advantage of journal articles for a literature review

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Benefits of conducting a literature review.

• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

While there might be many reasons for conducting a literature review, following are four key outcomes of doing the review.

Assessment of the current state of research on a topic . This is probably the most obvious value of the literature review. Once a researcher has determined an area to work with for a research project, a search of relevant information sources will help determine what is already known about the topic and how extensively the topic has already been researched.

Identification of the experts on a particular topic . One of the additional benefits derived from doing the literature review is that it will quickly reveal which researchers have written the most on a particular topic and are, therefore, probably the experts on the topic. Someone who has written twenty articles on a topic or on related topics is more than likely more knowledgeable than someone who has written a single article. This same writer will likely turn up as a reference in most of the other articles written on the same topic. From the number of articles written by the author and the number of times the writer has been cited by other authors, a researcher will be able to assume that the particular author is an expert in the area and, thus, a key resource for consultation in the current research to be undertaken.

Identification of key questions about a topic that need further research . In many cases a researcher may discover new angles that need further exploration by reviewing what has already been written on a topic. For example, research may suggest that listening to music while studying might lead to better retention of ideas, but the research might not have assessed whether a particular style of music is more beneficial than another. A researcher who is interested in pursuing this topic would then do well to follow up existing studies with a new study, based on previous research, that tries to identify which styles of music are most beneficial to retention.

Determination of methodologies used in past studies of the same or similar topics.  It is often useful to review the types of studies that previous researchers have launched as a means of determining what approaches might be of most benefit in further developing a topic. By the same token, a review of previously conducted studies might lend itself to researchers determining a new angle for approaching research.

Upon completion of the literature review, a researcher should have a solid foundation of knowledge in the area and a good feel for the direction any new research should take. Should any additional questions arise during the course of the research, the researcher will know which experts to consult in order to quickly clear up those questions.

• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

The advantage of literature reviews for evidence-based practice

Affiliation.

• 1 Executive Editor.
• PMID: 25631692
• DOI: 10.1177/1059840514564387

Publication types

• Introductory Journal Article
• Evidence-Based Practice*
• Review Literature as Topic*
• School Nursing*

Advantages and disadvantages of literature review

This comprehensive article explores some of the advantages and disadvantages of literature review in research. Reviewing relevant literature is a key area in research, and indeed, it is a research activity in itself. It helps researchers investigate a particular topic in detail. However, it has some limitations as well.

What is literature review?

In order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of literature review, it is important to understand what a literature review is and how it differs from other methods of research. According to Jones and Gratton (2009) a literature review essentially consists of critically reading, evaluating, and organising existing literature on a topic to assess the state of knowledge in the area. It is sometimes called critical review.

A literature review is a select analysis of existing research which is relevant to a researcher’s selected topic, showing how it relates to their investigation. It explains and justifies how their investigation may help answer some of the questions or gaps in the chosen area of study (University of Reading, 2022).

A literature review is a term used in the field of research to describe a systematic and methodical investigation of the relevant literature on a particular topic. In other words, it is an analysis of existing research on a topic in order to identify any relevant studies and draw conclusions about the topic.

A literature review is not the same as a bibliography or a database search. Rather than simply listing references to sources of information, a literature review involves critically evaluating and summarizing existing research on a topic. As such, it is a much more detailed and complex process than simply searching databases and websites, and it requires a lot of effort and skills.

Advantages of literature review

Information synthesis

A literature review is a very thorough and methodical exercise. It can be used to synthesize information and draw conclusions about a particular topic. Through a careful evaluation and critical summarization, researchers can draw a clear and comprehensive picture of the chosen topic.

Familiarity with the current knowledge

According to the University of Illinois (2022), literature reviews allow researchers to gain familiarity with the existing knowledge in their selected field, as well as the boundaries and limitations of that field.

Creation of new body of knowledge

One of the key advantages of literature review is that it creates new body of knowledge. Through careful evaluation and critical summarisation, researchers can create a new body of knowledge and enrich the field of study.

Answers to a range of questions

Literature reviews help researchers analyse the existing body of knowledge to determine the answers to a range of questions concerning a particular subject.

Disadvantages of literature review

Time consuming

As a literature review involves collecting and evaluating research and summarizing the findings, it requires a significant amount of time. To conduct a comprehensive review, researchers need to read many different articles and analyse a lot of data. This means that their review will take a long time to complete.

Lack of quality sources  

Researchers are expected to use a wide variety of sources of information to present a comprehensive review. However, it may sometimes be challenging for them to identify the quality sources because of the availability of huge numbers in their chosen field. It may also happen because of the lack of past empirical work, particularly if the selected topic is an unpopular one.

Descriptive writing

One of the major disadvantages of literature review is that instead of critical appreciation, some researchers end up developing reviews that are mostly descriptive. Their reviews are often more like summaries of the work of other writers and lack in criticality. It is worth noting that they must go beyond describing the literature.

Key features of literature review

Clear organisation

A literature review is typically a very critical and thorough process. Universities usually recommend students a particular structure to develop their reviews. Like all other academic writings, a review starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion. Between the beginning and the end, researchers present the main body of the review containing the critical discussion of sources.

No obvious bias

A key feature of a literature review is that it should be very unbiased and objective. However, it should be mentioned that researchers may sometimes be influenced by their own opinions of the world.

Proper citation

One of the key features of literature review is that it must be properly cited. Researchers should include all the sources that they have used for information. They must do citations and provide a reference list by the end in line with a recognized referencing system such as Harvard.

To conclude this article, it can be said that a literature review is a type of research that seeks to examine and summarise existing research on a particular topic. It is an essential part of a dissertation/thesis. However, it is not an easy thing to handle by an inexperienced person. It also requires a lot of time and patience.

Hope you like this ‘Advantages and disadvantages of literature review’. Please share this with others to support our research work.

Other useful articles:

How to evaluate website content

Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research

Advantages and disadvantages of simple random sampling

Last update: 08 May 2022

References:

Jones, I., & Gratton, C. (2009) Research Methods for Sports Shttps://www.howandwhat.net/new/evaluate-website-content/tudies, 2 nd edition, London: Routledge

University of Illinois (2022) Literature review, available at: https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/literature-review (accessed 08 May 2022)

University of Reading (2022) Literature reviews, available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/starting (accessed 07 May 2022)

Author: M Rahman

M Rahman writes extensively online and offline with an emphasis on business management, marketing, and tourism. He is a lecturer in Management and Marketing. He holds an MSc in Tourism & Hospitality from the University of Sunderland. Also, graduated from Leeds Metropolitan University with a BA in Business & Management Studies and completed a DTLLS (Diploma in Teaching in the Life-Long Learning Sector) from London South Bank University.

Related Posts

How to be a good team player, competitive advantage for tourist destinations, advantages and disadvantages of snowball sampling.

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Our Mission

Why Kids Should Nature Journal at All Grade Levels

A 2023 review makes a strong case that hands-on observation of natural phenomena has both academic and psychological benefits.

In 1831, a young Charles Darwin embarked on a five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle , tracking along the coast of South America and making stops at the Cape Verde Islands, the rainforests of Salvador de Bahia, and the Galápagos Islands. Armed with his notebook and pencil, Darwin—having just earned a bachelor’s degree studying botany at Cambridge—was eager to begin documenting the exotic wildlife of the land.

“Most people pay little attention to what’s going on around them, and do not seek to see further ahead,” writes University of Oporto biologist João Paulo Cabral . “Darwin’s curiosity, on the other hand, had no limits.”

What started as a convenient method for recording his observations—his field notes and sketches span over 300 specimens in 15 notebooks—soon became the catalyst for charting the minutiae of species diversity, as Darwin meticulously unearthed patterns that wouldn’t be obvious to the casual observer. The unique beak adaptations of the Galápagos finches, for example, paved the way for a famously era-defining breakthrough.

Today’s scientists-in-training, by contrast, “mostly learn about photosynthesis by rote” and rarely touch actual flowers in the process, according to a 2017 study . Studying the shape and function of a stamen, petal, or pistil introduces young students to textbook concepts of living systems, taxonomies, and classifications, but removed from nature, kids experience an approach to scientific learning that may curtail a sense of wonder and curiosity.

Encouraging students to wander with notebooks and pencils, paying attention to “the tiniest flowers in the grass and other bits of nature that usually go overlooked,” on the other hand, can slow them down, calm their nerves, and engage them in rigorous, purposeful academic work. “Nature journaling is an effective way for life science teachers to get adolescents outside and incorporate nature studies into their lessons,” explains high school biology and environmental science teacher Jennifer Bollich in a 2023 review , noting that it connects them to “the native plants and animals that share their spaces” and has “positive educational, environmental, and psychological effects on adolescents,” including a reduction in stress and anxiety.

Building Scientific and Cognitive Skills

Nature journaling—sketching and annotating observations about natural phenomena—also builds crucial cognitive and processing skills like close observation, technical illustration, attention to detail, critical thinking, and the ability to organize and categorize information. “These connections reach across the disciplines to make learning more cohesive and increase overall brain development to improve learning in multiple areas of the curriculum,” explains Bollich.

When sketching and annotating in a journal, students process information in multiple ways, leading to deeper comprehension and more durable memories. 

In a 2018 study , for example, researchers concluded that drawing is “an effective and reliable encoding strategy, far superior to writing”—largely because it forces students to actively process information across several modalities: semantic, kinesthetic, and visual. Ask a student to write down the parts of a flower—petal, pistil, and stem, for example—and the information will be quickly forgotten. Drawing a flower you’ve found and labeling parts and asking questions, however, encodes the material more deeply, resulting in richer, longer-lasting memories. In the study, the researchers found that students who visually represented science concepts like isotope and spore were nearly twice as likely to recall the information than students who simply wrote down the definitions.

To get students moving from the general to the more specific, high school English teacher Tanner Jones asks students to jot down 20 adjectives or phrases to describe the natural object they’re focused on. “At first, many offer broad observations like ‘The leaf is yellow,’” Tanner explains. “But as they spend more time and run out of obvious things to say, the observations become more nuanced and even beautiful: ‘The leaf is a heart with veins receding in size from the central stem.’” With time, students sharpen their observation and analytical skills, opening the door to complex inquiries such as, “Why do leaves turn yellow in the autumn?” and “What happens to this leaf after it snows?”

Connecting to Nature and Natural Rhythms

“Despite evidence for the benefits of the outdoors, the amount of time children are spending outdoors is in rapid decline,” researchers observe in a 2022 study , noting that children today spend less than half as much time outdoors as their parents did. Teenagers now spend an average of eight and a half hours each day watching television, playing video games, and using social media—activities that take a toll on their mental and emotional well-being, according to a Yale study published last year.

Schools, meanwhile, are slowly cutting off outdoor learning opportunities, as “insurance restrictions and the reduction of recess lengths coalesce to keep kids indoors,” Bollich writes.

The upshot is that students are disconnected from nature and often feel apathetic about their local ecosystems. Nature journaling can be an effective antidote, helping young people “become familiar with the plants and animals that live near them, with the potential to increase their curiosity about these species,” suggests Bollich.

For elementary school teacher Sarah Keel, nature journals connect her students to the natural world. “The use of nature journals can be empowering for students as it helps increase their awareness of nature, gives them a sense of their place in their world, and encourages future conservation behaviors,” she writes . During a journaling activity, Keel asks students to find an outdoor “sit spot”—in a school garden, playground, home backyard, city park—and spend 20 to 30 minutes making observations. Prompts such as “What do you see, hear, or smell?” and “Did you observe any plant and animal interactions?” can help students get started.

A Breath of Fresh Air

“Students who learn outdoors perform better on standardized tests, are more engaged and motivated to learn, and are more focused on their work even when back indoors,” writes James Fester, a former social studies teacher and current teacher trainer. “Exposure to the natural world is associated with lower levels of stress, lower anxiety, and better overall social and emotional health.” 

Researchers have long observed that learning in natural settings lends itself to a form of creative, student-directed play that is often absent in classrooms. A 2020 meta-analysis concluded that “nature play had positive impacts on developmental outcomes for children, particularly in the cognitive domains of imagination, creativity, and dramatic play.” Studying a neatly rendered diagram of a tree or bird in a textbook tends to produce a detached appreciation that’s at odds with how Darwin approached scientific inquiry. Not only are students more likely to be “smiling and laughing” in natural spaces, but they’re also more imaginative and more willing to collaborate with their peers, the researchers found.

How can you get started? Your first foray into nature journaling doesn’t have to be a major expedition, and you don’t have to be a wildlife expert to lead a successful trip, says fifth-grade science teacher Pete Barnes.

Nearby trees, rocks, and bushes are teeming with life, and kids will be quick to notice. “Students marvel at the smallest of natural encounters—spotting a frog, running alongside a butterfly, or discovering a beetle beneath a log,” Barnes writes . Give them a chance, and they’ll take to it quickly, at virtually all grade levels.

Service placement in fog–cloud computing environments: a comprehensive literature review

• Published: 02 May 2024

Cite this article

• Fatemeh Sarkohaki 1 &
• Mohsen Sharifi 1  

Explore all metrics

With the rapid expansion of the Internet of Things and the surge in the volume of data exchanged in it, cloud computing became more significant. To face the challenges of the cloud, the idea of fog computing was formed. The heterogeneity of nodes, distribution, and limitation of their resources in fog computing in turn led to the formation of the service placement problem. In service placement, we are looking for the mapping of the requested services to the available nodes so that a set of Quality-of-Service objectives are satisfied. Since the problem is NP-hard, various methods have been proposed to solve it, each of which has its advantages and shortcomings. In this survey paper, while reviewing the most prominent state-of-the-art service placement methods by presenting a taxonomy based on their optimization strategy, the advantages, disadvantages, and applications of each category of methods are discussed. Consequently, recommendations for future works are presented.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

This manuscript is a review article, and no data or materials have been used.

Mobile Edge Computing.

Qays MO et al (2023) Key communication technologies, applications, protocols and future guides for IoT-assisted smart grid systems: a review. Energy Rep 9:2440–2452

Article   Google Scholar  

Moudgil V et al (2023) Integration of IoT in building energy infrastructure: a critical review on challenges and solutions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 174:113121

Sharma VK et al (2022) An optimization-based machine learning technique for smart home security using 5G. Comput Electr Eng 104:108434

Philip SJ, Luu TJ, Carte T (2023) There’s No place like home: Understanding users’ intentions toward securing internet-of-things (IoT) smart home networks. Comput Hum Behav 139:107551

Khanpara P et al (2023) A context-aware internet of things-driven security scheme for smart homes. Secur Priv 6(1):e269

Zaminkar M, Sarkohaki F, Fotohi R (2021) A method based on encryption and node rating for securing the RPL protocol communications in the IoT ecosystem. Int J Commun Syst 34(3):e4693

Salehi-Amiri A et al (2022) Designing an effective two-stage, sustainable, and IoT based waste management system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 157:112031

Salman MY, Hasar H (2023) Review on environmental aspects in smart city concept: water, waste, air pollution and transportation smart applications using IoT techniques. Sustain Cities Soc 94:104567

Hashemi-Amiri O et al (2023) An allocation-routing optimization model for integrated solid waste management. Exp Syst Appl 227:120364

Sridhar K et al (2023) A modular IOT sensing platform using hybrid learning ability for air quality prediction. Meas Sens 25:100609

Barthwal A (2023) A Markov chain–based IoT system for monitoring and analysis of urban air quality. Environ Monit Assess 195(1):235

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Kumar M et al (2023) Quality assessment and monitoring of river water using IoT infrastructure. IEEE Internet Things J. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3238123

Kumar P et al (2023) A blockchain-orchestrated deep learning approach for secure data transmission in IoT-enabled healthcare system. J Parallel Distrib Comput 172:69–83

Krishnamoorthy S, Dua A, Gupta S (2023) Role of emerging technologies in future IoT-driven healthcare 4.0 technologies: a survey, current challenges and future directions. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 14(1):361–407

Rejeb A et al (2023) The Internet of Things (IoT) in healthcare: Taking stock and moving forward. Internet of Things 22:100721

Ahmed ST, Kumar V, Kim J (2023) AITel: eHealth augmented intelligence based telemedicine resource recommendation framework for iot devices in smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3243784

Cheikhrouhou O et al (2023) A lightweight blockchain and fog-enabled secure remote patient monitoring system. Internet of Things 22:100691

Khan AA et al (2023) The collaborative role of blockchain, artificial intelligence, and industrial internet of things in digitalization of small and medium-size enterprises. Sci Rep 13(1):1656

Rahman A et al (2023) Towards a blockchain-SDN-based secure architecture for cloud computing in smart industrial IoT. Digit Commun Netw 9(2):411–421

Huang J et al (2023) AoI-aware energy control and computation offloading for industrial IoT. Futur Gener Comput Syst 139:29–37

Karakaya A, Ulu A, Akleylek S (2022) GOALALERT: a novel real-time technical team alert approach using machine learning on an IoT-based system in sports. Microprocess Microsyst 93:104606

Liu L (2021) Construction of youth public sports service system based on embedded system and wireless IoT. Microprocess Microsyst 83:103984

Prajapati D et al (2022) Blockchain and IoT embedded sustainable virtual closed-loop supply chain in E-commerce towards the circular economy. Comput Ind Eng 172:108530

Kulkarni PM et al (2022) IOT data fusion framework for e-commerce. Meas Sens 24:100507

Boursianis AD et al (2022) Internet of things (IoT) and agricultural unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in smart farming: a comprehensive review. Internet of Things 18:100187

Zeng H et al (2023) An IoT and Blockchain-based approach for the smart water management system in agriculture. Expert Syst 40(4):e12892

McCaig M, Rezania D, Dara R (2023) Framing the response to IoT in agriculture: a discourse analysis. Agric Syst 204:103557

Krishankumar R, Ecer F (2023) Selection of IoT service provider for sustainable transport using q-rung orthopair fuzzy CRADIS and unknown weights. Appl Soft Comput 132:109870

Jiang H et al (2023) RETRACTED ARTICLE: creating a ubiquitous learning environment using IoT in transportation. Soft Comput 27(2):1213–1213

Wu X et al (2023) A digital decision approach for scheduling process planning of shared bikes under internet of things environment. Appl Soft Comput 133:109934

Kuo Y-H, Leung JM, Yan Y (2023) Public transport for smart cities: recent innovations and future challenges. Eur J Oper Res 306(3):1001–1026

Quy VK et al (2022) Smart healthcare IoT applications based on fog computing: architecture, applications and challenges. Complex Intell Syst 8(5):3805–3815

Peixoto M et al (2023) FogJam: a fog service for detecting traffic congestion in a continuous data stream VANET. Ad Hoc Netw 140:103046

Tavousi F, Azizi S, Ghaderzadeh A (2022) A fuzzy approach for optimal placement of IoT applications in fog–cloud computing. Clust Comput 25:1–18

Sabuj SR et al (2022) Delay optimization in mobile edge computing: cognitive UAV-assisted eMBB and mMTC services. IEEE Trans Cognit Commun Netw 8(2):1019–1033

Kang H et al (2023) Cooperative UAV resource allocation and task offloading in hierarchical aerial computing systems: a MAPPO based approach. IEEE Internet Things J. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3240173

He Y et al (2022) Trajectory optimization and channel allocation for delay sensitive secure transmission in UAV-relayed VANETs. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 71(4):4512–4517

Sadeghi-Niaraki A (2023) Internet of thing (IoT) review of review: bibliometric overview since its foundation. Futur Gener Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2023.01.016

Rahimikhanghah A et al (2022) Resource scheduling methods in cloud and fog computing environments: a systematic literature review. Clust Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-021-03467-1

Bonomi, F., et al. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things . in Proceedings of the first edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing . 2012.

Kumar D, Annam S (2022) Fog Computing Applications with Decentralized Computing Infrastructure—Systematic Review . in PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING: ICMC 2021 . 2022. Springer.

Songhorabadi M et al (2023) Fog computing approaches in IoT-enabled smart cities. J Netw Comput Appl 211:103557

Sethi V, Pal S (2023) FedDOVe: a federated deep Q-learning-based offloading for vehicular fog computing. Futur Gener Comput Syst 141:96–105

Hazra A et al (2023) Fog computing for next-generation internet of things: fundamental, state-of-the-art and research challenges. Comput Sci Rev 48:100549

Singh S, Vidyarthi D (2023) An integrated approach of ml-metaheuristics for secure service placement in fog–cloud ecosystem. Internet of Things 22:100817

Singh S, Vidyarthi D (2022) QoS-Aware Service Placement for Fog Integrated Cloud Using Modified Neuro-Fuzzy Approach . in Soft Computing and Its Engineering Applications: 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, icSoftComp 2022, Changa, Anand, India, December 9–10, 2022, Proceedings . 2023. Springer.

Teng M et al. (2020) Priority based service placement strategy in heterogeneous mobile edge computing . in Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing: 20th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, ICA3PP 2020, New York City, NY, USA, October 2–4, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 20 . 2020. Springer.

Zare M, Sola YE, Hasanpour H (2023) Towards distributed and autonomous IoT service placement in fog computing using asynchronous advantage actor-critic algorithm. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci 35(1):368–381

Google Scholar  

Das R, Inuwa MM (2023) A review on fog computing: issues, characteristics, challenges, and potential applications. Telematics and Informatics Reports, p. 100049.

Salaht FA, Desprez F, Lebre A (2020) An overview of service placement problem in fog and edge computing. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 53(3):1–35

Matoušek J, Gärtner B (2007) Understanding and using linear programming. Springer, Berlin

Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (2013) Nonlinear programming. Traces and emergence of nonlinear programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 247–258

Vielma JP (2015) Mixed integer linear programming formulation techniques. SIAM Rev 57(1):3–57

Velasquez K et al (2017) Service placement for latency reduction in the internet of things. Ann Telecommun 72:105–115

Tinini RI et al. (2017) Optimal placement of virtualized BBU processing in hybrid cloud-fog RAN over TWDM-PON . in GLOBECOM 2017–2017 IEEE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE . IEEE.

Gong Y (2020) Optimal edge server and service placement in mobile edge computing . in 2020 IEEE 9th JOINT INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE (ITAIC) . IEEE.

Kim W-S, Chung S-H (2018) User-participatory fog computing architecture and its management schemes for improving feasibility. IEEE Access 6:20262–20278

Yala L, Frangoudis PA, Ksentini A (2018) Latency and availability driven VNF placement in a MEC-NFV environment . in 2018 IEEE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE (GLOBECOM) . IEEE.

Daneshfar N et al. (2018) Service allocation in a mobile fog infrastructure under availability and qos constraints . in 2018 IEEE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE (GLOBECOM) . IEEE.

Donassolo B, et al. (2019) Fog based framework for IoT service provisioning . in 2019 16th IEEE ANNUAL CONSUMER COMMUNICATIONS & NETWORKING CONFERENCE (CCNC) . IEEE.

Chen M et al (2013) Markov approximation for combinatorial network optimization. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 59(10):6301–6327

Yu R, Xue G, Zhang X (2018) Application provisioning in fog computing-enabled internet-of-things: A network perspective . in IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS . IEEE.

Ouyang T, Zhou Z, Chen X (2018) Follow me at the edge: mobility-aware dynamic service placement for mobile edge computing. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 36(10):2333–2345

Ning Z et al (2020) Distributed and dynamic service placement in pervasive edge computing networks. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 32(6):1277–1292

Jokar E, Mosleh M, Kheyrandish M (2022) Discovering community structure in social networks based on the synergy of label propagation and simulated annealing. Multimed Tools Appl 81(15):21449–21470

Mirjalili S, Mirjalili S (2019) Genetic algorithm. Evolutionary Algorithms and Neural Networks: Theory and Applications, p. 43–55.

Wang D, Tan D, Liu L (2018) Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview. Soft Comput 22:387–408

Blum C (2005) Ant colony optimization: Introduction and recent trends. Phys Life Rev 2(4):353–373

Jokar E, Mosleh M, Kheyrandish M (2022) GWBM: an algorithm based on grey wolf optimization and balanced modularity for community discovery in social networks. J Supercomput 78(5):7354–7377

Hoseiny F et al. (2021) PGA: a priority-aware genetic algorithm for task scheduling in heterogeneous fog–cloud computing . in IEEE INFOCOM 2021-IEEE CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS WORKSHOPS (INFOCOM WKSHPS) . IEEE.

Sarrafzade N, Entezari-Maleki R, Sousa L (2022) A genetic-based approach for service placement in fog computing. J Supercomput 78(8):10854–10875

Maia AM et al. (2020) Dynamic service placement and load distribution in edge computing . in 2020 16TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NETWORK AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT (CNSM) . IEEE.

Khosroabadi F, Fotouhi-Ghazvini F, Fotouhi H (2021) Scatter: service placement in real-time fog-assisted iot networks. J Sens Actuator Netw 10(2):26

Eyckerman R et al (2020) Requirements for distributed task placement in the fog. Internet of Things 12:100237

Souza VB et al (2018) Towards a proper service placement in combined Fog-to-Cloud (F2C) architectures. Futur Gener Comput Syst 87:1–15

Apat HK et al. (2021) A Nature-Inspired-Based Multi-objective Service Placement in Fog Computing Environment , in Intelligent Systems: Proceedings of ICMIB 2020 . Springer. p. 293–304.

Ma R (2021) Edge server placement for service offloading in internet of things. Secur Commun Netw 2021:1–16

Hu Y et al (2022) An energy-aware service placement strategy using hybrid meta-heuristic algorithm in iot environments. Clust Comput 26:1–7

Natesha B, Guddeti RMR (2021) Adopting elitism-based Genetic Algorithm for minimizing multi-objective problems of IoT service placement in fog computing environment. J Netw Comput Appl 178:102972

Natesha B, Guddeti RMR (2022) Meta-heuristic based hybrid service placement strategies for two-level fog computing architecture. J Netw Syst Manage 30(3):47

Guerrero C, Lera I, Juiz C (2019) Evaluation and efficiency comparison of evolutionary algorithms for service placement optimization in fog architectures. Futur Gener Comput Syst 97:131–144

Shahryari O-K et al (2021) Energy and task completion time trade-off for task offloading in fog-enabled IoT networks. Pervasive Mob Comput 74:101395

Apat HK et al (2024) A hybrid meta-heuristic algorithm for multi-objective IoT service placement in fog computing environments. Decis Anal J 10:100379

Azizi S et al (2024) DCSP: a delay and cost-aware service placement and load distribution algorithm for IoT-based fog networks. Comput Commun 215:9–20

Jordan MI, Mitchell TM (2015) Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 349(6245):255–260

Jokar E, Mosleh M, Kheyrandish M (2022) Overlapping community detection in complex networks using fuzzy theory, balanced link density, and label propagation. Expert Syst 39(5):e12921

Quadri C, Ceselli A, Rossi GP (2023) Multi-user edge service orchestration based on deep reinforcement learning. Comput Commun 203:30–47

Hao H et al (2023) Computing offloading with fairness guarantee: a deep reinforcement learning method. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2023.3255229

Liu T et al (2022) Deep reinforcement learning based approach for online service placement and computation resource allocation in edge computing. IEEE Trans Mob Comput. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2022.3148254

Zhan W et al (2020) Deep-reinforcement-learning-based offloading scheduling for vehicular edge computing. IEEE Internet Things J 7(6):5449–5465

Talpur A, Gurusamy M (2021) DRLD-SP: a deep-reinforcement-learning-based dynamic service placement in edge-enabled internet of vehicles. IEEE Internet Things J 9(8):6239–6251

Lv P et al (2022) Edge computing task offloading for environmental perception of autonomous vehicles in 6G networks. IEEE Trans Netw Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2022.3211193

Ibn-Khedher H et al (2022) Next-generation edge computing assisted autonomous driving based artificial intelligence algorithms. IEEE Access 10:53987–54001

Zhou Z et al (2019) Reliable task offloading for vehicular fog computing under information asymmetry and information uncertainty. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 68(9):8322–8335

Nsouli A, El-Hajj W, Mourad A (2023) Reinforcement learning based scheme for on-demand vehicular fog formation. Veh Commun 40:100571

Wei D et al (2022) Privacy-aware multiagent deep reinforcement learning for task offloading in VANET. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3202196

Sharma A, Thangaraj V (2024) Intelligent service placement algorithm based on DDQN and prioritized experience replay in IoT-Fog computing environment. Internet of Things 25:101112

Tian Z et al (2019) Evaluating reputation management schemes of internet of vehicles based on evolutionary game theory. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 68(6):5971–5980

Sun Z et al (2023) BARGAIN-MATCH: a game theoretical approach for resource allocation and task offloading in vehicular edge computing networks. IEEE Trans Mob Comput. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2023.3239339

Chen Y et al (2022) Qoe-aware decentralized task offloading and resource allocation for end-edge-cloud systems: a game-theoretical approach. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 23(1):769–784

Kayal P, Liebeherr J (2019) Distributed service placement in fog computing: An iterative combinatorial auction approach . in 2019 IEEE 39th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEMS (ICDCS) . IEEE.

Sharma A, Thangaraj V (2022) DMAP: a decentralized matching game theory based optimized internet of things application placement in fog computing environment. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 34(23):e7189

Shi D et al (2020) Mean field game guided deep reinforcement learning for task placement in cooperative multiaccess edge computing. IEEE Internet Things J 7(10):9330–9340

Aloqaily MB, Kantarci, Mouftah HT (2017) Fairness-aware game theoretic approach for service management in vehicular clouds . in 2017 IEEE 86th VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE (VTC-Fall) . IEEE.

Zafari F et al (2020) Let’s share: a game-theoretic framework for resource sharing in mobile edge clouds. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manage 18(2):2107–2122

Xiao Z et al (2019) Vehicular task offloading via heat-aware MEC cooperation using game-theoretic method. IEEE Internet Things J 7(3):2038–2052

Shabir B et al (2022) On collective intellect for task offloading in vehicular fog paradigm. IEEE Access 10:101445–101457

Krogh A (2008) What are artificial neural networks? Nat Biotechnol 26(2):195–197

Wu Z et al (2020) A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 32(1):4–24

Li Y, Liang S, Jiang Y (2023) Path reliability-based graph attention networks. Neural Netw 159:153–160

Veličković P (2023) Everything is connected: Graph neural networks. Curr Opin Struct Biol 79:102538

Zhong X and He Y (2021) A Cybertwin-Driven Task Offloading Scheme Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning and Graph Attention Networks . in 2021 13th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING (WCSP) . IEEE.

Wu T et al. (2021) A Scalable Computation Offloading Scheme for MEC Based on Graph Neural Networks . in 2021 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps) . IEEE.

Eyckerman R et al. (2022) Application placement in fog environments using multi-objective reinforcement learning with maximum reward formulation . in NOMS 2022–2022 IEEE/IFIP network operations and management symposium . IEEE.

Zhang J et al. (2022) Fine-grained service offloading in B5G/6G collaborative edge computing based on graph neural networks . in ICC 2022-IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATIONS . IEEE.

He Y et al (2022) A DDPG hybrid of graph attention network and action branching for multi-scale end-edge-cloud vehicular orchestrated task offloading. IEEE Wirel Commun. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWC.019.2100718

Tang Z et al. (2020) Dependent task offloading for multiple jobs in edge computing . in 2020 29th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS (ICCCN) . IEEE.

Sun Z, Mo Y, Yu C (2021) Graph reinforcement learning based task offloading for multi-access edge computing. IEEE Internet Things J 10(4):3138–3150

Liu B (2024) Hybrid fuzzy neural network for joint task offloading in the internet of vehicles. J Grid Comput 22(1):10

Tong S et al (2022) Joint task offloading and resource allocation for fog-based intelligent transportation systems: a uav-enabled multi-hop collaboration paradigm. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3163804

Sarkar I et al (2021) Dynamic task placement for deadline-aware IoT applications in federated fog networks. IEEE Internet Things J 9(2):1469–1478

Ayoubi M, Ramezanpour M, Khorsand R (2021) An autonomous IoT service placement methodology in fog computing. Softw Pract Exp 51(5):1097–1120

Cao T et al (2024) Walking on two legs: joint service placement and computation configuration for provisioning containerized services at edges. Comput Netw 239:110144

Download references

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Computer Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Fatemeh Sarkohaki & Mohsen Sharifi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors in all stages of work including conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing original draft, designing figures and tables, writing review, and editing have contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Sharifi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

Hereby, We Fatemeh Sarkohaki and Mohsen Sharifi consciously assure that for the manuscript “Service Placement in Fog–cloud Computing Environments: A Comprehensive Literature Review” the following is fulfilled: 1) This material is the original work of the authors, which has not been previously published elsewhere. 2) The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 3) The paper reflects the authors’ own research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner. 4) The paper properly credits the meaningful contributions of co-authors and co-researchers. 5) All sources used are properly disclosed (correct citation). 6) All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantial work leading to the paper and will take public responsibility for its content.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sarkohaki, F., Sharifi, M. Service placement in fog–cloud computing environments: a comprehensive literature review. J Supercomput (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-024-06151-4

Download citation

Accepted : 14 April 2024

Published : 02 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-024-06151-4

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

• Internet of things
• Cloud computing
• Fog computing
• Service placement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research