what are the differences between literature review and journal review

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Reviewing Research: Literature Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews
• Differentiating the Three Review Types

Reviewing Research: Literature Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews: Differentiating the Three Review Types

• Framework, Protocol, and Writing Steps
• Working with Keywords/Subject Headings
• Citing Research

The Differences in the Review Types

Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. H ealth Information & Libraries Journal , 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x   The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.

• What Type of Review is Right for you (Cornell University)

Literature Reviews

Literature Review: it is a product and a process.

As a product , it is a carefully written examination, interpretation, evaluation, and synthesis of the published literature related to your topic. It focuses on what is known about your topic and what methodologies, models, theories, and concepts have been applied to it by others.

The process is what is involved in conducting a review of the literature.

• It is ongoing
• It is iterative (repetitive)
• It involves searching for and finding relevant literature.
• It includes keeping track of your references and preparing and formatting them for the bibliography of your thesis

• Literature Reviews (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are a " preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature . Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)." Grant and Booth (2009).

Scoping reviews are not mapping reviews: Scoping reviews are more topic based and mapping reviews are more question based.

• examining emerging evidence when specific questions are unclear - clarify definitions and conceptual boundaries
• identify and map the available evidence
• a scoping review is done prior to a systematic review
• to summarize and disseminate research findings in the research literature
• identify gaps with the intention of resolution by future publications

• Scoping review timeframe and limitations (Touro College of Pharmacy

Systematic Reviews

Many evidence-based disciplines use ‘systematic reviews," this type of review is a specific methodology that aims to comprehensively identify all relevant studies on a specific topic, and to select appropriate studies based on explicit criteria . ( https://cebma.org/faq/what-is-a-systematic-review/ )

• clearly defined search criteria
• an explicit reproducible methodology
• a systematic search of the literature with the defined criteria met
• assesses validity of the findings - no risk of bias
• a comprehensive report on the findings, apparent transparency in the results

• Better evidence for a better world Browsable collection of systematic reviews
• Systematic Reviews in the Health Sciences by Molly Maloney Last Updated May 7, 2024 585 views this year
• Next: Framework, Protocol, and Writing Steps >>

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters and Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing and Appraising Results
• Further Resources

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

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 17, 2024 2:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

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

Types of literature reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the difference between reviews?

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

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

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

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

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

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

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

Books on Literature Reviews

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

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

How to Write a Literature Review

• What is a literature review

How is a literature review different from a research paper?

• What should I do before starting my literature review?
• What type of literature review should I write and how should I organize it?
• What should I be aware of while writing the literature review?
• For more information on Literature Reviews
• More Research Help

The purpose of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument. The literature review is one part of a research paper. In a research paper, you use the literature review as a foundation and as support for the new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and analyze the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

• << Previous: What is a literature review
• Next: What should I do before starting my literature review? >>
• Last Updated: Feb 26, 2021 11:35 AM
• URL: https://midway.libguides.com/LiteratureReview

RESEARCH HELP

• Research Guides
• Databases A-Z
• Journal Search
• Citation Help

LIBRARY SERVICES

• Accessibility
• Interlibrary Loan
• Study Rooms

INSTRUCTION SUPPORT

• Course Reserves
• Library Instruction
• Little Memorial Library
• 512 East Stephens Street
• 859.846.5316
• [email protected]

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Systematic, Scoping, and Other Literature Reviews: Overview

• Project Planning

What Is a Systematic Review?

Regular literature reviews are simply summaries of the literature on a particular topic. A systematic review, however, is a comprehensive literature review conducted to answer a specific research question. Authors of a systematic review aim to find, code, appraise, and synthesize all of the previous research on their question in an unbiased and well-documented manner. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) outline the minimum amount of information that needs to be reported at the conclusion of a systematic review project. 

Other types of what are known as "evidence syntheses," such as scoping, rapid, and integrative reviews, have varying methodologies. While systematic reviews originated with and continue to be a popular publication type in medicine and other health sciences fields, more and more researchers in other disciplines are choosing to conduct evidence syntheses. 

This guide will walk you through the major steps of a systematic review and point you to key resources including Covidence, a systematic review project management tool. For help with systematic reviews and other major literature review projects, please send us an email at  [email protected] .

Getting Help with Reviews

Organization such as the Institute of Medicine recommend that you consult a librarian when conducting a systematic review. Librarians at the University of Nevada, Reno can help you:

• Understand best practices for conducting systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses in your discipline
• Choose and formulate a research question
• Decide which review type (e.g., systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.) is the best fit for your project
• Determine what to include and where to register a systematic review protocol
• Select search terms and develop a search strategy
• Identify databases and platforms to search
• Find the full text of articles and other sources
• Become familiar with free citation management (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)
• Get access to you and help using Covidence, a systematic review project management tool

Doing a Systematic Review

• Plan - This is the project planning stage. You and your team will need to develop a good research question, determine the type of review you will conduct (systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.), and establish the inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., you're only going to look at studies that use a certain methodology). All of this information needs to be included in your protocol. You'll also need to ensure that the project is viable - has someone already done a systematic review on this topic? Do some searches and check the various protocol registries to find out. 
• Identify - Next, a comprehensive search of the literature is undertaken to ensure all studies that meet the predetermined criteria are identified. Each research question is different, so the number and types of databases you'll search - as well as other online publication venues - will vary. Some standards and guidelines specify that certain databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE) should be searched regardless. Your subject librarian can help you select appropriate databases to search and develop search strings for each of those databases.  
• Evaluate - In this step, retrieved articles are screened and sorted using the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias for each included study is also assessed around this time. It's best if you import search results into a citation management tool (see below) to clean up the citations and remove any duplicates. You can then use a tool like Rayyan (see below) to screen the results. You should begin by screening titles and abstracts only, and then you'll examine the full text of any remaining articles. Each study should be reviewed by a minimum of two people on the project team. 
• Collect - Each included study is coded and the quantitative or qualitative data contained in these studies is then synthesized. You'll have to either find or develop a coding strategy or form that meets your needs. 
• Explain - The synthesized results are articulated and contextualized. What do the results mean? How have they answered your research question?
• Summarize - The final report provides a complete description of the methods and results in a clear, transparent fashion. 

Adapted from

Types of reviews, systematic review.

These types of studies employ a systematic method to analyze and synthesize the results of numerous studies. "Systematic" in this case means following a strict set of steps - as outlined by entities like PRISMA and the Institute of Medicine - so as to make the review more reproducible and less biased. Consistent, thorough documentation is also key. Reviews of this type are not meant to be conducted by an individual but rather a (small) team of researchers. Systematic reviews are widely used in the health sciences, often to find a generalized conclusion from multiple evidence-based studies. 

Meta-Analysis

A systematic method that uses statistics to analyze the data from numerous studies. The researchers combine the data from studies with similar data types and analyze them as a single, expanded dataset. Meta-analyses are a type of systematic review.

Scoping Review

A scoping review employs the systematic review methodology to explore a broader topic or question rather than a specific and answerable one, as is generally the case with a systematic review. Authors of these types of reviews seek to collect and categorize the existing literature so as to identify any gaps.

Rapid Review

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews conducted under a time constraint. Researchers make use of workarounds to complete the review quickly (e.g., only looking at English-language publications), which can lead to a less thorough and more biased review. 

Narrative Review

A traditional literature review that summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous original research articles. The purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely and do not follow a set protocol. Most literature reviews are narrative reviews. 

Umbrella Review

Umbrella reviews are, essentially, systematic reviews of systematic reviews. These compile evidence from multiple review studies into one usable document. 

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal , vol. 26, no. 2, 2009, pp. 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x .

• Next: Project Planning >>

• Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

• 3 minute read
• 48.3K views

Table of Contents

As a researcher, you may be required to conduct a literature review. But what kind of review do you need to complete? Is it a systematic literature review or a standard literature review? In this article, we’ll outline the purpose of a systematic literature review, the difference between literature review and systematic review, and other important aspects of systematic literature reviews.

What is a Systematic Literature Review?

The purpose of systematic literature reviews is simple. Essentially, it is to provide a high-level of a particular research question. This question, in and of itself, is highly focused to match the review of the literature related to the topic at hand. For example, a focused question related to medical or clinical outcomes.

The components of a systematic literature review are quite different from the standard literature review research theses that most of us are used to (more on this below). And because of the specificity of the research question, typically a systematic literature review involves more than one primary author. There’s more work related to a systematic literature review, so it makes sense to divide the work among two or three (or even more) researchers.

Your systematic literature review will follow very clear and defined protocols that are decided on prior to any review. This involves extensive planning, and a deliberately designed search strategy that is in tune with the specific research question. Every aspect of a systematic literature review, including the research protocols, which databases are used, and dates of each search, must be transparent so that other researchers can be assured that the systematic literature review is comprehensive and focused.

Most systematic literature reviews originated in the world of medicine science. Now, they also include any evidence-based research questions. In addition to the focus and transparency of these types of reviews, additional aspects of a quality systematic literature review includes:

• Clear and concise review and summary
• Comprehensive coverage of the topic
• Accessibility and equality of the research reviewed

Systematic Review vs Literature Review

The difference between literature review and systematic review comes back to the initial research question. Whereas the systematic review is very specific and focused, the standard literature review is much more general. The components of a literature review, for example, are similar to any other research paper. That is, it includes an introduction, description of the methods used, a discussion and conclusion, as well as a reference list or bibliography.

A systematic review, however, includes entirely different components that reflect the specificity of its research question, and the requirement for transparency and inclusion. For instance, the systematic review will include:

• Eligibility criteria for included research
• A description of the systematic research search strategy
• An assessment of the validity of reviewed research
• Interpretations of the results of research included in the review

As you can see, contrary to the general overview or summary of a topic, the systematic literature review includes much more detail and work to compile than a standard literature review. Indeed, it can take years to conduct and write a systematic literature review. But the information that practitioners and other researchers can glean from a systematic literature review is, by its very nature, exceptionally valuable.

This is not to diminish the value of the standard literature review. The importance of literature reviews in research writing is discussed in this article . It’s just that the two types of research reviews answer different questions, and, therefore, have different purposes and roles in the world of research and evidence-based writing.

Systematic Literature Review vs Meta Analysis

It would be understandable to think that a systematic literature review is similar to a meta analysis. But, whereas a systematic review can include several research studies to answer a specific question, typically a meta analysis includes a comparison of different studies to suss out any inconsistencies or discrepancies. For more about this topic, check out Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis article.

Language Editing Plus

With Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus services , you can relax with our complete language review of your systematic literature review or literature review, or any other type of manuscript or scientific presentation. Our editors are PhD or PhD candidates, who are native-English speakers. Language Editing Plus includes checking the logic and flow of your manuscript, reference checks, formatting in accordance to your chosen journal and even a custom cover letter. Our most comprehensive editing package, Language Editing Plus also includes any English-editing needs for up to 180 days.

• Publication Recognition

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

• Manuscript Preparation

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Literature Review vs Research Paper: What’s the Difference?

by  Antony W

January 8, 2023

This is a complete student’s guide to understanding literature review vs research paper.

We’ll teach you what they’re, explain why they’re important, state the difference between the two, and link you to our comprehensive guide on how to write them.

Literature Review Writing Help

Writing a literature review for a thesis, a research paper, or as a standalone assignment takes time. Much of your time will go into research, not to mention you have other assignments to complete. 

If you find writing in college or university overwhelming, get in touch with our literature review writers for hire at 25% discounts and enjoy the flexibility and convenience that comes with professional writing help. We’ll help you do everything, from research and outlining to custom writing and proofreading.

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a secondary source of information that provides an overview of existing knowledge, which you can use to identify gaps or flaws in existing research. In literature review writing, students have to find and read existing publications such as journal articles, analyze the information, and then state their findings.

Credit: Pubrica

You’ll write a literature review to demonstrate your understanding on the topic, show gaps in existing research, and develop an effective methodology and a theoretical framework for your research project.

Your instructor may ask you to write a literature review as a standalone assignment. Even if that’s the case, the rules for writing a review paper don’t change.

In other words, you’ll still focus on evaluating the current research and find gaps around the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are three types of review papers and they’re a follows:

 1. Meta-analysis

In meta-analysis review paper, you combine and compare answers from already published studies on a given subject.

2. Narrative Review

A narrative review paper looks into existing information or research already conducted on a given topic.

3. Systematic Review

You need to do three things if asked to write a systematic review paper.

First, read and understand the question asked. Second, look into research already conducted on the topic. Third, search for the answer to the question from the established research you just read.

What’s a Research Paper?

A research paper is an assignment in which you present your own argument, evaluation, or interpretation of an issue based on independent research.

In a research paper project, you’ll draw some conclusions from what experts have already done, find gaps in their studies, and then draw your own conclusions.

While a research paper is like an academic essay, it tends to be longer and more detailed.

Since they require extended research and attention to details, research papers can take a lot of time to write.

If well researched, your research paper can demonstrate your knowledge about a topic, your ability to engage with multiple sources, and your willingness to contribute original thoughts to an ongoing debate.

Types of Research Papers

 There are two types of research papers and they’re as follows:

 1. Analytical Research Papers

 Similar to analytical essay , and usually in the form of a question, an analytical research paper looks at an issue from a neutral point and gives a clear analysis of the issue.

Your goal is to make the reader understand both sides of the issue in question and leave it to them to decide what side of the analysis to accept.

Unlike an argumentative research paper, an analytical research paper doesn’t include counterarguments. And you can only draw your conclusion based on the information stretched out all through the analysis.

2. Argumentative Research Papers

In an argumentative research paper, you state the subject under study, look into both sides of an issue, pick a stance, and then use solid evidence and objective reasons to defend your position.

In   argumentative writing, your goal isn’t to persuade your audience to take an action. 

Rather, it’s to convince them that your position on the research question is more accurate than the opposing point of views.

Regardless of the type of research paper that you write, you’ll have to follow the standard outline for the assignment to be acceptable for review and marking.

Also, all research paper, regardless of the research question under investigation must include a literature review.

Literature Review vs Research Paper

The table below shows the differences between a literature review (review paper) and a research paper. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. is there a literature review in a research paper.

A research paper assignment must include a literature review immediately after the introduction chapter.

The chapter is significant because your research work would otherwise be incomplete without knowledge of existing literature. 

2. How Many Literature Review Should Be in Research Paper?

Your research paper  should have only one literature review. Make sure you write the review based on the instructions from your teacher.

Before you start, check the required length, number of sources to summarize, and the format to use. Doing so will help you score top grades for the assignment. 

3. What is the Difference Between Research and Literature?

Whereas literature focuses on gathering, reading, and summarizing information on already established studies, original research involves coming up with new concepts, theories, and ideas that might fill existing gaps in the available literature.

4. How Long is a Literature Review?

How long a literature review should be will depend on several factors, including the level of education, the length of the assignment, the target audience, and the purpose of the review.

For example, a 150-page dissertation can have a literature review of 40 pages on average.

Make sure you talk to your instructor to determine the required length of the assignment.

5. How Does a Literature Review Look Like?

Your literature review shouldn’t be a focus on original research or new information. Rather, it should give a clear overview of the already existing work on the selected topic.

The information to review can come from various sources, including scholarly journal articles , government reports, credible websites, and academic-based books. 

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

• Maps & Floorplans
• Libraries A-Z

• Ellis Library (main)
• Engineering Library
• Geological Sciences
• Journalism Library
• Law Library
• Mathematical Sciences
• MU Digital Collections
• Veterinary Medical
• More Libraries...
• Instructional Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Guides
• Schedule a Library Class
• Class Assessment Forms
• Recordings & Tutorials
• Research & Writing Help
• More class resources
• Places to Study
• Borrow, Request & Renew
• Call Numbers
• Computers, Printers, Scanners & Software
• Digital Media Lab
• Equipment Lending: Laptops, cameras, etc.
• Subject Librarians
• Writing Tutors
• More In the Library...
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Researcher Support
• Distance Learners
• International Students
• More Services for...
• View my MU Libraries Account (login & click on My Library Account)
• View my MOBIUS Checkouts
• Renew my Books (login & click on My Loans)
• Place a Hold on a Book
• Request Books from Depository
• View my ILL@MU Account
• Set Up Alerts in Databases
• More Account Information...

Clinical Psychology Capstone: Literature Review & Peer Review

• Articles & Guidelines
• Facts & Figures
• Laws & Policies
• Managing Citations
• Literature Review & Peer Review

Literature Review

What are the differences between literature reviews?

• Literature Review - A general summary, or overview of the topic that is typically qualitative and subjective
• Systematic Review - A type of literature review that answers a focused clinical question
• Meta-Analysis - A type of systematic review using statistical methods to combine data from systematic reviews

What is the best way to find literature reviews?

• PsycINFO - A psychology database with the capacity to limit by Methodology

How do I know a journal is peer reviewed?

• If searching in a database (eg: Social Work Abstracts,GenderWatch), select Peer Review from the Refine/Limit Results options.
• Check the journal's website:  look for the 'about' or 'about this journal' section.
• Check Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ; Search by journal name and look for the little black referee's jersey icon.
• Ask us : Call, text, email, or chat

What does Peer Review mean anyway?

When you submit an article to a journal, someone has to determine if it's worth printing.  Peer review was developed as a way to screen articles and determine the quality of your article. 

At a peer reviewed journal, the editor sends your article out to several reviewers (usually three) who are in the same field, or 'peers'.  Generally, your name will be taken off of the article so personalities don't interfer with the process.  The reviewers read through your article looking to see if:  the topic is unique or novel, if the data or research is sound, and if it's well written.  The reviewers can: reject the article; accept it with revisions; accept it as is.  

Benefits of peer review is that multiple people decide vs just the editor and the review process weeds out poorly written or researched articles.

Drawbacks of peer review is that it's only as good as the reviewers so poorly written or researched articles have gotten published.  Also, peer review was established as a way to check quality not catch fraud.

For more on peer review (I know that someone is interested...), check out Nature Peer Review Debate

• << Previous: Managing Citations
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/clinicalpsych

Systematic Reviews: Types of reviews

Systematic literature reviews.

Using a systematic approach in conducting a literature review

A literature review may be undertaken in a systematic way using a rigorous and structured search strategy in order to be comprehensive, without necessarily attempting to include all available research on a particular topic, as in a systematic review.

Why be systematic?  This approach can:

• Provide a robust overview of the available literature on your topic
• Ensure relevant literature is identified and key publications are not overlooked
• Reduce irrelevant search results through search planning
• Help you to create a reproducible search strategy.

In addition, applying a systematic approach will allow you to work more efficiently. Not every review is a systematic review. Be sure to select the review type that matches the purpose and scope of your project. All reviews should be methodical and done in a careful and deliberate manner with a defined protocol. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• What is the purpose of this review? 
• What is the research question?
• How long do I have to complete it?
• Am I doing it alone or part of a team?
• How much of the literature do I need to capture?
• Does my literature search have to be transparent and replicable?
• Are there standard methods that need to be followed
• Types of reviews
• Systematic review
• Rapid review
• Umbrella review

Scoping review

• Narrative review

A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making.

An essential step in the early development of a systematic review is the development of a review protocol. A protocol pre-defines the objectives and methods of the systematic review which allows transparency of the process. It must be done prior to conducting the systematic review as it is important in restricting the presence of reporting bias. The protocol is a completely separate document to the systematic review report.

Adapted from:  JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis

In summary, a systematic review:

• Addresses a specific question
• Uses specified methodology
• Assesses quality of the literature
• Requires a team and long term commitment

What is a rapid review?

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group has proposed the following definition: “A form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.”

Rapid reviews are usually undertaken when decision makers have urgent and emerging needs which require evidence produced on a short time frame. Typically, to compensate for the short time frame of a rapid review, methodological rigour may be sacrificed. For example, the grey literature may not be sought and preference may be given to the more readily available research published and written in English. 

A rapid review follows most of the principle steps of a systematic review, using systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, critically appraise and analyze data from relevant research. However, to provide timely evidence, some of the components of a systematic review process are either simplified or omitted. There are various approaches for simplifying the review components, such as by reducing the number of databases, assigning a single reviewer in each step while another reviewer verifies the results, excluding or limiting the use of grey literature, or by narrowing the scope of the review. In general, a rapid review takes about four months or less.

Adapted from: Health Evaluation and Applied Research Development (HEARD).  (June 25th, 2018). Rapid reviews versus systematic reviews. https://www.heardproject.org/news/rapid-review-vs-systematic-review-what-are-the-differences/

Umbrella reviews are sometimes referred to as a "review of reviews". They are an attempt to identify and appraise, extract and summarise all the evidence from research syntheses related to a topic or question. 

Umbrella reviews may:

• Include analyses of different interventions for the same problem or condition.
• Analyse the same intervention and condition, but different outcomes.
• Analyse the same intervention but different conditions, problems or populations.

Umbrella reviews offer the possibility to address a broad scope of issues related to the topic of interest.

In summary, an umbrella review:

• Is a systematic review of systematic reviews 
• Synthesizes systematic reviews of the same topic
• Assesses scope and quality of individual systematic reviews

"Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps"  (Tricco, et al., 2018).

"Scoping reviews conducted as precursors to systematic reviews may enable authors to identify the nature of a broad field of evidence so that ensuing reviews can be assured of locating adequate numbers of relevant studies for inclusion" (Munn, Z., Peters, M., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E., 2018).

A scoping review may be undertaken as a preliminary exercise prior to the conduct of a systematic review, or as a stand alone review.

A scoping review may be used:

• As a precursor to a systematic review.
• To identify the types of available evidence in a given field.
• To identify and analyse knowledge gaps.
• To clarify key concepts/ definitions in the literature.
• To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field.
• To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept.

Adapted from:  JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, chapter 11 Scoping reviews. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Getting started: Cochrane: Scoping reviews: what they are and how you can do them

Reporting: The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted.

A traditional literature review or narrative review examines and evaluates the scholarly literature on a topic. Literature reviews often do not answer one specific question, rather they usually bring together a summary of the literature in a qualitative manner.

A literature review may be undertaken in a systematic way in order to be comprehensive, without being a systematic review. It is important to recognise the differences between the two and determine which type of review is best suited to your needs - or whether one of the other reviews detailed here is more applicable.

Narrative reviews:

• provide a (generally qualitative) summary of the relevant literature, as determined by the author.
• do not necessarily provide an analysis of the literature or its quality.
• usually do not include a description of the methodology of the search process.
• refer to key journal literature without going into the grey literature.
• don't always answer a specific research question.
• are not protocol driven.

Barnard, M. (2015). Research essentials: How to undertake a literature review . Nursing Children and Young People, 27 (10), 12-12. doi:10.7748/ncyp.27.10.12.s15

Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2010). Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 1 . Nursing Standard , 24 (40): 47-55.

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

Kowalczyk, N., & Truluck, C. (2013). Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference? Radiologic Technology, 85 (2), 219-222.

Munn, Z., Peters, M., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), 1-7. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 (1), 5. https://doi-org.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review: A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10 (3), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530

Robinson, P., & Lowe, J. (2015). Literature reviews vs systematic reviews . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39 (2), 103-103. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12393

Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., . . . Straus, S. (2018). Prisma extension for scoping reviews (prisma-scr): Checklist and explanation . Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467-467.

• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: Systematic review process >>
• Getting started
• Formulate the question
• SR protocol
• Levels of evidence and study design
• Searching for systematic reviews
• Search strategies
• Subject databases
• Keeping up to date/Alerts
• Trial registers
• Conference proceedings
• Critical appraisal
• Documenting and reporting
• Managing search results
• Statistical methods
• Journal information/publishing
• Contact a librarian
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 11:15 AM
• URL: https://ecu.au.libguides.com/systematic-reviews

Edith Cowan University acknowledges and respects the Noongar people, who are the traditional custodians of the land upon which its campuses stand and its programs operate. In particular ECU pays its respects to the Elders, past and present, of the Noongar people, and embrace their culture, wisdom and knowledge.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, difference between a literature review and a critical review.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 08 October, 2021

As you read research papers, you may notice that there are two very different kinds of review of prior studies. Sometimes, this section of a paper is called a literature review, and at other times, it is referred to as a critical review or a critical context . These differences may be more commonly seen across different fields. Although both these sections are about reviewing prior and existing studies, this article aims to clarify the differences between the two.

Literature review

A literature review is a summary of prior or existing studies that are related to your own research paper . A literature review can be a part of a research paper or can form a paper in itself . For the former, the literature review is designed as a basis upon which your own current study is designed and built. The latter forms a synthesis of prior studies and is a way to highlight future research agendas or a framework.

Writing a literature review

In a literature review, you should attempt to discuss the arguments and findings in prior studies and then work to build on these studies as you develop your own research. You can also highlight the connection between existing and prior literature to demonstrate how the current study you are presenting can advance your knowledge in the field .

When performing a literature review, you should aim to summarise your discussions using a specific aspect of the literature, such as by topic, time, methodology/ design and findings . By doing so, you should be able to establish an effective way to present the relevant literature and demonstrate the connection between prior studies and your research.

Do note that a literature review does not include a presentation or discussion of any results or findings – this should come at a later point in the paper or study. You should also not impose your subjective viewpoints or opinions on the literature you discuss. 

Critical review

A critical review is also a popular way of reviewing prior and existing studies. It can cover and discuss the main ideas or arguments in a book or an article, or it can review a specific concept, theme, theoretical perspective or key construct found in the existing literature .

However, the key feature that distinguishes a critical review from a literature review is that the former is more than just a summary of different topics or methodologies. It offers more of a reflection and critique of the concept in question, and is engaged by authors to more clearly contextualise their own research within the existing literature and to present their opinions, perspectives and approaches .

Given that a critical review is not just a summary of prior literature, it is generally not considered acceptable to follow the same strategy as for a literature review. Instead, aim to organise and structure your critical review in a way that would enable you to discuss the key concepts, assert your perspectives and locate your arguments and research within the existing body of work. 

Structuring a critical review

A critical review would generally begin with an introduction to the concepts you would like to discuss. Depending on how broad the topics are, this can simply be a brief overview or it could set up a more complex framework. The discussion that follows through the rest of the review will then address and discuss your chosen themes or topics in more depth. 

Writing a critical review

The discussion within a critical review will not only present and summarise themes but also critically engage with the varying arguments, writings and perspectives within those themes. One important thing to note is that, similar to a literature review , you should keep your personal opinions, likes and dislikes out of a review. Whether you personally agree with a study or argument – and whether you like it or not – is immaterial. Instead, you should focus upon the effectiveness and relevance of the arguments , considering such elements as the evidence provided, the interpretations and analysis of the data, whether or not a study may be biased in any way, what further questions or problems it raises or what outstanding gaps and issues need to be addressed.

In conclusion

Although a review of previous and existing literature can be performed and presented in different ways, in essence, any literature or critical review requires a solid understanding of the most prominent work in the field as it relates to your own study. Such an understanding is crucial and significant for you to build upon and synthesise the existing knowledge, and to create and contribute new knowledge to advance the field .

Read previous (fourth) in series: How to refer to other studies or literature in the different sections of a research paper

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services .

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit:  Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Conducting a Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 10/03/2021 00:00:00

Important factors to consider as you Start to Plan your Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 06/10/2021 00:00:00

How to Structure and Write your Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 07/10/2021 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication- Module 3: Understand the structure of an academic paper

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 7: Write a strong theoretical framework section

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 11: Know when your article is ready for submission

Literature search.

Why and How to do a literature search

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

Best tips to do a PubMed search

Charlesworth Author Services 26/08/2021 00:00:00

Best tips to do a Scopus search

What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? And why is a systematic review considered to be so good?

Affiliation.

• 1 Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick. [email protected]
• PMID: 24273836
• Evidence-Based Medicine
• Knowledge Discovery*
• Meta-Analysis as Topic*
• Review Literature as Topic*
• Systematic Reviews as Topic*

MSU Libraries

• Need help? Ask a Librarian

Research Methods Resources - Kinesiology: Empirical vs Review Articles

• Finding Journal Articles
• Searching Indexes and Databases
• How to Locate the Full Text of an Article, once you have found the Citation
• Not sure if your Journal Article is considered Academic/Scholarly or Peer-reviewed?
• Obtaining Materials not Owned by MSU
• Connecting to Library Resources from Off Campus
• Empirical vs Review Articles
• Grants & Fundraising
• General Information
• Literature Review
• Citation Mapping
• SAGE Research Methods

Empirical Journal Articles

Empirical Article - (Original Research) Based on experience and observation, rather than systematic logic. (according to MedicineNet.com)

The articles contain original research (such as scientific experiments, surveys and research studies) A list of references or sources is provided at the end of each article An editorial board, composed of experts in the field, reviews articles to decide whether they should be accepted; this is also known as "refereed," "peer-reviewed," "professional," "scholarly", or "academic". Uses a specialized vocabulary for that field.

Below are two websites that explain Empirical articles and research:

Empirical Research: How to Recognize and Locate (Penn State University) - Empirical Research PDF

Review Journal Articles

Review Article

An article that summarizes the progress or current state in some particular subject, area, or topic.

How to write a "Review Article?" (National Library of Medicine) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/

Subject Guide

• << Previous: Connecting to Library Resources from Off Campus
• Next: Grants & Fundraising >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2022 5:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/c.php?g=96527

A Quick Overview: Differences Among Desk, Literature, and Learning Reviews

November 12, 2020

By: Chelsie Kuhn, MEL Associate, Headlight Consulting Services, LLP

This is the first post in a series of two about Learning Reviews .

In order to chart the wisest path forward, we need to understand where we have been. Reflecting on past learning can ensure more effective and efficient efforts in the future, regardless of discipline or field. But different information needs require different tools. Literature, Desk, and Learning Reviews are three ways to integrate evidence into decision-making and design processes. Each tool uses varying degrees of information and rigor, and each is best suited for different applications, as described in the visual below.

A Literature Review traditionally focuses on academic journal articles and published books, giving readers a theoretical or case-based frame of reference. A Literature Review may be appropriate for researchers looking to set up an experiment or randomized control trial in a location or those looking at theoretical development over time. This kind of review is all about synthesis of what we know research-wise up to the current point, and what potential gaps exist yet to be filled.

Another type of review widely known is a Desk Review, which serves to provide readers with an introduction into a project’s context and priorities, but often not the past learnings or in-depth challenges needed to inform strategy development. A Desk Review can also serve as an entry point to understanding a particular market or an effective way to organize and summarize disparate types of information. Doing a Desk Review might be appropriate to bring a new team member up to speed on projects or learn about the current state and environment concerning a particular type of intervention.

While Literature and Desk Reviews may be more commonly known, one of the offerings that Headlight specializes in is a Learning Review. A Learning Review is a way to systematically look at past assessments, evaluations, reports, and any other learning documentation in order to inform recommendations and strategy, program, or activity design efforts. Unlike Desk Reviews, Learning Reviews focus on coding and analyzing data instead of summarizing it. With layers of triangulation and secondary analysis built into the process, we can confidently draw findings and conclusions knowing that the foundation of the process is built with rigor. Recommendations stemming from these findings and conclusions serve as the best use of an existing evidence base in designing or revisiting strategies, programs, and activities. Each of these three tools are useful at different points, but as we see more and more emphasis placed on learning and adaptive management, Learning Reviews offer a more rigorous and application focused use of available evidence.

As a synthesis of past evaluations and assessments, Learning Reviews should also be used to feed into new MEL or CLA plans. Having extra information on what has worked in the past, what information was useful, and where more-nuanced information would be beneficial enables us to set better targets and understand potential barriers to measurement. Recommendations may even point to specific indicators to consider or CLA actions to integrate into programming moving forward. Learning Reviews can also be used to appropriately scope and identify future evaluative efforts that will evolve the evidence base.

In the next post in the series, we will expand further on Learning Reviews as a process and walk readers step-by-step through how to conduct one. If you need help implementing any of these above tools, but in particular a Learning Review, Headlight would love to support you! We have the breadth and depth of expertise, experience, and toolbox to tailor-meet your needs. For more information about our services please email [email protected] . Headlight Consulting Services, LLP is a certified women-owned small business and therefore eligible for sole source procurements. We can be found on the Dynamic Small Business Search or on SAM.gov via our name or DUNS number (081332548).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

no comments found.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Recent Posts

• Evaluation Rigor in Action — The Qualitative Comparative Analysis Methods Memo
• 2023 in Review: Headlight’s Values in Action
• The Small Business Chrysalis: Reflections on Becoming a Prime
• Choose Your Own Adventure: Options for Adapting the Collaborating, Learning & Adapting (CLA) Maturity Self-assessment Process
• Evaluation for Learning and Adaptive Management: Connecting the Dots between Developmental Evaluation and CLA

Recent Comments

• Maxine Secskas on What is a USAID Performance Management Plan?
• Anonymous on What is a USAID Performance Management Plan?
• Getasew Atnafu on The Small Business Chrysalis: Reflections on Becoming a Prime
• Anonymous on The Small Business Chrysalis: Reflections on Becoming a Prime
• Anonymous on Why Embeddedness Is Crucial For Use-Focused Developmental Evaluation Support
• February 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• January 2023
• November 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• December 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• Uncategorized
• Opportunities

Clostridium difficile infection after stoma reversal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

• Open access
• Published: 29 May 2024
• Volume 39 , article number  81 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Flavio Tirelli 1 ,
• Lodovica Langellotti 2 ,
• Laura Lorenzon 1 ,
• Alberto Biondi 1 ,
• Gloria Santoro 1 ,
• Roberto Pezzuto 1 ,
• Annamaria Agnes 1 ,
• Domenico D’Ugo 1 ,
• Maurizio Sanguinetti 1 &
• Roberto Persiani 1  

278 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been described in the early post-operative phase after stoma reversal. This systematic review aimed to describe the incidence of CDI after stoma reversal and to identify pre-operative variables correlated with an increased risk of infection.

A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines in March 2024. Manuscripts were included if reported at least one patient with CDI-associated diarrhoea following stoma reversal (colostomy/ileostomy). The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of CDI; the secondary outcome was the comparison of clinical variables (age, sex, time to stoma reversal, neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies after index colorectal procedure) in CDI-positive versus CDI-negative patients. A meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies reported on those variables.

Out of 43 eligible manuscripts, 1 randomized controlled trial and 10 retrospective studies were selected, including 17,857 patients (2.1% CDI). Overall, the mean age was 64.3 ± 11.6 years in the CDI group and 61.5 ± 12.6 years in the CDI-negative group ( p  = 0.51), with no significant difference in sex ( p  = 0.34). Univariable analyses documented that the mean time to stoma reversal was 53.9 ± 19.1 weeks in CDI patients and 39.8 ± 15.0 weeks in CDI-negative patients ( p  = 0.40) and a correlation between neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments with CDI ( p  < 0.001). A meta-analysis was performed for time to stoma reversal, age, sex, and neo-adjuvant therapies disclosing no significant differences for CDI (stoma delay, MD 11.59; 95%CI  24.32–1.13; age, MD 0.97; 95%CI 2.08–4.03; sex, OR1.11; 95%CI 0.88–1.41; neo-adjuvant, OR0.81; 95%CI 0.49–1.35). Meta-analysis including patients who underwent adjuvant therapy evidenced a higher risk of CDI (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.01–8.17,  p  = 0.11).

CDI occurs in approximately 2.1% of patients after stoma reversal. Although a trend of increased delay in stoma reversal and a correlation with chemotherapy were documented in CDI patients, the use of adjuvant therapy was the only possible risk factor documented on meta-analysis.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023484704

Similar content being viewed by others

Clostridium difficile infection after colorectal surgery: a rare but costly complication.

Effect of Inclusion of Oral Antibiotics with Mechanical Bowel Preparation on the Risk of Clostridium Difficile Infection After Colectomy

A Systematic Literature Review on Risk Factors for and Timing of Clostridioides difficile Infection in the United States

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Colorectal surgery has been identified as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) [ 1 , 2 , 3 ], although its occurrence is relatively rare, since as it has been reported in only 1.5% of patients [ 4 ]. However, stoma closure surgery has the highest incidence rate of CDI among abdominal procedures, ranging from 1.6 to 8.7% of cases [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

The creation of a diverting ileostomy or colostomy disrupts the normal anatomical structure of the bowel, leading to significant changes in the mucosal and muscular layers. This process also results in progressive atrophy of the dysfunctional colonic tract. The atrophy and decreased immune capacity of the colon mucosa increase its susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection [ 16 ]. Of note, Clostridium difficile (CD) not only is a healthcare-related pathogen but also colonizes the gastrointestinal tract in 15% of the population. Usually, CD colonization is completely asymptomatic, but it can become symptomatic if normal intestinal flora disruption occurs [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

The intestinal flora ecosystem plays a critical role in preserving the intestines by resisting colonization and infection by pathogenic organisms. Under normal circumstances, the human gut microbiota can hinder pathogen colonization through general mechanisms such as direct inhibition via bacteriocins, nutrient depletion, or stimulation of host immune defences. However, the specific mechanism by which the microbiota protects against CDI remains unknown. Disruption of the normal balance of the colonic microbiota can result from prolonged antimicrobial therapies, mucosal atrophy due to colonic faecal diversion, or immunosuppression [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ].

There are several reasons why the incidence of CDI after stoma closure is greater than that after other colorectal procedures [ 17 ], including the clinical variables and intrinsic risk factors of patients undergoing stoma reversal surgery (elderly people with colon cancer, subjected to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, sometimes malnourished, or long-lasting stoma holders) [ 5 ].

We thus aimed this manuscript to systematically review the literature and describe the incidence of CDI after stoma reversal; the secondary outcome of interest was the comparison of the clinical variables in CDI-positive patients and CDI-negative patients.

Data sources, search strategy, and selection criteria

A systematic review of published papers was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in March 2024 ( Supplementary Material ). The following sources were searched for papers reporting cases of documented CDI following reversal of colostomy or ileostomy: PubMed, Embase and Medline. The search terms included (clostridium) AND (colorectal cancer), (clostridium) AND (colorectal surgery), (clostridium) AND (rectal cancer), (clostridium) AND (rectal surgery), (clostridium) AND (colostomy), (clostridium) AND (ileostomy), (clostridium) AND (stoma) (clostridium) AND (stoma closure), (clostridium) AND (stoma reversal), (clostridium) AND (stoma surgery) in all fields. The references of the included articles were also manually searched, and further articles were included if appropriate. Both ileostomy and colostomy reversal were considered for inclusion. The selection criteria included “English” languages, human studies, clinical trials, and observational and comparative studies. Duplicate references were semi-automatically removed using the RAYYAN platform ( https://www.rayyan.ai/ ). Case reports were excluded. Each paper retrieved was assessed for inclusion or exclusion by revision of titles and abstracts by two authors (LL and FT), and any issues or disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Study risk-of-bias assessment

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated using the Robin 2.0 tool, whereas nonrandomized retrospective cohorts were evaluated using the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale. GRADE criteria were considered to summarize evidences.

Outcomes of interest

The primary outcome of interest was the rate of CDI infection. The secondary outcome was to determine the association between clinical variables (age, sex, time to stoma closure, neo-adjuvant, and adjuvant therapies) and CDI infection following stoma reversal in CDI-positive vs. CDI-negative patients.

Categorical variables were analysed using frequencies and percentages, and subgroups were compared using chi-square tests. Continuous variables were presented using means, standard deviations (SDs), medians, and ranges (IRQ). Meta-analyses were conducted when at least three studies provided computable variables. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used for calculating the weighted summary odds ratio (OR) under the fixed effects model. Next, the heterogeneity statistic is incorporated to calculate the summary odds ratio under the random effects model. The total odds ratio with 95%CI is given both for the fixed effects model and the random effects model. If the value 1 is not within the 95%CI, then the odds ratio is statistically significant at the 5% level ( P  < 0.05). For meta-analysis of studies with a continuous measure (comparison of means between treated cases and controls), the Hedge's g statistic was used as a formulation for the mean difference (MD) under the fixed effects model. Next, the heterogeneity statistic is incorporated to calculate the summary standardized mean difference under the random effects model. If the value 0 is not within the 95%CI, then the MD is statistically significant at the 5% level ( P  < 0.05). Statistical heterogeneity of the results of the papers was assessed on the basis of a test of heterogeneity (standard chi-squared test on N degrees of freedom where N equals the number of trials contributing data minus one). Three possible causes for heterogeneity were pre-specified: (1) differing response according to difference in the quality of the trial; (2) differing response according to sample size; and (3) differing response according to clinical heterogeneity. If the test of heterogeneity is statistically significant ( P  < 0.05), then more emphasis should be placed on the random effects model.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of proportions was considered related to CD infection and total number of patients estimating the proportion of CDI in each study with the inverse of the variance weight, a measure of the precision of a weighted mean estimate; then, it was calculated the standard deviation with the proportion estimate setting using the DerSimonian-Laird method, taking into account the variation between studies.

Statistical analysis was performed using R open-source software and the “meta” package in R ( https://cran.r-project.org/ ). All tests were two-tailed, and p  < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Study population and systematic review

Out of a total of 1263 papers screened, 11 (10 retrospective cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]) met the inclusion criteria and were analysed (Fig.  1 ), including a previous paper from our group [ 5 ].

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the systematic review. *Records identified from Ovid, Embase, and Medline using PubMed. **Records excluded because they were not relevant

Table  1 shows the eleven papers analysed, including 17,857 patients who underwent stoma reversal surgery (both ileostomy and colostomy reversal were considered for inclusion); the overall incidence of CDI was 2.1% (381/17,857) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Overall, the mean age of the CDI-positive patients was 64.3 ± 11.6 years, while that of the CDI-negative patients was 61.5 ± 12.6 years ( p  = 0.51), whereas the M/F ratio was 1.4 for the CDI-positive patients and 1.2 for the CDI-negative patients ( p  = 0.34) (Table  2 ). Additionally, the mean time to stoma reversal after the index CRC procedure was 53.9 ± 19.1 weeks in CDI-positive patients and 39.8 ± 15.0 weeks in CDI-negative patients ( p  = 0.40) (Table  2 ). Also, on univariable analysis, both neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapy correlated with CDI: In particular, 11.8% of the patients who were treated with neo-adjuvant therapy developed a CDI vs. 6.2% of those who did not, and 16.7% of patients who underwent adjuvant treatment had a CDI vs. 6.5% of patients not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (Table  2 ).

There was one RCT [ 7 ] and ten non-randomized retrospective cohort studies [ 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. All non-randomized studies scored 7 or more on the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale, and the RCTs had a low risk of bias according to Robin 2.0. All studies were therefore deemed good quality studies (Fig. 2 ).

A  Quality assessment of the nine non-randomized studies according to the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale.  B  Robin 2.0 for the RCTs included

Meta-analysis

Overall, five variables were computable for meta-analysis: age, sex, stoma closure delay, neo-adjuvant therapies, and adjuvant therapies in CDI-positive vs. CDI-negative patients. The studies included in the meta-analyses [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] were based on 1591 patients for the time to stoma reversal variable, 1624 patients for the age variable, 15,064 patients for sex variable, and 549 patients for neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies. A meta-analysis of proportion documented that CDI infection rate was homogeneous among studies ( Supplementary Materials , Supplementary Fig.  1 ).

Figure  3 shows the meta-analysis on the delay of stoma closure and the meta-analysis on the mean age of patients and sex, documenting no significant differences between the CDI-positive and CDI-negative groups (stoma delay, MD11.59; 95%CI 24.32 – 1.13; age, MD0.97; 95%CI 2.08 – 4.03; sex, OR 1.11; 95%CI 0.88 – 1.41).

Meta-analysis for time to stoma closure ( A1 ,  A2 ), age ( B1 , B2 ) and sex ( C1 , C2 )

Figure  4 shows the meta-analysis for patients undergoing neo-adjuvant therapy (Fig.  4 A) and documented no significant differences between the CDI-positive and CDI-negative groups (OR0.81; 95%CI 0.49 – 1.35), whereas adjuvant therapies (Fig.  4 B) showed a significative correlation between with the development of CD infection (OR2.88; 95%CI 1.01 – 8.17,  p  = 0.11).

Meta-analysis for neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatment

This study analysed eleven papers including cases of Clostridium difficile infection after stoma reversal surgery. Clostridium difficile infection is an uncommon complication after stoma reversal surgery that occurs, according to this systematic review, approximately in 2.1% of the patients. Stoma closure surgery is an abdominal procedure with a relatively high incidence rate of CDI, ranging between 1.6 and 8.7% [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Although it is not a frequent complication, CDI is a potentially life-threatening complication, and it prolongs the costs and length of hospitalization.

Our group recently conducted a retrospective cohort study in a population of patients who underwent stoma reversal surgery after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer [ 5 ]. This surgical procedure has been adopted in our surgical unit since 2015, and it has become the treatment of choice for mid- and low rectal cancer, achieving successful surgical and functional outcomes [ 18 ]. The higher incidence of CDI in the postoperative period reported in this cohort (4.8%) could be explained by the characteristics of the study population (rectal cancers who underwent neo-adjuvant therapy in 72.2% of the cases and adjuvant therapy in nearly 48.4%), with a consequent delay in stoma closure. In this preliminary experience, we documented that delayed stoma closure was the main variable correlated with CDI; furthermore, the probability of presenting with diarrhoea symptoms was greater for males, increased with the comorbidity index, a lower mean albumin value, increased stoma delay closure, and the use of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments.

Similarly, Jordan et al. [ 9 ] reported a 3.5% incidence of CDI (RR = 4.23). In their analysis, the CDI-positive group had a significantly longer median time to reversal, but this difference was not found to be statistically significant.

Indeed, most patients who undergo stoma closure surgery are previously treated with chemotherapies or radiotherapies that are toxic to the gut mucosa. In addition, it should be considered to the long-lasting defunctioning time, in cases requiring anti-neoplastic therapies or for organizational issues (i.e. COVID-19 pandemic).

The pathogenic mechanism of CDI in a defunctioning colon was explained by Kissmeyer-Nielsen [ 5 ] in 1994 through an experimental study on mice. Interruption of normal anatomical continuity by diverting ileostomy or colostomy causes radical morphological changes related to the mucosa and the muscular layers of the bowel. The composition of the colon wall in rats significantly changes following mucosal and muscular atrophy, as does the luminal surface area. Consequently, this alteration disrupts the normal balance of the colonic microbiota. In the context of dysbiosis, Clostridium difficile , which typically colonizes asymptomatic individuals, becomes a hazardous pathogen. However, there are several micro-organisms that have the potential to become harmful to the gastrointestinal mucosa [ 19 , 20 ].

Although the use of antibiotics is an established risk factor for CDI [ 1 ], there are no clinical studies and sufficient data to correlate the use of a specific class of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis with an increased incidence of CDI after stoma reversal surgery. Fernandes et al. [ 12 ] wrote the first paper demonstrating metronidazole as an effective preventative agent against postoperative diarrhoea and CDI in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal surgery. The results of this study indicated that single-dose metronidazole is more effective at reducing postoperative diarrhoea and CDI than multiple doses of cefuroxime plus metronidazole. Therefore, metronidazole may offer effective prophylaxis against CDI by reducing the CD load in the colon, permitting recolonization with indigenous gut microbiota. The preliminary results from this study need to be confirmed in large randomized controlled trials.

An interesting aspect for future studies could be to perform a preliminary CD test before surgery, in order to treat patients with a positive test to an adequate pre- and post-operative antibiotic therapy.

There may be some potential limitations in the present systematic review. The effects estimated in the model are based mainly on retrospective observational studies. They are therefore subjected to biases and confounding factors that may have influenced our model estimates. The main limitation of the included studies is the heterogeneity of the population. Heterogeneity in studies has been reported for a variety of reasons, including differences in the sample population regarding age, sex, BMI, and disease severity. Another limitation is the different study designs of the included papers (ten observational studies and 1 randomized clinical trial); otherwise, only observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Other limitations are the low proportion of patients with CDI (limits statistical power when performing comparative tests), and lack of data pertaining to treatment and outcomes following CDI in these patients. Eventually, both ileostomy and colostomy are included in the same pool, and this is a difficult condition to adjust due to the lack of specific data in the included studies. Finally, a more extended literature search could retrieve other manuscripts missing in the current meta-analysis.

Drawing conclusions based on the moderate effect estimate from the meta-analysis and the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE criteria, adjuvant therapies probably increase Clostridium difficile infections rate after stoma closure surgery; however, studies analysed were observational and not RCT.

Conclusions

To conclude, the CDI is relatively low after stoma reversal surgery, and although a correlation between stoma delay closure, the use of chemotherapy and CDI population was observed; adjuvant therapy was the only significant variable showing the potential of being a possible risk factor.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available to protect study participant privacy, but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Sartelli M, Malangoni MA, Abu-Zidan FM et al (2015) WSES guidelines for management of Clostridium difficile infection in surgical patients. World J Emerg Surg 10:38

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Hashimoto H, Matsuda S, Fushimi K (2012) The burden of Clostridium difficile -associated disease following digestive tract surgery in Japan. J Hosp Infect 82:175–180

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yeom CH, Cho MM, Baek SK, Bae OS (2010) Risk factors for the development of Clostridium difficile -associated colitis after colorectal cancer surgery. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 26:329–333

Damle RN, Cherng NB, Flahive JM, Davids JS, Maykel JA, Sturrock PR et al (2014) Clostridium difficile infection after colorectal surgery: a rare but costly complication. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1804–1811

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tirelli F, Lorenzon L, Biondi A, Langellotti L, Santoro G, Agnes A, Pezzuto R, Persiani R, D’Ugo D (2023) Predictors of Clostridium difficile infection after stoma reversal following TaTME surgery. Updates Surg 75(6):1589–1596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01614-4

Wilson MZ, Hollenbeak CS, Stewart DB (2013) Impact of Clostridium difficile colitis following closure of a diverting loop ileostomy: results of a matched cohort study. Colorectal Dis 15(8):974–981

Peacock O, Bhalla A, Simpson JA, Gold S, Hurst NG, Speake WJ, Tierney GM, Lund JN (2013) Twenty-three-hour stay loop ileostomy closures: a pilot study. Tech Coloproctol 17(1):45–49

Kim YI, Yu CS, Kim YS, Kim CW, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Park IJ, Lim SB, Kim JC (2022) Clostridium difficile infection after ileostomy closure and anastomotic failure in rectal cancer surgery patients. BJS Open 6(2):zrac026. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac026

Jordan S, Hui N, Doudle M, Von Papen M, Naik A, Lu CT, Nolan G, Cooper M (2022) Incidence of Clostridioides difficile in patients post loop ileostomy reversal in an Australian tertiary hospital: a retrospective study. ANZ J Surg 92(3):403–408

Richards SJG, Udayasiri DK, Jones IT, Hastie IA, Chandra R, McCormick JJ, Chittleborough TJ, Read DJ, Hayes IP (2021) Delayed ileostomy closure increases the odds of Clostridium difficile infection. Colorectal Dis 23(12):3213–3219

Skancke M, Vaziri K, Umapathi B, Amdur R, Radomski M, Obias V (2018) Elective stoma reversal has a higher incidence of postoperative Clostridium difficile infection compared with elective colectomy: an analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and targeted colectomy databases. Dis Colon Rectum 61(5):593–598

Fernandes R, Robinson P, Rangarajan K, Scott S, Angco L (2017) The role of single-shot metronidazole in the prevention of Clostridium difficile infection following ileostomy reversal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(5):733–736

Randall JK, Young BC, Patel G, Fitzgerald A, George BD (2011) Is Clostridium difficile infection a particular problem after reversal of ileostomy? Colorectal Dis 13(3):308–311

Taylor D, Azher H, Gartrell R, Yeung JM (2021) Clostridium difficile infection following reversal of loop ileostomy: an uncommon but significant complication. ANZ J Surg 91(10):2219–2221

Lee D, Bin Abdur Raheem M, Coveney A (2024) Single-centre retrospective audit of Clostridium difficile infections post ileostomy reversal. Cureus 16(1):e51674. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.51674

Kissmeyer-Nielsen P, Christensen H, Laurberg S (1994) Diverting colostomy induces mucosal and muscular atrophy in rat distal colon. Gut 35:1275–1281

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Harries RL, Ansell J, Codd RJ, Williams GL (2017) A systematic review of Clostridium difficile infection following reversal of ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 19(10):881–887

Tirelli F, Lorenzon L, Biondi A, Neri I, Santoro G, Persiani R (2023) Functional outcomes after transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME): a random forest analysis to predict patients’ outcomes. Tech Coloproctol 27(11):1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-023-02775-5 . Epub 2023 Mar 5. PMID: 36871281; PMCID: PMC9985820

Ali A, AlHussaini KI (2024) Helicobacter pylori : a contemporary perspective on pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment strategies. Microorganisms 12(1):222. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010222 . PMID: 38276207; PMCID: PMC10818838

Agnes A, La Greca A, Tirelli F, Papa V (2020) Duodenal perforation in a SARS-CoV-2-positive patient with negative PCR results for SARS-CoV-2 in the peritoneal fluid. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 24(23):12516–12521. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202012_24048

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Miss Cristina Vacca, Data Manager at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario ‘A. Gemelli’ IRCCS, for her support in data acquisition and update of the unit’s database.

Open access funding provided by Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors have no funding to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Hearth, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy

Flavio Tirelli, Laura Lorenzon, Alberto Biondi, Gloria Santoro, Roberto Pezzuto, Annamaria Agnes, Domenico D’Ugo, Maurizio Sanguinetti & Roberto Persiani

Catholic University of the Sacred Hearth, Rome, Italy

Lodovica Langellotti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Flavio Tirelli and Lodovica Langellotti and Laura Lorenzon wrote the main manuscript. Gloria Santoro contributed to statistical analysis. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Lorenzon .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

• CDI occurs in approximately 2.1% of patients who undergo stoma reversal.

• A correlation with delayed stoma reversal and chemotherapy were observed in the CDI population.

• The meta-analysis documented a significant correlation between adjuvant therapy and CDI.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1350 kb)

Supplementary file2 (docx 1350 kb), supplementary file3 (pdf 1350 kb), supplementary file4 (docx 1350 kb), supplementary file5 (pdf 1350 kb), supplementary file6 (pdf 1350 kb), supplementary file7 (pdf 1350 kb), rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tirelli, F., Langellotti, L., Lorenzon, L. et al. Clostridium difficile infection after stoma reversal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Int J Colorectal Dis 39 , 81 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04643-6

Download citation

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 29 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04643-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clostridium difficile infection
• Stoma reversal
• Colorectal surgery
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

How does the level of enterprise digitalization affect value creation and realization? Testing of the dual path of "based on breakthrough" and "tending to compliance"

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Department of Financial Management, School of Economics and Management, Suqian University, Suqian City, Jiangsu Province, China, Business Administration, International College, Dhurakij Pundit University, Laksi, Bangkok, Thailand

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision

Affiliation Department of Financial Management, School of Economics and Management, Suqian University, Suqian City, Jiangsu Province, China

Roles Resources, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

• Jiehui Zhang, 
• Sen Yang, 
• Yifeng Wang

• Published: June 6, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078
• Reader Comments

The construction of enterprise digitization serves as a "gateway" for the integration of the digital and real economies. As enterprises undergo robust digital transformations, it becomes crucial to delineate the pathway from enterprise digitization level to value creation and realization in order to maximize enterprise value. We select sample data from Chinese A-share listed companies from 2015 to 2021 as the research subject. Based on the fixed-effects model, we empirically test the impact of enterprise digitization level on both value creation and realization, as well as the mediating mechanism of entrepreneurship and internal control within it. The results indicate that the enterprise digitization level significantly enhances both value creation and realization. However, significant differences exist in the impact of the digitization level on value creation and realization among enterprises with different technological attributes and at different stages of the lifecycle. Further mechanism tests demonstrate that the "breakthrough-based" entrepreneurship and "compliance-based" internal control quality play effective mediating roles between enterprise digitization level and enterprise value. This study provides a new perspective for understanding the value creation and realization process i n the digital context, and offers relevant insights for further stimulating and guiding enterprises of different types and stages to drive value enhancement with digital capabilities, thereby facilitating the deep integration of the digital with the real economy.

Citation: Zhang J, Yang S, Wang Y (2024) How does the level of enterprise digitalization affect value creation and realization? Testing of the dual path of "based on breakthrough" and "tending to compliance". PLoS ONE 19(6): e0305078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078

Editor: Zahra Masood Bhutta, National University of Modern Languages, PAKISTAN

Received: August 31, 2023; Accepted: May 22, 2024; Published: June 6, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are provided in the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Given the continuous emergence of digital technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence, the digital economy has been rapidly developing in various countries. As the leading "dual engines" in the global digital economy field, the United States and China have significant competitive advantages. According to the "Global Digital Economy White Paper (2023)," the scale of the digital economy in the United States has reached $17.2 trillion, while this scale in China is $7.5 trillion. China’s digital economy scale has grown by 10.3% year-on-year, accounting for 41.5% of GDP. Therefore, in the era of the digital economy, China’s macroeconomic development momentum has been fueled by the convergence of market traction, government impetus, technological innovations, and the driving force of the digital industry. As the primary drivers of economic development, enterprises have long deeply felt the changes brought about by this "digital force." They have actively seized strategic opportunities to embed and empower digital technologies, applying them to various aspects such as business processes, organizational conventions, resources and capabilities, and market strategies to improve enterprise performance [ 1 ]. Consequently, this effort has formed digital capabilities that drive corporate competitiveness [ 2 ], making research on enterprise digitization level the starting point for implementing and optimizing digital projects [ 3 ]. Creating value and pursuing value maximization have always been the essence of enterprise management. In the new development phase, the digital economy has given rise to a series of new business forms, technologies, and models, thereby breaking through traditional spatial and temporal limitations and promoting the cross-border allocation of factors such as capital, technology, and talent. To better achieve the maximization of shareholder value and corporate value, enterprises need to consider not only how to create value through digital opportunity perception, digital operations, and digital resource collaboration but also how to comprehensively showcase factors such as enterprise performance, culture, and strategy to the market to obtain value. Therefore, unblocking the driving transmission pathway from the enterprise digitization level to value creation and realization becomes crucial.

Enterprise digitalization is regarded as pivotal for innovation and development due to its characteristics such as availability, self-propagation, openness, and integrability [ 4 ]. However, the existence of the "information technology (IT) paradox" in the context of the widespread application of digital information technology [ 5 – 7 ] has led to a lack of consensus in studies on the impact of digitization on enterprises. Moreover, the literature indicates a relative scarcity of research on the endogenous factors influencing the level of enterprise digitization and its impact on value creation and realization. Therefore, there is an urgent need for theoretical research to thoroughly explore this issue from different perspectives with the aim of assisting practitioners in better understanding and bridging the gap between digitization and enterprise value. Based on the theory of value management, we investigate the impact of the enterprise digitalization level on both value creation and value realization. A heterogeneity analysis is conducted to examine the technological and lifecycle attributes of enterprises. Additionally, from the perspective of endogenous driving forces, a dual test pathway is constructed, which extends from “enterprise digitalization level—entrepreneurship—enterprise value” to “enterprise digitalization level—internal control quality—enterprise value” to analyze the mediating effects in the relationship between enterprise digitalization level and its value creation and value realization, as well as their differences. The potential marginal innovations of this paper include: (1) proposing and testing the mechanism by which the enterprise digitalization level affects value creation and realization, thereby enriching the antecedent research on enterprise value under digital contexts; (2) conducting heterogeneity research across multiple attributes to provide more targeted guidance for companies of different types and in different lifecycle stages to effectively manage their values in digital contexts; and (3) further revealing and examining the mediating effects of entrepreneurship and internal control quality with the aim of delineating the mechanism between digitalization levels and enterprise value, thus supplementing and refining relevant theoretical research on the enhancement of enterprise value in the digital economy.

Literature review

Research on the impact of enterprise digitalization level on enterprise value.

Digitalization represents a new phase in the Information Age. In the previous literature on corporate value creation and value realization, a considerable part of the research logic was carried out in the context of information systems. Therefore, when scholars investigate the impact of corporate digitalization and its level on corporate value, they often encounter differing viewpoints similar to the "IT paradox" observed in previous perspectives. From the perspective of the resource-based theory and capability theory, some scholars point out that enterprise digitalization significantly reduces production costs and transaction costs, while also enhancing the capability for technological innovation and improvement in management models. Therefore, digitalization offers boundless potential for enhancing enterprise value [ 8 ]. Tumbas et al. (2017) [ 9 ] argued that enterprise development is significantly driven by digitalization, which promotes agility and flexibility in individuals transitioning between different work modes, thereby providing a significant boost to the enterprise value enhancement. Ren et al. (2019) [ 10 ] noted that emerging digital technologies can enhance production efficiency, increase profit income, and gain competitive advantages by influencing decision making, product design, marketing, and other aspects. From the perspective of dynamic capability theory, Tindara et al. (2022) [ 11 ] noted that digital functions such as perception, capture, integration, and interaction in internet enterprises are conducive to optimizing knowledge management methods and promoting externalized participation in open innovation, thereby ultimately enhancing organizational value cocreation. Leo (2021) [ 12 ] indicated that digitalization can help enterprises adapt to dynamic and complex internal and external environmental changes, thereby expanding the depth and breadth of enterprise value creation. However, organizational theorists argue that digital technologies have fundamentally altered the underlying logic of value creation activities within enterprises, involving systematic changes such as conceptual resetting, convention updating, process reengineering, and structural adjustments [ 1 ]. Consequently, there is a strong possibility of an insurmountable gap between the level of digitization and the existing resource capabilities of enterprises, leading to a phenomenon in which enterprise value may decline rather than increase [ 13 , 14 ]. For instance, Li and Jia (2018) [ 15 ] empirically studied multiple regression methods and found that the impact of digital technology on overall corporate performance is not significant. Hajli (2015) et al. [ 5 ] used panel regression methods and discovered that the improvements in the digitalization level might only enhance the performance of some enterprises, whereas the performance of others might decline, mainly due to the high cost incurred when improving the digitalization level. AL-Adwan (2017) [ 16 ] found that the impact of the digitalization level on enterprise value may have an inverted U-shape, indicating that the value enhancement brought about by improving digitalization levels has boundaries. The review of the literature reveals that there is a relatively abundant amount of research on the relationship between digitization and firm performance, as well as firm value creation. However, a consensus has not been reached, and the literature that focuses on the impact mechanism of digitization level on enterprise value is limited. As digital technology continues to evolve and integrate further with the real economy, new characteristics of value creation and acquisition are becoming increasingly prominent [ 17 ]. Therefore, exploring how to utilize the theory of value management to link a firm’s resources and activities with value creation and realization and analyzing the relationship between digitization level and firm value, along with its transmission path, which represents an important research perspective, are crucial.

Research on the impact of entrepreneurship on enterprise value

After years of exploration and verification, the impact of entrepreneurship on macroeconomic growth has gained relatively unanimous recognition [ 18 ]. From a microeconomic perspective, the influence of entrepreneurship on enterprises’ development and value enhancement is continually revealing new research findings. Stevenson (1985) [ 19 ] noted that entrepreneurship enables the identification of opportunities without being constrained by currently available resources, and value can be created by combining different resources to leverage and develop opportunities. Covin et al. (2019) [ 20 ] analyzed the impact of entrepreneurship on corporate value from a market perspective and found that enterprises with a higher level of entrepreneurship exhibit greater loyalty to customers, stronger abilities in exploring new markets and seizing market opportunities, and a better market reputation, which, in turn, leads to higher financial performance. Etriya et al. (2019) [ 21 ] found that entrepreneurs with more business connections, technological links, and heterogeneous networks exhibit stronger entrepreneurship, which also leads to higher financial performance for their enterprises. Niemann (2020) [ 22 ], based on survey data from 103 enterprises, discovered that entrepreneurship exerts a positive impact on environmental and corporate performance. Zhou et al. (2020) [ 23 ] used samples from non-financial sector listed companies on China’s SME board, empirically tested and found that entrepreneurship has a positive effect on corporate value. The theory of entrepreneurship posits that the entrepreneurial spirit is an essential component of enterprise capital and resources [ 24 ]. In the era of the digital economy, internet thinking is characterized by innovation, equality, and interconnection, and it thus shares fundamental similarities with entrepreneurship, and the rise of the digital economy is currently offering a new opportunity to stimulate and cultivate entrepreneurship [ 25 ]. Therefore, in the context of digitalization, exploring the role and influence of entrepreneurship in the creation of enterprise value and the realization of market value has significant implications both for both current theoretical research and economic development.

Research on the impact of internal control quality on enterprise value

The enhancement of corporate value is closely related to the characteristics of corporate governance [ 26 ]. Internal control, as a special internal governance mechanism, provides certain supplements and refinements to the traditional corporate governance framework. Scholars have explored the relationship between internal control and enterprise value from perspectives such as internal control objectives and internal control processes. For example, Akisik et al. (2017) [ 27 ] noted that the purpose of corporate internal control is to enhance the efficiency of company operations. Therefore, a company’s internal control can effectively reflect its operational efficiency, thereby directly affecting its operational performance and ultimately affecting the company’s value. Zhou et al. (2022) [ 28 ] suggested that enterprises’ IT internal control systems based on digital platforms tend to be more intelligent and sophisticated, thus enhancing operational performance and supporting the achievement of strategic goals through control activities, information disclosure, and communication monitoring Joshi (2022) [ 29 ] analyzed a dataset of 881 global companies and found that the IT governance process capabilities (IT decision making, IT planning, IT infrastructure modernization, IT service provision, and IT monitoring) can improve IT performance, thereby enhancing business performance. However, Jarvinen et al. (2015) [ 30 ] found that if a company has significant loopholes in its internal control, its management is more motivated to engage in profit management. In contrast, for companies with high-level internal controls, management’s opportunities to engage in earnings management are generally lower than those with weak internal controls, which leads to a decline in corporate value. As digital technology becomes increasingly prevalent in enterprises, the management ideas and internal control methods endowed by digital technology are also embedded in enterprises’ daily operations, making the management processes such as finance and internal control more transparent [ 31 ]. Internal control and value management are interdependent and mutually reinforcing [ 32 ]. Based on the theory of value management, in the context of rapid development of the digital economy, what role does internal control play between the level of enterprise digitalization and enterprise value? Can it help companies optimize the allocation and utilization of information technology resources, thus assisting companies in bridging the “IT paradox” gap? This is also an important proposition addressed in this paper.

In summary, compared to the booming digital economy, relatively little research exists on the impact mechanism of corporate digitalization level on corporate value. Based on the theory of value management, we explore the impact of "breakthrough-based" entrepreneurship and "compliance-oriented" internal control governance on corporate value creation and realization under the deep integration of the digital and real economies. The objective of this paper is to supplement and refine the relevant theoretical research on enhancing corporate value through the digital economy, thereby stimulating enterprises to drive internal efficiency with digital power and achieve the goal of value management.

Theoretical analysis and research hypotheses

The impact of digitalization level on enterprise value.

The level of digitalization can facilitate enterprises to reshape their value creation model, assisting them in capturing new profit growth points and realizing value cocreation. Based on dynamic capability theory, in the era of the digital economy, enterprises’ production and operation boundaries have been broken, the era of value creation has become outdated, and consumer-oriented, digital and nonoriented business models have gradually become a trend [ 33 ]. Digital technologies are used to provide conditions for the creation of new service-oriented business models [ 34 ]. At the same time, the cross-border platform model and online and offline interaction channels based on "integration" have also facilitated the "digital value chain" of enterprises [ 35 ]. The use of IT technology and digital tools can influence a company’s marketing management processes, helping to build closer relationships with customers and to create value for the organization [ 36 ]. A "gap" exists between enterprise value creation and enterprise value capture, however the closed loop of the business model that is rooted in the development foundation of the digital economy can assist enterprises in bridging this gap. Furthermore, through the assistance offered by the sharing and coconstruction platform constructed for the digital economy, the value creation will be enlarged, and the "life cycle" of value creation will be extended [ 37 ].

The level of digitalization can extend the processing of data from basic resources to intelligent applications and help enterprises continuously improve operational efficiency and realize value improvement. Enterprises employ data technology tools for data analysis, and dedicate high-priced labor forces to value creation [ 38 ]. This can create cost savings in the areas of searching, replication, transportation, tracking, and verification [ 31 ]. Concurrently, enterprises can further release the potential information contained in the data; transform data elements into valuable information resources; improve the level of information quality; fully mobilize knowledge and other elements; enhance the "spillover effect" of knowledge elements; realize business sharing, data sharing, and service sharing; and provide decision support across different dimensions [ 39 ]. In the process of transforming knowledge into more "intelligent" decision-making and management mechanisms, enterprises can realize the protection and cocreation of enterprise value [ 40 ]. In addition, digitalization can significantly improve the efficiency of enterprise information transmission. Through big data platforms, it can quickly present the data of various internal management and external service intelligence to stakeholders, which is conducive to the realization of enterprise value [ 41 ].

Based on the above analysis, we propose the following research hypothesis:

• H1: The level of enterprise digitalization has a significant positive effect on enterprise value creation and value realization .

The role of entrepreneurship in the relationship between the digital level and enterprise value

Entrepreneurs are the hubs that stimulate and initiate everything else [ 42 ]. They apply professional knowledge to identify important constraints, find key subjects and resources, and combine them scientifically [ 43 ]. More importantly, however, in an innovation ecological environment, their decisions are not limited to reaching solutions under given conditions to potentially overcome identified constraints [ 44 ]. In the era of the digital economy, the development of the internet has spawned a series of new business forms, new technologies and new models and has promoted the cross-border allocation of capital, technology, talent and other elements, which has provided a good opportunity for entrepreneurs to use digital technologies such as the internet, big data, cloud computing, and blockchain and has significantly promoted the "two-wheel" driving force that underlies entrepreneurship [ 45 ].

The digital economy can influence enterprise value by stimulating the entrepreneurs’ innovation passion and improving their innovation methods. As Schumpeter said, entrepreneurs have the dream and motivation to build a private kingdom. This power is extraordinary, and it is so high that entrepreneurs can quickly jump out of their own "comfort zone" to swiftly recombine resources. In the digital era, the digital innovation traits possessed by entrepreneurship have become the critical theoretical prerequisite for corporate innovation [ 46 ]. When data become a new means and key factor of production, improvements in the level of enterprise digitalization can lead entrepreneurs to accelerate the entire process of data resource transformation to data element realization and fully connect data elements to various economic activities, thus improving the efficiency of resource allocation and total factor productivity and realizing value innovation [ 47 ]. By quickly and widely tracking the technological frontier and identifying trends, such entrepreneurs can accelerate the sharing and synthesis of ideas to stimulate innovative thinking [ 48 ], optimize traditional innovation methods, improve the success rate of technological and product innovations, reshape the value creation model, and accelerate the creation and realization of enterprise value.

The level of enterprise digitalization influences enterprise value by enhancing entrepreneurial opportunities and elevating the success rate of entrepreneurship. In the early stages of entrepreneurship, the application and popularization of digital technology stimulated market vitality and consumer demand. With the improvement of the enterprise digital level, entrepreneurs can exploit the market gap, capture entrepreneurial opportunities and realize enterprise value innovation. During the entrepreneurial process, entrepreneurs can utilize the shared nature of digital economic technologies to more precisely identify potential risks, reduce internal and external information asymmetry, and utilize digital platforms to facilitate resource allocation [ 49 ] and data value, thereby enhancing the accessible interactive channels while bolstering asset flexibility [ 50 ]. In the late stage of entrepreneurship, the publicity and promotion of the digital economy platforms not only alleviate various financing constraints but also expand the effect of enterprise value realization.

In the era of the digital economy, the new business civilization system emphasizes greater openness, trust, transparency, sharing and responsibility. The entrepreneurship in this new era has gradually come to exhibit the characteristics of contracts and sharing [ 25 ]. By building a credit database, improving the new digital trust mechanism [ 51 ], and establishing a long-term and stable cooperative relationship, enterprises can accelerate the dissemination of enterprise products, improve their business image and assist in the realization of enterprise value. Subsequently, the spirit of the contract will affect internal enterprise states, guide employees to foster a sense of belonging, form a healthy and harmonious corporate culture, and improve the efficiency of value creation through improvements in the subjective initiative of the labor force.

Based on the above analysis, we propose the following research hypotheses:

• H2: Improving the digitalization level can stimulate entrepreneurship , which exerts a further significant positive effect on the creation and realization of enterprise value .
• H2a: Improving the digitalization level can stimulate entrepreneurs’ innovation spirit , which exerts a further significant positive effect on the creation and realization of enterprise value .
• H2b: Improving the digitalization level can stimulate entrepreneurs’ pioneering spirit , which exerts a further significant positive effect on the creation and realization of enterprise value .
• H2c: Improving the digitalization level can stimulate entrepreneurs’ contract spirit , which exerts a further significant positive effect on the creation and realization of enterprise value .

The role of internal control quality in the relationship between the digital level and enterprise value

Internal control represents a set of control systems that are promoted by the enterprise management authority and engaged in by all enterprise employees. A response mechanism is thereby generated through compliance management that enhances the management and control capacity of the enterprise and thus promotes the effectiveness of its operation. The claim that solidifying the enterprise internal control system throughout the overall information system can significantly improve the quality of internal control has been widely recognized in theoretical and practical circles. With the improvement of the enterprise digitalization level, enterprise-built digital platforms, such as accounting information systems, management information systems, decision support systems and artificial intelligence systems, can automate enterprise management control, which results in decision support becoming more valuable and entrenched [ 28 ]. The development of the digital economy exerts both an agency cost effect and a debt financing effect [ 52 ]. The agency problem that currently exists between shareholders and managers can be alleviated through networked digital transmission, cloud computing, artificial intelligence and other technologies, but it can also benefit from the online transaction activities of the digital economy. Such mechanisms can provide more abundant and complete flows of information and capital for internal audits. The dual guarantee is conducive to fully leveraging the supervision function of internal audits and thereby alleviating the principal-agent problem between shareholders and managers, as well as being conducive to establishing the effective operation of the internal control system.

As a system resource and dynamic capability that forms the competitive advantage of enterprises, internal control can form sustainable competitive advantages through optimization and integration, as well as the amendment of business practices, thereby enhancing the future profitability of enterprises [ 53 ]. Internal control is embedded in the value chain of enterprises because the process of implementing control activities is, in essence, the process of value appreciation. Effective internal control also improves the transparency of accounting information disclosure [ 32 ], eases enterprise financing constraints, reduces the cost of debt financing for enterprises, boosts the formation of enterprise goodwill, and accelerates the realization of enterprise value [ 54 ].

• H3: Improving the enterprise digitalization level can further optimize the internal control quality , and compliance exerts a significant positive effect on the creation and realization of enterprise value .

In summary, this paper constructs a theoretical model, as illustrated in Fig 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.g001

Methodology

Setting and explanation of the main variables, dependent variable: enterprise value..

This paper posits that the level of digitalization in enterprises influences not only the creation of enterprise value but also its realization. Therefore, we select ROE as a measure of the level of enterprise value creation. Based on the efficient market hypothesis, a company’s market capitalization can relatively accurately reflect its true value, hence Tobin’s Q has been selected as a measure of the realization of enterprise value.

Independent variable: The level of enterprise digitalization.

Given that the digitalization of enterprises is a crucial strategy for their development, such characteristic information is typically reflected in companies’ annual reports, which serve as guides and summaries. Therefore, in this paper, we follow the research methods of Rippa et al. (2019) [ 55 ] and Wu et al. (2021) [ 56 ]. First, we summarize the characteristic terms of new generation information technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data, blockchain, and cloud computing. We identify the root words of keywords from both the application and technical layers while eliminating any expressions that precede the keywords containing negative connotations. Then we use Python software to recognize and count the root words. After logarithmically processing the frequency of the word "digitalization" published in the annual reports of listed companies, we use this value as a proxy indicator of the level of digitalization in enterprises. The dictionary of digitalization keywords is shown in Fig 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.g002

Mediating variables: Entrepreneurship and internal control quality.

In this paper, entrepreneurship and the internal control quality are posited to serve as important mediating variables through which the level of corporate digitalization influences value creation and realization. Drawing on the approaches employed in the literature [ 25 , 57 , 58 ], we focus our discussion on entrepreneurs’ innovation spirit, pioneering spirit and contract spirit. The entrepreneur’s innovation spirit can be measured by the proportion of enterprise R&D investments in the current year to the operating income, which is recorded as Esp1. The entrepreneur’s pioneering spirit can be measured by the proportion of the management’s shareholding, which is recorded as Esp2. From the perspective of employment contract spirit, the entrepreneur’s contract spirit can be measured by the wages and benefits that are paid to employees, which is recorded as Esp3. The internal control quality of enterprises is measured by the internal control index of Chinese listed enterprises issued by Dibo Enterprise Risk Management Technology Co., Ltd., and it is standardized in the regression analysis by dividing it by 100.

Control variables.

To separate the influence of a company’s inherent financial characteristics on its value, we select factors such as firm size, growth potential, age, the asset-liability ratio, and ownership as control variables.

Model specification

In Model 1 , the dependent variable is enterprise Value i,t , which represents the value creation or value realization of enterprise i in year t. The independent variable Szfix i,t represents the digitalization level of enterprise i in year t. Year i,t represents the fixed effect of the years, Ind i,t signifies the fixed effect of the industry, and ε i,t represents the random error.

To examine the mediating effect of entrepreneurship and internal control quality on the relationship between the level of digitalization and corporate value, we adopt the three-step mediation test method proposed by Wen et al. (2014) [ 60 ]. Building on Model 1, we further construct Models 2 and 3 as follows.

Mediator i,t refers to the intermediary variable. In this paper, we note that both "breakthrough-based" entrepreneurship and "compliance-oriented" internal control quality serve as "bridges" that connect the level of digitalization to the creation and realization of corporate value. Consequently, two mediating variables, entrepreneurship Esp and internal control quality IC, are set in Models 2 and 3 .

Sample selection and data source

According to the research purpose, we select A-share listed companies in China covering the period of 2015 to 2021 as the research object and adopt the method of combining the text analysis with the financial data of the annual reports to explore the impact of the enterprise digitalization level on enterprise value creation and realization, as well as the path mechanism. The ST and *ST samples, financial industry samples, and samples exhibiting a failure to continue operations during the period or serious data loss are excluded. After the continuous variables are subjected to a bilateral 1% tail reduction, a total of 13747 groups of enterprise-year observations are finally obtained. In terms of data sources, the annual reports text information required for the digitalization level of enterprises comes from http//www.cninfo.com.cn . Other relevant financial data, such as enterprise value, mainly come from the CSMAR database. The internal control index in the third-party DIB database is used to reflect the quality of enterprise internal control. Stata 16.0 metrological analysis software is used to process and report the data.

Empirical results and analysis

Descriptive statistical analysis.

The descriptive statistics of the research variables are presented in Table 1 . The mean of ROE is 0.0947 with a standard deviation of 0.0682. The mean of Tobin’s Q is 2.6455 with a standard deviation of 1.8579, indicating a relatively significant differences in the firms’ value realization levels within the sample. The mean of the digitalization level (Szfix) is 1.6312 with a standard deviation of 1.4161. Its minimum value is 0, and the maximum value is 5.1818, suggesting a polarization in the digitalization level among the sample companies, with significant disparities. Basic statistical data on three dimensions of entrepreneurship indicate considerable variations among the sample companies, generally at a lower level. The distribution of other variables falls within a reasonable range. Furthermore, the absolute value of the kurtosis of each variable is less than 10 and the absolute value of the skewness is less than 3. Based on Kline’s (2011) [ 61 ] recommendation regarding the skewness-kurtosis rule for normal distribution, the sample data of the research variables are considered reasonably consistent with the normal distribution and are suitable for regression analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t001

Correlation analysis

The correlation test results among the variables in this study are presented in Table 2 . A significant, positive correlation is observed between enterprise digitalization level and both value creation and value realization, preliminarily validating Hypothesis 1 of this study. Additionally, significant correlations are found between the enterprise digitalization level and the two mediating variables, as well as the control variables. The maximum correlation coefficient among all variables is 0.557. After excluding control variables, the maximum absolute value of the correlation coefficient is 0.342, which is less than 0.6. Referring to the criterion proposed by Zhang et al. (2016) [ 62 ], it can be preliminarily concluded that there is no multicollinearity issue in the data of this study. Furthermore, we conduct a variance inflation factor (VIF) test, obtaining VIF values for each variable ranging from 1.019 to 1.758. The VIF values of all variables are well below 10, referring to the criteria provided by Johnston (1984) [ 63 ] and Jia et al. (2018) [ 64 ], it can be concluded that there is no serious multicollinearity problem in the model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t002

Benchmark regression results

Before conducting the benchmark regression analysis, we use the Stata command proposed by Bersvendsen and Ditzen (2021) [ 65 ] to test for potential panel slope heterogeneity issues and finding that the hypothesis of variable homogeneity holds. Furthermore, we conduct Hausman tests, and the results are presented in Table 3 . In models with ROE and Tobin’s Q as dependent variables respectively, the Hausman test statistics are 117.79 and 581.52, with both p values being less than 0.01, thus rejecting the null hypothesis. This indicates a significant difference between the fixed effects model and the random effects model, thus supporting the use of the fixed effects model in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t003

To verify the core main effect of this paper, we apply Model (1) to test the impact of the enterprise digitalization level on enterprise value. Column (1) in Table 3 presents the regression result of the digitalization level on enterprise value creation alone, and the coefficient is significantly positive. Column (2) shows the regression result after adding the control variables, and the digitalization level coefficient remains significantly positive. Columns (3) and column (4) show the regression results of the digitalization level on the realization of enterprise value. The coefficients are both positive and both pass the significance test. The benchmark regression results show that the level of enterprise digitalization can help empower enterprises to reshape value creation and significantly improve enterprise value creation, and stakeholders have thus formed a positive expected effect, which plays a more significant positive role in terms of promoting the realization of enterprise value. The empirical results are consistent with hypothesis H1 of this paper.

Robustness test and endogenous treatment

To improve the stability and effectiveness of the core hypothesis, a robustness test and endogenous treatment are conducted by considering the lag effect and changing the fixed effect model.

Considering the influence of the lag effect

There is a certain time lag between the improvements of enterprises’ digitalization level and the realization of applying value creation and value capture. We lagged the enterprise value index by one period for the regression. The results are shown in Table 4 . Columns (1) and (2) show the regression results for the effect of the digitalization level on the value creation and value realization of enterprises in the lagged phase. The digitalization level coefficient is significantly positive, and the adjustment R 2 of the value realization indicator model is significantly increased, indicating that the digitalization level has a significant positive effect on the value creation and realization of enterprises in the lagged phase. The core assumption of this paper is that the H1 regression result is stable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t004

Changing the fixed effect model.

Considering that cross-sectional dependence is a critical issue and that ignoring it may lead to serious estimation bias and size distortion [ 66 ], we used the Breusch Pagan LM to test the cross-sectional correlation problem of panel data models. The statistical data of the test results rejects the null hypothesis at a 1% significance level; therefore, to account for the unobservable heterogeneity effect of individual enterprises that does not change over time, we control the individual fixed effects to reduce endogenous interference. In view of the heteroscedasticity and sequence-related problems of panel data, we conduct enterprise-level clustering for standard errors. Columns (3) and (4) in Table 4 show the regression results of the digitalization level on enterprise value creation and value realization under the stricter fixed effect model, respectively. The coefficient of the digitalization level is positive, and the significance test further supports hypothesis H1 of this paper.

Heterogeneity test

Under the effects of the digital economy, conducting in-depth research on enterprise attributes and characteristics can improve the pertinence of management insights. This paper focuses on the technological attribute of enterprises and the attributes characteristics from the perspective of the enterprise life cycle.

Heterogeneity test based on the technological attributes of enterprises.

With reference to the research of Ji et al. (2022) [ 41 ] and Peng et al. (2017) [ 67 ], and in accordance with the industry classification standard of the China Bureau of Statistics, the dummy variable HT is constructed to reflect the technological attributes of enterprises. High-tech enterprises are assigned a value of 1, and nonhigh-tech enterprises are assigned a value of 0. The test results from applying the two methods of group regression and interactive item processing are shown in Table 5 . For value creation, columns (1) and (2) indicate that the effect of the digitalization level on non-high-tech enterprises is more prominent (β = 0.0168>β = 0.002); in addition, column (3) shows a significant negative coefficient of interaction (β = -0.0038), indicating that the technological attributes of enterprises negatively regulate the impact of the digitalization level on enterprise value creation. High-tech enterprises that are oriented toward the development and application of new technologies are facing the transformation of their fields. Under the new pattern of green and low-carbon orientation and competition, the improvement of the digitalization level exerts little effect on overcoming the bottleneck period of value creation. In contrast, nonhigh-tech enterprises, as "latecomers", accelerate the foundation of resource iteration through digital transformation, and once digital technology has been successfully implemented, this economic return value increases substantially. In terms of value realization, columns (4) and (5) show that the level of digitalization plays a more prominent role in high-tech enterprises (β = 0.1099>β = 0.0623), and the interaction coefficient of column (6) is significantly positive (β = 0.0357). The rapid innovation of high-tech enterprise products, from R&D and design to operation and sales, leverages the digital integration of value chain resources and relies on high-tech products and technologies to seize further market opportunities, thereby facilitating the shortening of the value creation to value realization cycle. Thus, the technological attributes of enterprises positively regulate the impact of the digitalization level on enterprise value realization.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t005

Heterogeneity test based on the enterprise life cycle.

Following the research of Li et al. (2021) [ 68 ], the enterprise life cycle is divided into the start-up period (1–6 years), growth period (7–11 years) and mature period (12 years and above) for this study, and the group regression method is used for processing. The test results are shown in Table 6 . For start-ups, the level of digitalization has no significant impact on improvements in value creation, which is mainly due to the large risk coefficient of the enterprises, the obvious financing constraints, the high cost of capital in the process of improving the level of digitalization, and the small "resonance" between digitalization construction and enterprise development strategy during this period. Therefore, the enabling role of digital construction in business cannot be released in a timely manner during this period. However, during the start-up stage, enterprises can present the internal management intelligence and external service intelligence data to stakeholders, thereby leading to the phased and progressive realization of enterprise value. For growth and mature enterprises, improving the level of digitalization can have a significant positive effect on value creation and value realization. The regression coefficient shows that the level of digitalization is more significant for improving the value of growth enterprises. As the development of a growing enterprise is a dynamic and changeable process, digital resources and technical means can significantly enhance the basic operation of the enterprise, assist in the development of an intelligent operation framework to support its stronger competitiveness, facilitate easier breakthrough innovation and thus enhance the promotion of the enterprise value.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t006

Identification test of the intermediary mechanism

To clarify the path and mechanism by which the level of digitalization in enterprises affects their value, we referred to the research design of the intermediary effect test by Wen and Ye (2014) [ 60 ], which is based on the perspective of "digital level—entrepreneurship—enterprise value" and "digital level—internal control quality—enterprise value". We used Models ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) to conduct the research. Moreover, the Sobel test method was used for the robustness test.

The intermediary effect test based on the perspective of entrepreneurial innovation spirit.

According to the empirical results displayed in Table 7 , when introducing the entrepreneurial innovation spirit into the model, for value creation, the regression coefficient of the enterprise digitalization level decreases from 0.0011 to 0.0004; however, the coefficient of the entrepreneurial innovation spirit on value creation is not significant. For value realization, the regression coefficient of enterprise digitalization level decreases from 0.0702 to 0.0296, and the regression coefficient of entrepreneurial innovation spirit on value realization is significant (β = 0.0784). Therefore, improving the level of enterprise digitalization can significantly stimulate entrepreneurial innovation spirit, thereby driving the realization of enterprise value. In the context of entrepreneurial sharing in the digital economy, the knowledge spillover effects stimulate innovative thinking; but there may be certain switching costs when tracking technological frontiers and optimizing traditional innovation methods. So that the mediating effect of entrepreneurial innovation spirit on the relationship between the digitalization level and value creation is not obvious. However, driven by the spirit of entrepreneurial innovation, enterprises in an open innovation environment have delivered a continuously updated and iterative innovation model to stakeholders. The cross-industry and cross-regional "breakthrough" innovation cooperation further releases positive signals to the capital market and promotes the realization of enterprise value. The empirical data show that entrepreneurial innovation spirit plays a mediating role between the realization of enterprise value and the digitalization level, which provides some empirical evidence supporting hypothesis H2a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t007

The intermediary effect test based on the perspective of entrepreneurial pioneering spirit.

As shown in Table 8 , when introducing the entrepreneurial pioneering spirit into the model, the regression coefficient of the digitalization level on entrepreneurial pioneering spirit is significantly positive (β = 0.7320). Furthermore, the regression coefficient of the level of digitalization in enterprises on value creation decreases from 0.0011 to 0.0009, and that on value realization decreases from 0.0702 to 0.0700, both of which are significant. Therefore, we can infer that the level of enterprise digitalization can effectively improve the entrepreneurial pioneering spirit of entrepreneurs, and this positive driving effect is further transmitted to enterprise value creation and value realization. Entrepreneurs use digital platforms to find market gaps, capture potential entrepreneurial opportunities, reduce entrepreneurial risks, achieve breakthroughs and expand their social networks of entrepreneurs. The intermediary role of pioneering spirit provides further evidence to support hypothesis H2b in this paper.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t008

The intermediary effect test based on the perspective of entrepreneurial contract spirit.

According to the empirical results shown in Table 9 , when introducing the entrepreneurial contract spirit into the model, the regression coefficient of digitalization level on entrepreneurial contract spirit is significantly positive (β = 0.0947). Furthermore, the regression coefficient of the enterprise digitalization level on value creation decreases from 0.0011 to 0.0002, and that on value realization decreases from 0.0702 to 0.0420, both of which are significant. Therefore, we can infer that the level of enterprise digitalization contributes to the establishment of an entrepreneurial contract spirit and thus has a positive driving effect on enterprise value creation and value realization. Under the new digital trust mechanism, the entrepreneurs’ contract spirit can be widely recognized by society for creating a healthy and harmonious organizational system, providing a fair and honest corporate culture, and improving the efficiency of organizational operations. The above empirical results offer support for H2c.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t009

The intermediary effect test based on the perspective of internal control quality.

We extend the analysis from the perspective of "entrepreneurship" to the perspective of "internal control". Table 10 shows the results of incorporating the internal control quality into the model. The regression coefficient of digitalization level on internal control quality is significantly positive (β = 0.0202). Furthermore, the regression coefficient of a company’s digitalization level on value creation decreases from 0.0011 to 0.0004, and the regression coefficient on value realization decreases from 0.0702 to 0.0663. All of these coefficients pass the significance tests, indicating that the enterprise digitalization level can significantly improve enterprise internal control quality. Enterprises will generate response mechanisms based on compliance management concepts, thereby forming institutional resources and dynamic capabilities for competitive advantages. This will also contribute to the formation of corporate goodwill, thus promoting value creation and realization. The above empirical results offer support for H3 in this paper.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.t010

Conclusion and implications

Discussion of findings.

Value creation and realization have always been important goals for microenterprises. In the context of the digital economy, significant changes have occurred in both market and consumer behavior. Digital transformation has become an inevitable trend; however, many enterprises still face confusion during the transformation process. Does continuously improving the level of enterprise digitalization contribute to value creation and realization? What is the driving transmission path extending from the digital level to value creation and value realization? In this paper, we use China’s A-share listed companies as the research object, and the method of combining the text analysis of the annual reports with their financial data is used to explore the impact of the enterprise digitalization level on enterprise value creation and value realization, as well as the path mechanism underlying it. We obtain several interesting results.

First, a benchmark regression on the impact of the digitalization level on enterprise value creation and value realization is performed. The empirical results show that the enterprise digitalization level can significantly improve the level of enterprise value creation and exert a more significant positive effect on enterprise value realization. At the same time, the lag effect is considered in this paper and the fixed effect model is changed as a robustness test and endogenous treatment. At last, the empirical results show that the main effect research conclusions are more robust and reliable.

Second, based on the consideration of asymmetric effects, we conducted heterogeneity analysis and tests on the samples. Research has shown that the level of digitalization plays a more prominent role in the value creation of nonhigh-tech enterprises than in that of high-tech enterprises; moreover, regarding value realization, the digital level plays a more prominent role in high-tech enterprises than in nonhigh-tech enterprises. From the perspective of the enterprise life cycle, the level of digitalization had no significant impact on the improvements in value creation for start-ups but can significantly promote the realization of enterprise value. For growing and mature enterprises, improving the level of digitalization has a significant positive effect on value creation and value realization, and the level of digitalization is more significant for improving the value of growing enterprises.

Finally, based on the channel mechanism test, we find that affected by conversion costs and other factors, except for the insignificant mediating effect of corporate innovation spirit in digitalization level and value creation, the empirical results show that the improvement of corporate digitalization level can effectively stimulate various dimensions of entrepreneurship; At the same time, such improvement can also promote the internal control quality in enterprises and generate a response management mechanism based on compliance. The improvement of these factors is conducive to the creation and realization of enterprise value.

Implications and suggestions

Based on the above findings, from the perspective of practice, this study serves to provide beneficial suggestions for managers of the firms as well as policymakers of the governments with the aim of stimulating the internal governance efficiency of enterprises through digital power and then promoting the deep integration of the digital economy and the real economies.

First, the government should provide more effective support and guidance for the improvement of enterprise digitalization. On the one hand, the government can increase investments in digital infrastructure construction and security, including network infrastructure, data centers, and cloud computing platforms, to provide a favorable digital environment and conditions for enterprises. Additionally, the government can formulate personalized support policies and measures based on the digitalization needs and characteristics of different types of enterprises. For non-high-tech enterprises, more digital training and technical support can be provided to help them enhance their digital capabilities and promote value creation. For high-tech enterprises, increased investment and policy support can encourage them to accelerate digital transformation and enhance value realization capabilities. Start-up enterprises, especially, require the government to provide an inclusive, agile, and low-cost "ticket" for digital transformation. On the other hand, the government should also strengthen its guidance on entrepreneurship and the regulation of internal control quality within enterprises. By providing entrepreneurial policy support, entrepreneurship education and training, and mentorship, the government can actively create an environment and atmosphere conducive to innovation, stimulating entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the government should strengthen the supervision of internal control quality within enterprises, establish sound internal control systems and audit supervision mechanisms, standardize internal operations and management behavior, enhance operational transparency and compliance, and ultimately promote sustained growth of enterprise value.

Second, enterprise managers should formulate a digital strategy that aligns with the actual situation of the enterprise and accounts for the industry and lifecycle status of the business. The findings of this research show that, in terms of value creation, the level of digitalization plays a more prominent role for non-high-tech enterprises than for high-tech enterprises. Conversely, regarding value realization, the impact is more pronounced for high-tech companies. Therefore, managers need to invest in digital resources in a targeted manner, considering the actual situation of the enterprise, the characteristics of the industry, and the market development trends. For start-ups, effective planning of fixed assets investments and strengthening the organic and flexible integration of existing digital technologies are advisable in business operations such as research and development, production, and marketing. For enterprises in the growth and mature stages, from the perspective of enhancing corporate value objectives, the investment and application of digital technologies such as 5G, blockchain, big data, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing should potentially increase. Furthermore, by integrating platforms such as digital ecosystems, enterprises can achieve complementary advantages and resource sharing, thereby enhancing their corporate value.

Third, enterprises should pay attention to the new developments of entrepreneurship in the digital context and cultivate and transmit entrepreneurship from the perspective of internal and external motivations. In the era of the digital economy, information is spreading rapidly. In this new business civilization system, a new digital trust mechanism has been formed between enterprises and society. Therefore, enterprises should not only cultivate innovation and entrepreneurship on the foundation of innovation, equality and interconnection but also strive to fulfill their commitments to stakeholders based on the perspective of internal and external sustainable development motivations, for example, voluntarily expending extra time and effort to ensure the performance of the transaction contract. They should operate with integrity and adherence to digital governance norms, embedding entrepreneurship into corporate culture and disseminating it to the market. And in turn, the market’s ability to screen enterprises can be enhanced to allow improvements in the digital level to continue to effectively drive enterprise value creation and realization.

Finally, enterprises should build an internal control implementation system that matches their digital strategy and elucidate the mechanism transmission path driven by internal governance effectiveness. In the digital construction process, enterprises are easily affected by path dependence, and a gap exists between existing resource conditions and the management capacity base. Therefore, enterprises should adjust and build an internal control implementation system that matches the digital strategy in a timely manner and improve the internal governance structure and dynamic organizational structure. Then, enterprises can implement internal control by applying engineering thinking, select internal control evaluation indicators that are adapted to the digital situation, and build a compliant digital management response mechanism to help transcend the "digital paradox" and realize the improvement of internal governance efficiency that drives enterprise value.

Limitations and directions of future research

In the previous literature, the relationships among enterprise digitalization level, entrepreneurship, and internal control quality have rarely been studied. We have explored the role and mechanism of these two internal characteristic factors in the process through which the enterprise digitalization level enhances value. However, we have not analyzed the noneconomic effects of these two factors on enterprises in the context of digitalization, nor have we considered whether the impact of digitalization on enterprise value may vary under the dynamic external environmental conditions. These limitations offer a promising direction for further investigation.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305078.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors deeply appreciate the comments of their colleagues and anonymous reviewers who helped in refining this paper.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 34. Ge JH. Convergence: The enterprise value creation model in the era of digital economy. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press; 2022.
• 42. Schumpeter J. Theory of economic development. Beijing: The Commercial Press;1991.
• 61. Kline R B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2011.
• 62. Zhang ZX. Financial Econometrics. Beijing: Higher Education Press; 2016.
• 63. Johnston J. Econometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1984.
• 64. Jia J, He X, Jin Y. Statistics (7th edn). Beijing: Renmin University of China Press;2018.

  Pan African Medical Journal Journal / Pan African Medical Journal / Vol. 46 No. 1 (2023) / Articles (function() { function async_load(){ var s = document.createElement('script'); s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; var theUrl = 'https://www.journalquality.info/journalquality/ratings/2406-www-ajol-info-pamj'; s.src = theUrl + ( theUrl.indexOf("?") >= 0 ? "&" : "?") + 'ref=' + encodeURIComponent(window.location.href); var embedder = document.getElementById('jpps-embedder-ajol-pamj'); embedder.parentNode.insertBefore(s, embedder); } if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent('onload', async_load); else window.addEventListener('load', async_load, false); })();  

Article sidebar.

Article Details

Main article content, characterizing the progress in traumatic brain injuries research in north africa: a systematic review, younes iderdar, elmadani saad, noureddine elkhoudri, amina ibnlfassi, mohamed chahboune.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a major health concern worldwide. Currently, systematic TBI studies in North Africa are lacking. Nevertheless, they are highly needed to ameliorate TBI outcomes and increase survival rates among TBI patients. Through this systematic review, we aimed to characterize the progress in TBI research in North Africa and analyse the literature on TBI in the region in the last two decades. A review of North African articles was performed over 22 years (2000-2021) and the required data were collected using keywords: “traumatic brain injury”, “traumatic brain damage”, “traumatic head injury”, and “traumatic head damage”. Abstracts were screened, and selected eligible studies were reviewed independently by two reviewers. The review included 22 studies within the 59,204, 63,083, and 45,918 records that were identified between 2000 and 2021 through Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, respectively. The proportion of the total global TBI records that relate to North Africa was less than 1%. Overall, the indices show low progress in the number of new records occurring every year in North Africa and all the records in North Africa were produced after the year 2004. The results show that North Africa has witnessed a low production in TBI research, and the progress is far from being equal to other regions. Production of scientific publications, providing the required information and raising awareness about complications resulting from TBI on individuals and society in general, should be considered.

AJOL is a Non Profit Organisation that cannot function without donations. AJOL and the millions of African and international researchers who rely on our free services are deeply grateful for your contribution. AJOL is annually audited and was also independently assessed in 2019 by E&Y.

Your donation is guaranteed to directly contribute to Africans sharing their research output with a global readership.

• For annual AJOL Supporter contributions, please view our Supporters page.

Journal Identifiers