conducting studies with this aim. This information could be found in previous studies [ 17 ] and also by interpreting and incorporating the items assessed by the credibility tool [ 34 ] in future studies.

This review contributes substantially to Women’s Health research. A summary of the minimal important differences for outcomes related to urinary symptoms in the literature may contribute to evidence-based practice, by complementing statistical results with clinicians’ clinical experience and patients’ perception of a treatment [ 17 , 28 ]. It may result in a new direction for the treatment of urinary symptoms since it brings a focus to interventions that are clinically relevant and can be successfully implemented in clinical practice. Moreover, a new interpretation of results from the literature may be incorporated, as we bring to focus the estimates that might be used to classify results from studies as clinically relevant, not only with statistical power. It may highlight in previous studies that an over- or underestimation could possibly have occurred in the past by interpreting only results from statistical analysis. In addition, our results could facilitate the design and planning of future studies such as generating accurate sample size calculations, determining best outcome measures, and therefore, facilitating the future update of clinical research into practice. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to incorporate these outcomes in their clinical studies to measure the effectiveness of interventions, taking into consideration not only statistical significance but also clinical relevance.

This systematic review followed a rigorously methodological sequence which included the preparation and registration of a protocol for the review, and a systematic search of the most important databases. The eligibility, data extraction, and credibility of the studies were performed by two independent researchers. Moreover, the present review only included studies that reported minimal important differences according to analysis that are already recommended by previous guidelines. We reported which tools already have a minimal important difference that is available to be used in clinical research. In addition, we synthesized the steps and information that are necessary to calculate and analyze the minimal important difference, besides the guidance to help researchers to interpret it correctly. Furthermore, some limitations and misconceptions related to minimal important differences raised from the results of the present review were emphasized.

The present systematic review has some limitations. The limited number of studies included did not allow us to perform sub-analysis according to the type of urinary incontinence, methods of calculation (i.e., distribution or anchor-based method), and/or anchors used during data analysis. Moreover, it was not possible to assess the credibility of studies that reported minimal important differences according to distribution-based methods, as the tool described by Devji et al. [ 34 ] was developed to evaluate studies that reported minimal important differences by anchor-based methods (which is the most accepted method to generate minimal important differences). In addition, although guidance exists on how to apply the tool, some clarity was needed on some specific points, especially when deriving a final assessment. Authors from the present review agreed on decision rules to assess the credibility of the minimally important differences derived in the analyzed studies. These decision rules might be considered arbitrary; however, they were based on similar decision rules done in the context of RoB assessment of RCTs.

Although we provide minimal important differences derived by anchor based-methods according to the smallest improvement based on the mean change, our analysis was restricted to the availability of data reported by the studies, such as the scores of patient-reported outcome measures of the group of patients who considered themselves “a little better”. In cases where data was not available, the calculation was not possible, which limited the information reported in our review.

We planned to triangulate minimal important differences derived from the same patient-reported outcome measures, considering the method of calculation (i.e., distribution or anchor based-method) and/or anchors used during data analysis. However, regarding the variability among the studies, it was not possible to calculate one single value of minimal important difference for each patient-reported outcome measure. This is a common limitation among systematic reviews that try to compile minimal important differences available for different patient-reported outcome measures [ 26 , 56 ]. Previous reports 39,58,64,6 concluded that minimal important differences could not be interpreted as a constant characteristic and a universally empirical score could not be derived. Instead, it is recommended that minimal important difference is analyzed and considered according to the severity of the condition during the baseline, the type of treatment, the units of the patient-reported outcome measures, the conditions of the population, and the context where the patient is located [ 29 , 51 , 56 , 57 ]. In addition, it seems that minimal important differences can also change according to the different characteristics of the population [ 53 ]. That was also the case in the present study, as it was also possible to notice that minimal important differences from a population with urgency urinary incontinence [ 42 ] were different for the same patient-reported outcome measures in a sample with stress urinary incontinence [ 41 ]. Therefore, authors should be aware to include these characteristics in their reports about minimal important differences.

Moreover, our study did not explore the factors that could lead to the variability among minimal important differences reported by the authors through sensitivity analysis due to the limited number of studies. Future studies should perform specific statistical analysis to identify which are the factors that could be associated with this variability in order to reduce the disparity and variability among studies. In addition, future studies should be aware of the recommendations regarding the reports that include minimal important differences and should report: 1) the scores from the baseline and follow-up, in order to enable future explorations, even considering the variability among studies [ 26 ]; 2) improve the reports regarding the correlations found between anchors and patient-reported outcome measures, during baseline and follow-up; 3) conduct studies that aim to validate anchors often used in studies of Women’s Health.

Twelve different patient-reported outcome measures with respective minimal important differences for outcomes related to urinary incontinence were found in the literature, considering 48 and 65 minimal important differences reported according to distribution- and anchor-based methods, respectively. Values based on distribution-based methods were smaller than the anchor-based method. However, the credibility and certainty of evidence of all the minimal important differences related to urinary incontinence measures reported by anchor-based methods were low and very low. The methodology to derive minimal important difference for outcomes related to urinary incontinence need to be improved.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Bush TA, Castellucci DT, Phillips C. Exploring women’s beliefs regarding urinary incontinence. Urol Nurs. 2001;21(3):211–8.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Santiagu SK, Arianayagam M, Wang A, Rashid P. Urinary incontinence-pathophysiology and management outline. Aust Fam Phys. 2008;37(3):106–10.

Google Scholar

McKellar K, Abraham N. Prevalence, risk factors, and treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence in a racially and ethnically diverse population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(3):934–40.

Verbeek M, Hayward L. Pelvic floor dysfunction and its effect on quality of sexual life. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(4):559–64.

Turner DA, Shaw C, McGrother CW, Dallosso HM, Cooper NJ. The cost of clinically significant urinary storage symptoms for community dwelling adults in the UK. BJU Int. 2004;93(9):1246–52.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Milsom I, Coyne KS, Nicholson S, Kvasz M, Chen CI, Wein AJ. Global prevalence and economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):79–95.

Pizzol D, Demurtas J, Celotto S, Maggi S, Smith L, Angiolelli G, et al. Urinary incontinence and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(1):25–35.

Seshan VM JK. Dimensions of the impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life of affected women: a review of the English literature. Int J Urol Nurs. 2014;8(2):62–70.

Article Google Scholar

John G, Bardini C, Combescure C, Dällenbach P. Urinary incontinence as a predictor of death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158992.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Armijo-Olivo S, Warren S, Fuentes J, Magee DJ. Clinical relevance vs. statistical significance: using neck outcomes in patients with temporomandibular disorders as an example. Man Ther. 2011;16(6):563–72.

Millis SR. Emerging standards in statistical practice: implications for clinical trials in rehabilitation medicine. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82(10 Suppl):S32–7.

Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar

Ogles BM, Lunnen KM, Bonesteel K. Clinical significance: history, application, and current practice. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001;21(3):421–46.

Armijo-Olivo S, Rappoport K, Fuentes J, Gadotti IC, Major PW, Warren S, et al. Head and cervical posture in patients with temporomandibular disorders. J Orofac Pain. 2011;25(3):199–209.

PubMed Google Scholar

Collins JP. Measures of clinical meaningfulness and important differences. Phys Ther. 2019;99(11):1574–9.

Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):371–83.

Armijo-Olivo S, de Castro-Carletti E, Calixtre L, de Oliveira-Souza A, Mohamad N, Fuentes J. Understanding clinical significance in rehabilitation: a primer for researchers and clinicians. Am J Phys MedRehabil. 2022;101(1):64–77.

Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407.

de Vet HCW, Terluin B, Knol DL, Roorda LD, Mokkink LB, Ostelo RWJG, et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied & #x201c;minimally important change” values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):37–45.

Lemieux J, Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bordeleau LJ, Goodwin PJ. Three methods for minimally important difference: no relationship was found with the net proportion of patients improving. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(5):448–55.

Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(3):221–6.

Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(3):160–6.

McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–3.

Devji T, Guyatt GH, Lytvyn L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Foroutan F, Sadeghirad B, et al. Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform <em>BMJ</em> Rapid Recommendations. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e015587.

Hao Q, Devji T, Zeraatkar D, Wang Y, Qasim A, Siemieniuk RAC, et al. Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e028777.

Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, Tendal B, Hilden J, Hróbjartsson A. Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:87–106.e2.

Ousmen A, Touraine C, Deliu N, Cottone F, Bonnetain F, Efficace F, et al. Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):228.

Nilsagård Y, Lohse G. Evidence-based physiotherapy: a survey of knowledge, behaviour, attitudes and prerequisites. Adv Physiother. 2010;12(4):179–86.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.

Carrasco-Labra A, Devji T, Qasim A, Phillips MR, Wang Y, Johnston BC, et al. Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: a systematic survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;133:61–71.

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.

Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HC, Terwee CB. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105–13.

Deegan EG, Stothers L, Kavanagh A, Macnab AJ. Quantification of pelvic floor muscle strength in female urinary incontinence: a systematic review and comparison of contemporary methodologies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(1):33–45.

Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A, Phillips M, Johnston BC, Devasenapathy N, et al. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1714.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.

Trigg A., Griffiths P. Triangulation of multiple meaningful change thresholds for patient-reported outcome scores. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(10):2755–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02957-4 .

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.

Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schünemann HJ, Sultan A, Santesso N. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3):85–7.

Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, Yalcin I, Wagner TH, Buesching DP. Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: further development of the incontinence quality of life instrument (I-QOL). Urology. 1999;53(1):71–6.

Yalcin I, Patrick DL, Summers K, Kinchen K, Bump RC. Minimal clinically important differences in Incontinence Quality-of-Life scores in stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2006;67(6):1304–8.

Barber MD, Spino C, Janz NK, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Nager CW, Wheeler, TL, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):580.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.007 .

Dyer K, Lukacz E, Brubaker L, Chai T, Markland A, Nygaard I, et al. Minimum important difference for validated instruments in women with urge incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(2):301.

Chan SSC, Cheung RYK, Lai BPY, Lee LL, Choy KW, Chung TKH. Responsiveness of the pelvic floor distress inventory and pelvic floor impact questionnaire in women undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24(2):213–21.

Suskind AM, Dunn RL, McGuire EJ, Wei JT, Morgan DM, Delancey JOL. The Michigan incontinence symptom index (M-ISI): a clinical measure for type, severity, and bother related to urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(7):1128–34.

Nystrom E, Sjostrom M, Stenlund H, Samuelsson E. ICIQ symptom and quality of life instruments measure clinically relevant improvements in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(8):747–51.

Sirls LT, Tennstedt S, Brubaker L, Kim HY, Nygaard I, Rahn DD, et al. The minimum important difference for the International consultation on incontinence questionnaire - Urinary incontinence short form in women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(2):183–7.

Luz R, Pereira I, Henriques A, Ribeirinho AL, Valentim-Lourenco A. King’s Health Questionnaire to assess subjective outcomes after surgical treatment for urinary incontinence: can it be useful? Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):139–45.

Lim R, Liong ML, Lim KK, Leong WS, Yuen KH. The Minimum Clinically Important Difference of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires (ICIQ-UI SF and ICIQ-LUTSqol). Urology. 2019;133:91–5.

Baessler K, Mowat A, Maher CF. The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(1):115–22.

Nipa SO, Cooper D, Mostada A, Hagen S, Abdel-Fattah M. Novel clinically meaningful scores for the ICIQ-UI-SF and ICIQ-FLUTS questionnaires in women with stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34:3033–40.

Jayadevappa R, Cook R, Chhatre S. Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life-a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:188–98.

Horváth K, Aschermann Z, Ács P, Deli G, Janszky J, Komoly S, et al. Minimal clinically important difference on the Motor Examination part of MDS-UPDRS. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2015;21(12):1421–6.

Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):524–34.

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.

Halme AS, Fritel X, Benedetti A, Eng K, Tannenbaum C. Implications of the minimal clinically important difference for health-related quality-of-life outcomes: a comparison of sample size requirements for an incontinence treatment trial. Value Health. 2015;18(2):292–8.

Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, Hilden J, Landler NE, Tendal B, et al. Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):35.

Santanello NC, Zhang J, Seidenberg B, Reiss TF, Barber BL. What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? Eur Respir J. 1999;14(1):23–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brazil), Financial Code 001.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Women’s Health Research Laboratory (LAMU), Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, km 235, Monjolinho, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil

Jordana Barbosa-Silva & Patricia Driusso

Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, University of Applied Sciences – Hochschule Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

Jordana Barbosa-Silva, Daniela Von Piekartz & Susan Armijo-Olivo

Universidade de Pernambuco, Campus-Petrolina, Brazil

Letícia Bojikian Calixtre

Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine/Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Susan Armijo-Olivo

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JBS was responsible for the development and submission of the protocol, data synthesis, data analysis and manuscript preparation; LBC was responsible for data synthesis, data analysis and manuscript preparation; DVP was responsible for data synthesis and data analysis; PD was responsible for the development and submission of the protocol, data synthesis, data analysis and manuscript preparation; SAO was responsible for the development and submission of the protocol, data synthesis, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.

Authors' information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Jordana Barbosa-Silva .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., supplementary material 4., supplementary material 5., supplementary material 6., supplementary material 7., supplementary material 8., supplementary material 9., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Barbosa-Silva, J., Calixtre, L.B., Von Piekartz, D. et al. The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures related to female urinary incontinence: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 24 , 60 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02188-4

Download citation

Received : 06 November 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2024

Published : 08 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02188-4

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

Clinical significance
Minimal clinically important difference
Minimal important difference
Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs)
Urinary incontinence
Women’s health

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

General enquiries: [email protected]

Open access
Published: 07 March 2024

Socioeconomic differences in working life expectancy: a scoping review

Svetlana Solovieva 1 ,
Astrid de Wind 2 , 3 ,
Karina Undem 4 ,
Christian Dudel 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ,
Ingrid S. Mehlum 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 ,
Swenne G. van den Heuvel 12 ,
Suzan J. W. Robroek 13 &
Taina Leinonen 1

BMC Public Health volume 24 , Article number: 735 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

257 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

In the last decade, interest in working life expectancy (WLE) and socioeconomic differences in WLE has grown considerably. However, a comprehensive overview of the socioeconomic differences in WLE is lacking. The aim of this review is to systematically map the research literature to improve the insight on differences in WLE and healthy WLE (HWLE) by education, occupational class and income while using different ways of measuring and estimating WLE and to define future research needs.

A systematic search was carried out in Web of Science, PubMed and EMBASE and complemented by relevant publications derived through screening of reference lists of the identified publications and expert knowledge. Reports on differences in WLE or HWLE by education, occupational class or income, published until November 2022, were included. Information on socioeconomic differences in WLE and HWLE was synthesized in absolute and relative terms.

A total of 26 reports from 21 studies on educational and occupational class differences in WLE or HWLE were included. No reports on income differences were found. On average, WLE in persons with low education is 30% (men) and 27% (women) shorter than in those with high education. The corresponding numbers for occupational class difference were 21% (men) and 27% (women). Low-educated persons were expected to lose more working years due to unemployment and disability retirement than high-educated persons.

Conclusions

The identified socioeconomic inequalities are highly relevant for policy makers and pose serious challenges for equitable pension policies. Many policy interventions aimed at increasing the length of working life follow a one-size-fits-all approach which does not take these inequalities into account. More research is needed on socioeconomic differences in HWLE and potential influences of income on working life duration.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Despite increased longevity, the average length of working life remains relatively short as compared to life expectancy [ 1 , 2 ]. According to Eurostat statistics, working life expectancy (WLE) at age 15 in Europe in 2021 was 38.2 years among men and 33.7 years among women, respectively [ 3 ], while life expectancy at this age was 62.6 years (men) and 68.3 (women). Earlier studies reported significant gender, educational and occupational class differences in WLE [ 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 ].

WLE denotes the time that a person is expected to participate in working life after a given age [ 7 ]. The measure is similar to life expectancy but with permanent exit from working life as the final state, irrespective of how the labour market is left (e.g., retirement or death). WLE is a population summary measure, which is forecasting a duration of working life of all individuals in a particular study population based on cumulative labour market attachment. It does not determine how long an individual will actually work during the remaining lifespan.

Different terms are used in the literature for the WLE, e.g., labour force expectancy, labour market life expectancy, active life expectancy [ 1 ]. A principal conceptual distinction of these terms is in how participation in working life is defined.

Participation in working life can be defined in several ways. The broadest definition refers to being economically active and thereby available to the labour market, i.e., being in the labour force as either employed/self-employed or unemployed. WLE estimated based on labour force participation rates is sometimes called labour force expectancy or economic activity expectancy [ 1 ]. In a narrower definition, participating in working life is restricted to being employed and is sometimes referred to as employment life expectancy [ 8 ]. An even stricter definition of working life refers to productive work only, i.e., not being e.g., in sickness absence or in subsidized employment [ 9 ]. The latter definition of participation in working life takes into account possible temporary interruptions of work due to ill-health or other reasons (e.g. unemployment, studying or care activities) more comprehensively than the former two.

WLE takes into consideration the complex interplay between changes in life expectancy and age-specific patterns of labour market behaviour of individuals in the population, which cover entry patterns at a young age, exit schedules at old age, temporary exit and re-entering employment and productive work participation during the lifespan. It differs from the average duration of working life, calculated based on average ages at which individuals enter and exit from the labour market [ 10 ]. The time that a person at a given age is expected to spend in other labour market states than employment determines working years lost (WYL). The sum of WLE and WYL indicates the potential remaining working years after a specific age. The WYL can be decomposed by reason due to which working years were lost (e.g., unemployment, receiving disability benefits or retirement).

Poor health, chronic diseases, and reduced work ability were found to be associated with withdrawal from the labour force due to disability, early retirement and accidental death, especially among older adults [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. In order to incorporate longevity, health status and labour force participation into one population metric, healthy working life expectancy (HWLE) was introduced [ 18 , 19 ]. HWLE is defined as the time that a person at a given age is expected to be healthy and participate in working life until permanent withdrawal from the labour market. This indicator has been in use for several years utilizing varying definitions of “being healthy”, e.g., good self-rated health [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ] or absence of disabilities [ 24 ].

Socioeconomic differences in labour market participation and age of withdrawal from paid employment are well established [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Workers with low socioeconomic position were more prone to earlier exit from the labour market even after controlling for ill-health [ 25 ]. Education, occupation and income are the three most common indicators of socioeconomic position. Even though they are correlated, they capture distinct aspects of socioeconomic position and thus are not interchangeable [ 28 , 29 ]. Recent studies with a primary focus on socioeconomic differences reported a substantially lower WLE among persons with low education and among manual workers [ 5 , 6 , 30 ].

In the last 10 years, interest in WLE and socioeconomic differences in WLE has grown considerably, and an increasing number of papers are published each year. According to a recent narrative review on indicators and determinants of the years of working life lost, persons with low socioeconomic position have lower WLE and more years of working life lost than those with high socioeconomic position [ 16 ]. However, a comprehensive overview of the socioeconomic differences in WLE and HWLE is lacking. With this review, we aim to provide an overview of this quickly expanding body of research. Specifically, we aim to improve the insight on differences in WLE and HWLE by education, occupational class and income while using different ways of measuring and estimating WLE and define future research needs.

To review the existing reports on socioeconomic differences in WLE is demanding because of the vast diversity in fields of research and methodological approaches. We chose to conduct a scoping review instead of a systematic review because the former is better able to map the available research literature and answer broader questions [ 31 , 32 ]. Furthermore, a scoping review allows to clarify the complex concept of WLE, incorporate various study designs and estimation approaches in both published and grey literature and identify knowledge gaps. In contrast, systematic reviews often have a narrow research question, such as the strength of evidence for association, effectiveness of treatments/interventions. To conduct the scoping review, we followed the five-step methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [ 33 ].

Step 1: identifying the research question(s)

We identified three research questions for the scoping review: (1) what knowledge is available on socioeconomic differences in WLE and HWLE, (2) do socioeconomic differences in WLE and HWLE vary across different operationalisations of WLE and HWLE (i.e. different ways of measuring and estimating WLE) and (3) what are the challenges that future research on WLE and HWLE should address?

Step 2: identifying relevant studies

We identified relevant studies by searching published articles in the electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed and EMBASE until November 2022, using a combination of the following keywords in text: (“working life expectancy” or “work life expectancy” or “working life duration” or “working years lost” or “labour market affiliation” or “healthy working life expectancy”) and (socioeconomic or education or income or occupation or “occupational class” or “social class”). The search was complemented by additional relevant publications derived through search in Google Scholar, screening of reference lists of the identified publications. Additional references were included according to the knowledge of the authors. We limited our searches to reports written in English but did not use any year of publication limit.

Step 3: study selection

We scanned titles and abstracts, applying three inclusion criteria: (1) the main report’s focus was on WLE or HWLE, (2) reports include a description of estimation method for WLE or HWLE and 3) reports presented results on socioeconomic factors associated with WLE or HWLE. Reports focusing on WLE or HWLE but not showing results on socioeconomic differences in these measures, as well as reports focusing on individual-level measures of working life duration were therefore excluded from the current review. To identify eligible articles, titles and abstracts were screened and full-text reading of potentially relevant articles was performed by the first author. When abstracts provided insufficient information to make a decision on exclusion or inclusion of the reports, a full text was reviewed. Decisions about ambiguous papers were taken together by the authors.

Step 4: charting the data

Data extraction was performed by the first author using predefined tables. The headings in the table were checked and verified by all co-authors. In addition to bibliographic information (authors’ names, publication year, and study location), characteristics of the study population and data sources, we extracted key results and information on operationalization of socioeconomic position and WLE as well as the method and types of working life tables used to estimate WLE. We extracted key results and information on operationalization of socioeconomic factors and WLE (listed labour market states), as well as the method and types of working life tables used to estimate WLE. Two approaches have been used to estimate WLE or HWLE. The prevalence-based approach, sometimes called Sullivan’s method, is based on the prevalence of labour market states and mortality rates, while the incidence-based approach is based on incidence rates that capture transitions between states. Furthermore, the WLE can be estimated using either cohort or period life tables [ 5 , 34 , 35 ]. Period life tables can be constructed based on data from one or a few years. Essentially, the age-specific labour market conditions observed in this brief period are used to cover complete working lives, thus representing synthetic working trajectories. In contrast, cohort life tables are constructed based on real working life trajectories. Selection of the approaches is commonly driven by data availability. For those reports that in addition to WLE presented results for WYL we also extracted information on socioeconomic differences in WYL.

The data extraction was checked and verified by all co-authors and in more detail by TL and AdW.

We did not perform a quality assessment of the included studies as this review was aiming to map published empirical research in the field regardless of the quality of the studies.

Step 5: collating, summarizing, and reporting

For quantitative data synthesis, we included only the studies with population-representative data. To synthesize information on the magnitude of educational, occupational class and income differences in WLE, HWLE and WYL, we calculated the absolute difference (years) in the outcome of interest between the highest and lowest socioeconomic categories. In order to examine variation in socioeconomic differences across different age groups and across different operationalizations of WLE, we also calculated the relative difference by dividing the years-difference between the highest and lowest socioeconomic categories by remaining potential working years. The remaining potential working years were calculated as years from the specific age (for which expectancy was estimated) until age 65. For example, for WLE at age 30, the remaining potential working years equalled 35 years.

Literature search and exclusion of studies

Figure 1 presents a flow chart of the literature search and the inclusion and exclusion of records. The literature search of reports published before November 2022 yielded 54 records, including 23 duplicates. In addition, 12 potentially relevant publications were selected from the reference lists or suggested by the experts. A total of 43 records were screened based on title and abstract. Of the 38 publications eligible for full-text reading, 26 reports from 21 studies were included into the review [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 21 , 24 , 30 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Six of the twelve excluded reports were excluded because they focused on retirement age instead of WLE. Excluded reports and explanation for their exclusion based on the full-text reading are shown in the Supplement (Table S 1 ). Of the duplicated reports from the same study the results of the first report were included into quantitative analyses (Supplementary Table S 2 ).

Flow chart of selection of sources of evidence

Overall study characteristics

Table 1 presents a description of the included reports. Studies were conducted in the United States ( n = 7), Finland ( n = 3), Spain ( n = 3), The Netherlands ( n = 3), United Kingdom ( n = 3), Germany ( n = 2), Italy ( n = 1), Denmark ( n = 1), and Turkey ( n = 1). Two reports presented results for several European countries. All reports were published between 1990 and 2022, with the majority (16 out of 26) published during the past five years.

The WLE or related measures were estimated using self-reports in 19 reports and register data in seven reports (Table 2 ). WLE was most frequently ( n = 15) defined as employment expectancy. It was defined as economic activity expectancy (including employment and unemployment) in eight reports and as productive work expectancy (employed and not being e.g., on sickness absence or in subsidized employment) in two reports. In the vast majority of the reports ( n = 21), the incidence-based approach was used for estimation of WLE. Only one report [ 50 ] used continuous transitions, a few reports used monthly transitions, while in the remaining reports, data were interval-censored with one or more years between the transitions. One report performed a simulation of life trajectories based on estimated hazard rates for mortality, employment, and retirement [ 39 ]. Five reports presented socioeconomic differences in HWLE. Half of the reports also explored socioeconomic differences in WYL. The vast majority of the included reports ( n = 21; 81%) examined educational differences in WLE or related indicators, while fewer reports ( n = 7) examined social/occupational class differences. No reports on income differences in WLE or related measures were found.

Five reports did not include numerical results for specific socioeconomic categories and were excluded from the data synthesis [ 2 , 40 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. A study by Tetzlaff and co-authors [ 52 ] was excluded because it utilized very specific data of a particular region of Germany as well as of a particular health insurance.

Educational differences

All studies found a longer WLE among persons with high education compared to those with low education (Supplementary Table S 3 ). Most of the studies observed a larger absolute educational difference in WLE at ages between 15 and 40 years among women than men (Fig. 2 A). Gender gap in the educational differences in WLE after age of 45 was relatively small. Across all ages, absolute educational differences in WLE tended to be smaller among initially employed than initially economically active (including both employed and unemployed) or inactive individuals (Fig. 2 A).

Educational differences in WLE among men and women. A Absolute differences (years); B Relative differences (share of remaining working life)

In most of the studies, relative differences between persons with high and low education were somewhat similar between men and women irrespective of the initial labour market state and age at which WLE was estimated (Fig. 2 B). As compared with high-educated persons, working life years of low-educated persons were expected to be, on average, 30% shorter among men and 27% among women. The magnitude of differences varied noticeably by definition used for WLE and study population, particularly among women (Table 3 ). Studies with WLE defined as economic activity expectancy (including both employment and unemployment) reported the largest educational difference (mean 38% among men and 41% among women). In such studies, differences in the general population were smaller than in populations initially economically active or inactive. Studies with WLE defined as productive work expectancy (time expected to be at work) reported the smallest educational differences (mean 11% among men and 18% among women).

The magnitude of educational differences between incidence- and prevalence-based methods was similar. However, studies using incidence-based methods based on data with short censoring intervals (i.e., less than a year) reported smallest educational differences. Studies which used cohort life tables for calculations of WLE, tended to report smaller educational differences than studies which used period life tables.

Differences in WLE at age 50 between high and low-educated persons, which were most examined, varied considerably across the studies (from 0.40 to 9.90 years among men and from 0.50 to 9.80 among women). On average, WLE at age 50 among low-educated persons was 5.1 (men) and 4.6 years (women) shorter than among high-educated persons (median values 5.4 and 4.4 years among men and women, respectively). The smallest educational differences (0.40 and 0.50 among men and women, respectively) were reported in a general population study [ 30 ], where WLE was defined as years expected to be in paid employment and estimated using incidence-based approach with monthly transitions between the labour market states.

Occupational class differences

Occupational class differences were found in all studies, and individuals in non-manual occupations had longer WLE than individuals in manual occupations (Supplementary Table S 3 ). Larger occupational class differences in WLE among women than men were found in the study by Dudel and co-authors [ 4 ], while in the other studies, differences were similar in both genders (Fig. 3 A and B). As compared with persons belonging to high occupational class, working life years of persons in low occupational class was expected to be, on average, shorter by 21% (median: 22%) among men and 27% (median: 28%) among women.

Occupational class differences in WLE among men and women. A Absolute differences (years); B Relative differences (share of remaining working life)

The smallest occupational class differences were found in the study of initially employed men and women, where incidence-based approach and continuous scheme of observations (data were not interval-censored) was used for estimation of WLE [ 50 ].

Socioeconomic differences in healthy working life expectancy

Two studies examined educational differences in both WLE and HWLE. Smaller educational differences in HWLE than in WLE at age 50 (3.50 vs. 3.80 years) were found in a study by Parker et al. [ 21 ]. While according to another study [ 24 ] educational differences in HWLE at age 58 were much larger than in WLE, being 1.4 and 0.8 years, respectively (Supplementary Table S 3 ). Larger occupational class differences in HWLE than in WLE at age 50 were found, being 1.60 and 1.40 years, respectively [ 21 ] (Supplementary Table S 3 ).

Socioeconomic differences in working years lost

Six out of 13 studies that explored socioeconomic differences in WYL presented results for WYL due to unemployment, disability and early retirement (Table 2 , Supplementary Table S 4 ). All studies found that irrespective of age low-educated persons are expected to lose more working years due to unemployment and disability retirement than high-educated persons. (Supplementary Figure S 1 , Supplementary Table S 4 ). However, the opposite phenomenon was seen for WYL due to early retirement. Overall, in both genders, educational differences for WYL due to unemployment were larger than for disability retirement. Educational differences in WYL due to unemployment at age 15–40 years were on average 0.6 years larger among women than men (vary from 0.8 to 7.4 years and from 0.7 to 5.7 years in women and men, respectively). In contrast, Robroek and co-authors [ 6 ] found larger educational differences in WYL due to disability retirement among men than women.

All studies found that irrespective of age, persons belonging to low occupational class are expected to lose more working years due to unemployment and disability retirement than persons in high occupational class (Supplementary Figure S 2 , Supplementary Table S 4 ). Both men and women in low occupational class at age 50 were expected to lose about one year more than persons belonging to high occupational class due to unemployment.

Our main findings reveal that irrespective of socioeconomic indicator, persons with low socioeconomic position have shorter WLE than those with high socioeconomic position. On average, WLE in persons with low education is 29% (men) and 27% (women) shorter than in those with high education. The magnitude of educational differences varies noticeably depending on the definition used for WLE and study population. Overall, the occupational class differences in WLE were more pronounced among women than men (with mean difference being 27% vs. 21%). Among low-educated persons more working years were lost due to unemployment and disability retirement but less due to other types of non-employment than among high-educated persons. Moreover, educational differences in WYL due to unemployment were larger than due to disability retirement.

In general, WLE represents the average expected working life duration for individuals at a specific age. Different definitions of WLE are used in the literature to capture the dynamic patterns of entering, exiting and re-entering employment during the lifespan and to distinguish between employment and non-employment labour market states, as well as healthy and unhealthy working life. For this review, we included the following most commonly used definitions: economic activity expectancy (expected years in either paid employment or unemployment), employment expectancy (expected years in paid employment), productive work expectancy (expected years in paid employment, excluding sickness absence) and healthy WLE (expected years in working life while being in “good health”).

The direction of socioeconomic differences in WLE that we found, was expected, knowing socioeconomic inequalities in labour market attachment, health and life expectancy exist [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ]. However, we observed a noticeable variation in the magnitude of educational differences in WLE across the studies. One of the reasons for the large variation in the educational differences is the variation in methods to estimate WLE. WLE is a probabilistic construct, estimated using multistate models based on ether period or cohort life tables, of which the first one is most frequently used. WLE, building on life tables for a given period (one year or several years), describes patterns of labour market attachment in a synthetic or hypothetical cohort with an assumption that the age-specific mortality and participation rates in different labour market states during remaining years will be the same as those observed in that period. This is a rather strong assumption, which might be violated and not necessary be realizable similarly across different study populations, age groups, as well as time periods. The larger the deviation from the assumption is, the higher the likelihood of bias in the WLE estimates will be. Furthermore, the direction of bias might be different for different subgroups of the study population. At younger age the WLE is likely overestimated, while at older age it is likely underestimated. For people below age of 30 years, high heterogeneity in labour market participation of people increases uncertainty for the estimation of WLE.

The studies included into our review were very heterogeneous with regard to factors that may influence the socioeconomic differences in WLE (e.g., operationalization of WLE, study population, categorization of socioeconomic factors, methods of estimation of WLE). Due to above mentioned reasons the absolute socioeconomic differences in WLE across different ages as well as different study populations or subgroups are not comparable. As such, in the current review we used relative socioeconomic differences to better understand the reasons for the large observed variation in the socioeconomic differences in WLE across the studies.

We found that studies with WLE defined as economic activity expectancy reported the largest differences, while the smallest differences were found for productive work expectancy. WLE defined as economic activity expectancy covers both employment and unemployment and thus will result in higher estimates of the WLE, as compared with narrower definitions.

Large variation in the reported socioeconomic differences can also be attributed to the stage of economic cycle when WLE was estimated/calculated. Educational differences might be intensified during the economic crisis since less-educated persons are more vulnerable to unemployment than higher-educated persons [ 34 , 57 ]. Unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment, is increasing during economic recession. Dudel and co-authors [ 4 ] examined the influence of economic crisis on WLE in Spain and found a tremendous effect, which differed largely by gender and occupational category. Among unskilled manual workers, the average proportion of lifetime spent in unemployment and outside the labour market, increased markedly during the economic crisis, while it remained at the same level among people in skilled non-manual occupations.

Knowing that health is an important contributor to earlier permanent withdrawal from the labour market [ 13 , 58 ], decomposition of WLE to healthy and unhealthy WLE is warranted. A recent study in 14 countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, found noticeable cross-country variation in trends of HWLE between 2002 and 2017, while an increasing trend in unhealthy WLE was observed in most of the countries [ 22 ]. Five reports on HWLE from three studies were included in the current review. All studies observed longer HWLE at age 50 and later among individuals with high socioeconomic position than among those with low socioeconomic position. However, the magnitude of the differences varied across the studies.

An association of income level with morbidity and mortality is well documented [ 59 , 60 , 61 ]. Since 2001, the income-related health gap widened substantially in most of the western countries due to the faster increase in life expectancy among individuals with higher incomes than those with lower incomes [ 62 , 63 ]. How income influences working life duration is poorly understood, since no reports on the association of income with either WLE or HWLE was captured by our searches. The lack of reports on income inequality in WLE might be partly due to the fact that income is much more volatile than education or occupational class.

There are several methodological choices and challenges in examining socioeconomic differences in WLE. Most importantly, the levels of WLE and inequalities in WLE differ depending on the study population or sub-populations where it is estimated; depending on whether a cohort perspective or a period perspective is used; and depending on whether prevalence-based or incidence-based methods are applied.

For example, results on educational differences in WLE at age 50 from two Dutch studies were very different. One study [ 30 ] found that WLE at age 50 in low-educated people was by 0.4 (men) and 0.5 (women) years shorter than in high-educated people. The corresponding numbers in another study [ 6 ], were 2.5 and 3.4 years in men and women, respectively. The study population of the former study consisted of around 12 000 participants of the online STREAM cohort. While the latter study utilized nationally representative data from Statistics Netherlands on about 5 million individuals. Otherwise, both studies were similar with regard of WLE definition and estimation method, as well as educational categories. Similarly, occupational class differences in WLE at age 50 varied in two Finnish studies. In one study, in both genders the WLE at age 50 among manual workers was 3.6 years shorter than among upper-level non-manual workers [ 5 ]. In another study, the difference in WLE between manual and upper-level non-manual workers was only 1 year [ 50 ]. The two studies differed with regard to study population (general vs. employed), WLE definition (employment vs. productive work expectancy) and method of estimation (prevalence- vs. incidence-based). The occupational class differences in the second study [ 50 ] are likely underestimated due to healthy worker effect. Manual workers are more likely to leave the labour force before age of 50 years due to reduced workability than the upper-level non-manual workers. The examples presented above suggest that the socioeconomic differences in WLE at age of 50 might be attenuated due to selection bias in the study population.

Dudel and Myrskylä [ 35 ] found that the same data can show increases in WLE in the period perspective but stagnation or decline of WLE in the cohort perspective. The increase in period WLE was caused by an increase in employment rates in the most recent years of the data; however, this increase did not compensate for reductions in employment rates some birth cohorts experienced in earlier periods, leading to the decrease in the cohort perspective. Incidence-based methods are known to capture sudden changes in employment better than prevalence-based methods which is particularly relevant if the data used in an analysis includes a macroeconomic shock like a recession (e.g., Dudel et al. [ 4 ]).

Moreover, we found that levels of inequalities also depend on whether period or cohort WLE is estimated. This is due to the fact that period WLE can amplify group differences, in particular if there are macroeconomic shocks. This is because period WLE for a period affected by a shock implicitly assumes that individuals are exposed to the resulting adverse economic conditions throughout their whole life, while real cohorts usually only experience these conditions for a few years. Moreover, members of real cohorts might try to compensate for years of working life lost once economic conditions improve (e.g., they might extend time of old age retirement due to less pension savings) while this is not captured in period WLE. However, the direction of the inequalities found in the literature is rather consistent irrespective of the specific methods used.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, the present study is the first to review the literature on educational and occupational class differences in WLE and HWLE. We believe that our search strategy allowed us to broadly capture the relevant scientific reports on this topic. We used a standard data extraction form for each report included in the scoping review, thus our summarized information should be as robust and standardized as possible. However, the current review also has limitations. Due to heterogeneity of included reports and large differences in the country context which influenced the results, we were neither able to conduct a systematic review nor a meta-analysis of the findings. Instead, we aimed to overview which different operationalizations of WLE, as well as socioeconomic indicators, were used in the literature and identify the methodological challenges in analysing the socioeconomic differences in WLE. In particular, we examined whether the magnitude of socioeconomic differences varies by the used indicators, by different study populations or according to different definitions of WLE and approaches used for its estimation. We focused on WLE and did not include measures of the length of working life which do not account for all possible labour market transitions; one example of such a a measure is the effective retirement age [ 64 , 65 ].

Future research needs

There is a need for further research on several aspects of WLE. First, the majority of studies focuses on a single country, and only very little comparative research is available (e.g., [ 1 ]). Such research is essential for understanding how different institutional contexts and policy regimes are shaping WLE and potentially influencing socioeconomic inequalities in WLE. However, differences in the distribution of socioeconomic position across the countries challenge comparability of results. It could be of interest to use inequality measures, such as relative index of inequality and the slope index of inequality, for comparisons of the socioeconomic gradient in WLE.

Second, almost all studies on WLE are rather descriptive, with only a few exceptions. This means that the drivers and causes of trends and inequalities in WLE are poorly understood. There is no “golden standard” regarding operationalization of WLE and estimation methods, which are typically selected based on data availability. Several factors may cause uncertainty in the estimates, with the direction of bias (overestimation or underestimation) changing and depending on specific circumstances and interplay of those factors. Therefore, future studies should pay attention to more detailed reporting about study population, institutional context, operationalization of WLE, analytical approaches for estimation and underlying assumptions.

Studies which are connecting WLE to health and working conditions have emerged recently [ 66 ], starting to fill this gap. Nevertheless, more research is needed. The study of WLE could be further extended to include characteristics of employment, such as full- vs. part-time or the quality of work [ 67 ]. Finally, most studies focus on a rather wide age range. Some studies have shown that there are specific years which are particularly vulnerable. For instance, Dudel et al. [ 4 ] provide evidence that young Spanish workers below age 30 were particularly affected by the financial crisis in 2007/8. Identifying such vulnerable groups of workers will help design better targeted labour market and pension policies. Most of the studies included into this review examined educational differences in WLE, while no studies on income differences were found. Furthermore, socioeconomic differences in HWLE are largely unknown. Future research is needed to fill the knowledge gap on HWLE and potential influences of income on working life duration.

This scoping review adds to the literature in several ways. We provide the first review of socioeconomic inequalities in WLE and HWLE. Our results show that disparities between socioeconomic groups are often substantial, and persistent over time and across countries. Moreover, our results show a large variability in the levels of inequalities, depending on the age at which WLE is measured; the operationalization of WLE (including definition and estimation method) and socioeconomic position; the institutional context and the examined study population.

The directions of the inequalities are, however, largely consistent across studies. That is, higher-educated individuals tend to have longer WLE than lower-educated individuals, and individuals in non-manual occupations work longer than individuals in manual occupations. Overall, our findings show that despite these consistencies, some caution is advisable when comparing studies of WLE. The inequalities we report are highly relevant for policy makers and pose serious challenges to equitable retirement and pension policies. Many policy interventions aimed at increasing the length of working life follow a one-size-fits-all approach, which does not take these inequalities into account.

Availability of data and materials

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Abbreviations

Working life expectancy

Healthy working life expectancy
Working years lost

Loichinger E, Weber D. Trends in Working Life Expectancy in Europe. J Aging Health. 2016;28:1194–213.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Weber D, Loichinger E. Live longer, retire later? Developments of healthy life expectancies and working life expectancies between age 50–59 and age 60–69 in Europe. Eur J Aging. 2020;19:75–93.

Article Google Scholar

Eurostat. Steady increase in the expected duration of working life in the EU. Eurostat 2022b; Statistics Explained, June 2022. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Duration_of_working_life_-_statistics#Steady_increase_in_the_expected_duration_of_working_life_in_the_EU . (Accessed 10 July 2023).

Dudel C, López Gómez MA, Benavides FG, Myrskylä M. The length of Working Life in Spain: levels, recent trends, and the impact of the Financial Crisis. Eur J Popul. 2018;34:769–91.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Leinonen T, Martikainen P, Myrskylä M. Working Life and Retirement expectancies at Age 50 by Social Class: Period and Cohort trends and projections for Finland. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018;73:302–13.

Robroek SJ, Nieboer D, Järvholm B, Burdorf A. Educational differences in duration of working life and loss of paid employment: working life expectancy in the Netherlands. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46:77–84.

Siegel JS. The Life Table. In: Siegel JS. The Demography and Epidemiology of Human Health and Aging. Springer, Dordrecht. 2012; pp 135–216. Available at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-1315-4 .

Nurminen MM, Heathcote CR, Davis BA, Puza BD. Working life expectancies: the case of Finland 1980–2006. J R Statist Soc A. 2005;168:567–81.

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Pedersen J, Bjorner JB. Worklife expectancy in a cohort of Danish employees aged 55–65 years - comparing a multi-state Cox proportional hazard approach with conventional multi-state life tables. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:879.

Hytti H, Nio I. Monitoring the employment strategy and the duration of active working life. Helsinki: Kela – The Social Insurance Institution, Finland; 2004. Social security and health research: working papers no 38. Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/items/eb70342e-244a-4f43-8889-1bfe116195ba/full . (Accessed 10 July 2023).

van den Berg T, Schuring M, Avendano M, Mackenbach J, Burdorf A. The impact of ill health on exit from paid employment in Europe among older workers. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67:845–52.

Takala J, Hämäläinen P, Saarela KL, Yun LY, Manickam K, Jin TW, et al. Global estimates of the burden of injury and illness at work in 2012. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11:326–37.

van Rijn RM, Robroek SJ, Brouwer S, Burdorf A. Influence of poor health on exit from paid employment: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71:295–301.

Leinonen T, Laaksonen M, Chandola T, Martikainen P. Health as a predictor of early retirement before and after introduction of a flexible statutory pension age in Finland. Soc Sci Med. 2016;58:149–57.

Gondek D, Ning K, Ploubidis GB, Nasim B, Goodman A. The impact of health on economic and social outcomes in the United Kingdom: a scoping literature review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0209659.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Shiri R, Hiilamo A, Lallukka T. Indicators and determinants of the years of working life lost: a narrative review. Scand J Public Health. 2021;49:666–74.

Hasselhorn HM, Leinonen T, Bültmann U, Mehlum IS, du Prel JB, Kiran S, et al. The differentiated roles of health in the transition from work to retirement - conceptual and methodological challenges and avenues for future research. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2022;48:312–21.

Lievre A, Jusot F, Barnay T, Sermet C, Brouard N, Robine JM, et al. Healthy working life expectancies at age 50 in Europe: a new indicator. J Nutr Health Aging. 2007;11:508–14.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Dudel C. Healthy and unhealthy working-life expectancy: opportunities and challenges. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2:e604-605.

de Wind A, van der Noordt M, Deeg DJH, Boot CRL. Working life expectancy in good and poor self-perceived health among Dutch workers aged 55–65 years with a chronic disease over the period 1992–2016. Occup Environ Med. 2018;75:792–7.

Parker M, Bucknall M, Jagger C, Wilkie R. Population-based estimates of healthy working life expectancy in England at age 50 years: analysis of data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e395-403.

Boissonneault M, Rios P. Changes in healthy and unhealthy working-life expectancy over the period 2002-17: a population-based study in people aged 51–65 years in 14 OECD countries. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2:e629-638.

Laaksonen M, Elovainio M, Kainulainen S, Leinonen T, Jääskeläinen T, Rissanen H, et al. Changes in healthy and unhealthy working life expectancies among older working-age people in Finland, 2000–2017. Eur J Public Health. 2022;32:729–34.

van der Noordt M, van der Pas S, van Tilburg TG, van den Hout A, Deeg DJ. Changes in working life expectancy with disability in the Netherlands, 1992–2016. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019;45:73–81.

Schuring M, Robroek SJ, Otten FW, Arts CH, Burdorf A. The effect of ill health and socioeconomic status on labor force exit and re-employment: a prospective study with ten years follow-up in the Netherlands. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2013;39:134–43.

Schram JLD, Schuring M, Oude Hengel KM, Burdorf A. Health-related educational inequalities in paid employment across 26 European countries in 2005–2014: repeated cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e024823.

Rohrbacher M, Hasselhorn HM. Social inequalities in early exit from employment in Germany: a causal mediation analysis on the role of work, health, and work ability. Scand J Work Environ Healthy. 2022;48:569–78.

Shavers VL. Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99:1013–23.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

Schram JLD, Schuring M, Oude Hengel KM, Burdorf A, Robroek SJW. The influence of chronic diseases and poor working conditions in working life expectancy across educational levels among older employees in the Netherlands. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2022;48:391–8.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:1–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Arksey H, OʼMalley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Meth. 2005;8:19–32.

Dudel C, Myrskylä M. Working Life Expectancy at Age 50 in the United States and the impact of the great recession. Demography. 2017;54:2101–23.

Dudel C, Myrskylä M. Cohort trends in Working Life Expectancies at Age 50 in the United States: a Register-based study using Social Security Administration Data. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020;75:1504–14.

Hayward MD, Grady WR. Work and retirement among a cohort of older men in the United States, 1966–1983. Demography. 1990;27:337–56.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Hayward MD. Lichter a life cycle model of labour force inequality. Extending Clogg’s life table approach. Soc Meth Res. 1998;26:480–510.

Millimet DL, Nieswiadomy M, Ryu H, Slottje D. Estimating worklife expectancy: an econometric approach. J Econometrics. 2003;113:83–113.

Karlsson M, Mayhew L, Rickayzen B. Individualised life tables. Investigating dynamics of health, work and cohabitation in the UK. Pop Ageing. 2009;1:153–91.

Millimet DL, Nieswiadomy M, Slottje DJ. Detailed estimation of worklife expectancy for the measurement of human capital: accounting for marriage and children. J Econom Surv. 2010;24:339–61.

Skoog GR, Ciecka JE, Krueger KV. The Markov Process Model of Labor Force Activity: Extended Tables of Central Tendency, Shape, Percentile Points, and Bootstrap Standard Errors. J Forensic Econ. 2011;22:165–229.

Nurminen M. Working-life expectancy in Finland: trends and differentials 2000–2015. A multistate regression modeling approach. Helsinki: Finnish Centre for Pensions; 2012. Finnish Centre for Pensions report no 3. Available at: https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/129432/WorkinglifeexpectancyinFinlandtrendsanddifferentials20002015Amultistateregressionmodelingapproach.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y . (Accessed 10 July 2023).

Krueger KV, Slesnick F. Total worklife expectancy. J Forensic Econ. 2014;25:51–70.

Özer MN, The Effects of Education and Marital Status on Female Working Life Expectancy in Turkey. An application of multistate life table for 2009–2010. Ankara: Thesis Center: 2014. Master thesis no 356184. Available at: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp . (Accessed 10 July 2023).

Lorenti A, Dudel C, Myrskyla M. The legacy of the great recession in Italy: a wider geographical, gender, and generational gap in Working Life Expectancy. Soc Indic Res. 2019;142:283–303.

Stanek M, Requena M. Expected lifetime in different employment statuses: evidence from the Economic Boom-and-bust cycle in Spain. Res Aging. 2019;41:286–309.

Lorenti A, Dudel C, Hale JM, Myrskylä M. Working and disability expectancies at older ages: the role of childhood circumstances and education. Soc Sci Res. 2020;91: 102447.

Dudel C, Loichinger E, Klüsener S, Sulak H, Myrskylä M. The extension of late working life in Germany: trends, inequalities, and the East-West divide. Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR). MPIDR Working Paper 2021;No.WP-2021-018. Available at https://doi.org/10.4054/MPIDR-WP-2021-018 or https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-77024-2 (Accessed 10 July 2023).

Nexø MA, Pedersen J, Cleal B, Andersen I, Bjørner JB. Working life expectancies among individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes over a 30-year period. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021;47:540–9.

Schram JL, Solovieva S, Leinonen T, Viikari-Juntura E, Burdorf A, Robroek SJ. The influence of occupational class and physical workload on working life expectancy among older employees. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021;47:5–14.

Lynch M, Bucknall M, Jagger C, Wilkie R. Healthy working life expectancy at age 50 for people with and without osteoarthritis in local and national English populations. Sci Rep. 2022;12:2408.

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Tetzlaff J, Luy M, Epping J, Geyer S, Beller J, Stahmeyer JT, et al. Estimating trends in working life expectancy based on health insurance data from Germany - challenges and advantages. SSM Popul Healthy. 2022;19:101215.

Schuring M, Robroek SJ, Lingsma HF, Burdorf A. Educational differences in trajectories of self-rated health before, during, and after entering or leaving paid employment in the European workforce. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2015;41:441–50.

Heggebø K, Tøge AG, Dahl E, Berg JE. Socioeconomic inequalities in health during the great recession: a scoping review of the research literature. Scand J Public Health. 2019;47:635–54.

Turek K, Henken Ks KM. Gender and Educational Inequalities in Extending Working Lives: Late-Life Employment Trajectories Across Three Decades in Seven Countries. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2022;, waac021, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waac021 . (Accessed 10 July 2023).

Dudel C, van Raalte AA. Educational inequalities in life expectancy: measures, mapping, meaning. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2023-220633 . (Online ahead of print).

Coile CC, Levine PB. Recessions, retirement, and social security. Am Econom Rev. 2011;101:23–8.

Schuring M, Schram JL, Robroek SJ, Burdorf A. The contribution of health to educational inequalities in exit from paid employment in five European regions. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2019;45:346–55.

Islam MS, Mondal MNI, Tareque MI, Rahman MA, Hoque MN, Ahmed MM, et al. Correlates of healthy life expectancy in low- and lower-middle-income countries. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:476.

Head J, Chungkham HS, Hyde M, Zaninotto P, Alexanderson K, Stenholm S, et al. Socioeconomic differences in healthy and disease-free life expectancy between ages 50 and 75: a multi-cohort study. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29:267–72.

Chen H, Ning J, Hu H, He H. Distribution of the compression and expansion of morbidity in 194 countries and territories, 1990–2016: The role of income inequality. Sociol Health Illn. 2023; Apr 13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13645 . Online ahead of print.

Tetzlaff F, Epping J, Sperlich S, Tetzlaff J. Widening income inequalities in life expectancy? Analysing time trends based on German health insurance data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020;74:592–7.

PubMed Google Scholar

Fors S, Wastesson JW, Morin L. Growing income-based inequalities in Old-Age Life Expectancy in Sweden, 2006–2015. Demography. 2021;58:2117–38.

Kadefors R, Nilsson K, Ostergren PO, Rylander L, Albin M. Social inequality in working life expectancy in Sweden. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;52(Suppl 1):52–61.

Riekhoff AJ, Kuitto K. Educational differences in extending working lives. Trends in effective exit ages in 16 European countries. Helsinki; 2022: Finnish Centre for Pensions, Finnish Centre for Pensions Studies no 02/2022 Available at: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN978-951-691-345-5 . (Accessed 10 July 2023).

Plana-Ripoll O, Weye N, Knudsen AK, Hakulinen C, Madsen KB, Christensen MK, et al. The association between mental disorders and subsequent years of working life: a Danish population-based cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2023;10:30–9.

Hale JM, Dudel C, Lorenti A. Cumulative disparities in the dynamics of working poverty for later career U.S. Workers (2002–2012). Socius. 2021;7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120987332 . Accessed 27 Jan 2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review was conducted as a part of The Exposome Project for Health and Occupational Research (EPHOR) project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 874703 (SS, KU, ISM and TL). Additional support was provided by Strategic Research Council, grant number 345170 (TL and SS). Christian Dudel was supported by grants to the Max Planck – University of Helsinki Center from the Max Planck Society, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki, and the Cities of Helsinki, Vantaa, and Espoo. The funders have no involvement in the conducting, writing and submission of the review.

This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020, grant agreement number 874703 (SS, KU, ISM and TL) and Strategic Research Council, grant number 345170 (TL and SS). Christian Dudel was supported by grants to the Max Planck – University of Helsinki Center from the Max Planck Society, the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki, and the Cities of Helsinki, Vantaa, and Espoo. The funders have no involvement in the conducting, writing and submission of the review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, Työterveyslaitos, Helsinki, 00032, Finland

Svetlana Solovieva & Taina Leinonen

Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Astrid de Wind

Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Societal Participation and Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway

Karina Undem & Ingrid S. Mehlum

Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany

Christian Dudel

Federal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden, Germany

Max Planck – University of Helsinki Center for Social Inequalities in Population Health, Rostock, Germany

Max Planck – University of Helsinki Center for Social Inequalities in Population Health, Helsinki, Finland

Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Ingrid S. Mehlum

Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

TNO – Netherlands organisation for applied scientific research, Leiden, the Netherlands

Swenne G. van den Heuvel

Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Suzan J. W. Robroek

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors are responsible for the conception of the study and contributed to the development of design. S.S screened all citation, reviewed full-text articles and extracted the data. A.d.W reviewed full-text selected articles. All authors verified the data extraction form. S.S synthesized the results and drafted the manuscript. All authors provided important intellectual contribution and guidance throughout the development of the manuscript. All authors contributed, edited and approved the final version of this manuscript. S.S and A.d.W acted as guarantors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svetlana Solovieva .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Solovieva, S., de Wind, A., Undem, K. et al. Socioeconomic differences in working life expectancy: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 24 , 735 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18229-y

Download citation

Received : 06 September 2023

Accepted : 28 February 2024

Published : 07 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18229-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Occupational class

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

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

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management

Mark C. Bolino,
Jacob M. Whitney,
Sarah E. Henry

Lessons from 69 articles published in top management and applied psychology journals.

Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology. The review highlights the numerous ways in which employees, teams, leaders, organizations, and societies were impacted and offers lessons for managing through future pandemics or other events of mass disruption.

The recent pandemic disrupted life as we know it, including for employees and organizations around the world. To understand such changes, we recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. These papers were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology.

Mark C. Bolino is the David L. Boren Professor and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research focuses on understanding how an organization can inspire its employees to go the extra mile without compromising their personal well-being.
JW Jacob M. Whitney is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at Kennesaw State University. His research interests include leadership, teams, and organizational citizenship behavior.
SH Sarah E. Henry is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace interpersonal dynamics, and international management.

Partner Center

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

CO2 Emissions in 2023

A new record high, but is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Photo Depicting Smoke From Chimneys Against Blue Sky Background Shutterstock 1662983170

About this report

CO 2 Emissions in 2023 provides a complete picture of energy-related emissions in 2023. The report finds that clean energy growth has limited the rise in global emissions, with 2023 registering an increase of 1.1%. Weather effects and continued Covid-19 reopening played a significant role in driving emissions in 2023. Advanced economies saw a record decrease in their emissions, which are now back to the level of fifty years ago. This release brings together the IEA’s latest analysis, combining the Agency’s estimates of CO 2 emissions from all energy sources and industrial processes.

This report is a companion piece to our Clean Energy Market Monitor , released in parallel.

Online table of contents

1.0 executive summary.

Read online

2.0 Emissions grew in 2023, but clean energy is limiting the growth

3.0 weather and continued covid-19 reopening effects played an important role in the emissions increase, 4.0 emissions in advanced economies fell to their level of 50 years ago, 5.0 energy-intensive economic growth, compounded by unfavourable weather, pushed emissions up in china and india, 6.0 coal demand in emerging market and developing economies was the biggest driver in global emissions growth, 7.0 the changing landscape of global emissions, previous editions, cite report.

IEA (2024), CO2 Emissions in 2023 , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023, Licence: CC BY 4.0

Share this report

Share on Twitter Twitter
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
Share on Email Email
Share on Print Print

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

IMAGES

Review Article vs Research Article: An in-depth exploration of the
Difference between Research and review article and how to search for
Difference between review article and research article .Ways to publish
Review Article vs Research Article
Research Paper vs. Review Paper: Differences Between Research Papers
What are some of the differences between a research article and a

VIDEO

Most Important rule of ARTICLE "Difference between 'A' & 'An'
How to choose a topic for your article
journal article research
difference between article 32 and article 226
how research article are published#article #shorts #subscribe #published
How to write an impactful research paper

COMMENTS

What's the difference between a research article and a review article
Review articles, sometimes called literature reviews or secondary sources, synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic. Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles. The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University ...
Review vs. research articles
Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed. Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These "limiters" can be useful when searching for research or review articles.
Research Articles vs Review Articles
Research articles follow a particular format. Look for: A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.; A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.Statistical analysis are included. A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.
Review Article vs Research Article
Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles: In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing ...
5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
Dec 11, 2017. There are different types of scholarly literature. Some of these require researchers to conduct an original study, whereas others can be based on previously published research. Understanding each of these types and also how they differ from one another can be rather confusing for researchers, especially early career researchers.
What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A
Research articles introduce novel insights, pushing the boundaries of understanding, while review articles offer a synthesis of existing findings, guiding future studies. Both are essential: one for its fresh empirical contributions, the other for its comprehensive overviews and analytical prowess.
What is the difference between a research paper and a review paper
The research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of this data. A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It does not report original research. Review articles generally summarize the existing literature on a topic in an attempt to explain the current state of understanding on the topic.
What is a review article?
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Research vs. Review Articles
Research Articles "A research article reports the results of original research, assesses its contribution to the body of knowledge in a given area, and is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal." - Pen & the Pad. The study design of research articles may vary, but in all cases some form of raw data have been collected and analyzed by ...
What is a Review Article?
Differences Between Original Research Articles and Review Articles. An original research article aims to: Provides background information (Intro.) on prior research, Reasons for present study, Issues to be investigated by the present study, Written for experts.Authors describe: Research methods & materials, Data acquisition/analysis tools, Results, Discussion of results.
Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles
Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include ...
Types of research article
A Registered Report consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article. This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full published study as an original ...
PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)
Know the difference between empirical and review articles. Empirical article An empirical (research) article reports methods and findings of an original research study conducted by the authors of the article. Literature Review article A review article or "literature review" discusses past research studies on a given topic.
Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles
Research vs Review Articles. It's often difficult to tell the difference between original research articles and review articles. Here are some explanations and tips that may help: "Review articles are often as lengthy or even longer that original research articles. What the authors of review articles are doing in analysing and evaluating current research and investigations related to a ...
How to write a review article?
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.
Research Article vs. Review Article
Fig 1: Image describing sections of research article-1 (Created by author) Unlike a research article that describes an original study, a review article gives an overview of a specific subject by ...
Review Article vs Research Article: An in-depth exploration of the
Go in-depth in the differences between a review article and a research article that discuss the same topic!Get the Scientific Research Paper Checklist: https...
What is the difference between Research Paper, Research Article, Review
The difference between research articles, review articles, newspaper articles, or magazine articles is the level of scientific knowledge it gives to the academic society. Usually research articles ...
Review articles: purpose, process, and structure
Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review-conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review, Psychology Bulletin, Medicinal Research Reviews).The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process.
Primary Research vs Review Article
Characteristics of a Primary Research Article. Goal is to present the result of original research that makes a new contribution to the body of knowledge; Sometimes referred to as an empirical research article; Typically organized into sections that include: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion/Conclusion, and References.
Difference Between a Research Article and a Review Article
The main difference between research and review articles is in their rights and ultimate goals. A research article is like the brainchild of the author, who conducts original and thorough research for collecting and analyzing data. ... In a final say, research and review articles are different types of documents in the academic world. Already ...
What's the difference between a research article and a review article
How To Develop A Review Article- The Hidden Agenda. A research article is a primary source. That is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors. However, review article is a secondary source and it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.
Types of Review Articles
Types of Literature Reviews: Critically Appraised Topic (CATs) : A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a short summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a clinical question. A CAT is like a shorter and less rigorous version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic.
Academic vs Non-Academic Articles
This article is considered academic because the language is very formal and genre-specific, there are two authors and their credentials are listed (these are found at the end of the article), and most importantly there is a list of references. Non-academic articles are written for the mass public. They are published quickly and can be written ...
Correction: The complexity of leadership in coproduction practices: a
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you ...
The minimal important difference of patient-reported outcome measures
The minimal important difference is a valuable metric in ascertaining the clinical relevance of a treatment, offering valuable guidance in patient management. There is a lack of available evidence concerning this metric in the context of outcomes related to female urinary incontinence, which might negatively impact clinical decision-making. To summarize the minimal important difference of ...
Socioeconomic differences in working life expectancy: a scoping review
In the last decade, interest in working life expectancy (WLE) and socioeconomic differences in WLE has grown considerably. However, a comprehensive overview of the socioeconomic differences in WLE is lacking. The aim of this review is to systematically map the research literature to improve the insight on differences in WLE and healthy WLE (HWLE) by education, occupational class and income ...
Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management
Summary. Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in ...
The Difference between Trump and Biden Is Mostly Cosmetic
The distinctions Joe Biden's camp seems set on drawing with Donald Trump are of the finest sort, and the presumptive Republican nominee appears content to play the incumbent president's game ...
CO2 Emissions in 2023
About this report. CO2 Emissions in 2023 provides a complete picture of energy-related emissions in 2023. The report finds that clean energy growth has limited the rise in global emissions, with 2023 registering an increase of 1.1%. Weather effects and continued Covid-19 reopening played a significant role in driving emissions in 2023.

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018 Views: 212532

Links & Files

Comments (0)

Review vs. Research Articles

Review Papers

Systematic Review Papers

Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed

NFS 4021 Contemporary Topics in Nutrition: Research Articles vs Review Articles

Agriculture Support Librarian

Research Articles and Review Articles Defined Review

Difference between Reviews and Research Articles

Research Article Break Down Review

Provide Website Feedback Accessibility Statement

Review Article vs Research Article

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Market Research Vs Marketing Research

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

Descriptive vs Experimental Research

Primary Vs Secondary Research

What Is The Difference Between A Scholarly Research Article And A Review Article?

Research Article vs. Review Article

What Is A Review Article?

How Are Review And Research Articles Different?

Original Research vs Synthesised Knowledge

Anatomy & Structure

Impact and Use in Academia

Wrapping Up

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

Biological Sciences

Defining Article Types

Review Articles

Differences between Research and Review Articles

Introduction

References/Works Cited

How to Write a Review Article

What is a Review Article?

Similarities and Differences to Original Research Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Social Science and Science Research Articles

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

Research versus Review Articles

PSYC 200 Lab in Experimental Methods (Atlanta)

Empirical vs. Review Articles

Psychology Librarian

Helpful Links and Guides

Science Research: Primary Sources and Original Research vs. Review Articles

Original Research vs. Review Articles. How can I tell the Difference?

Primary Vs. Secondary Vs. Tertiary Sources

How to write a review article?

Contents and format

Preparation of the review article

The research question

Finding Studies

Evaluation of the Quality of the Study

Formulating a Synthesis

Conclusions

Review articles: purpose, process, and structure

Cite this article

Purpose of review papers

JAMS’ review paper editorial initiative

Domain-based review papers

Theory-based review papers

Method-based review papers

Process and structure for review papers

Systematic literature review process

Structure of systematic review papers

Depth and rigor

Replicability

Helpful format

Author information

Corresponding author