advantages and disadvantages of systematic literature review

Strengths and Weaknesses of Systematic Reviews

Automate every stage of your literature review to produce evidence-based research faster and more accurately.

Systematic reviews are considered credible sources since they are comprehensive, reproducible, and precise in stating the outcomes. The type of review system used and the approach taken depend on the goals and objectives of the research. To choose the best-suited review system, researchers must be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

Let us now look at the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews.

Strengths Of Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews have become increasingly popular owing to their transparency, accuracy, replicability, and reduced risk of bias. Some of the main benefits of systematic reviews are;

Specificity

Researchers can answer specific research questions of high importance. For example, the efficacy of a particular drug in the treatment of an illness.

Explicit Methodology

A systematic review requires rigorous planning. Each stage of the review is predefined to the last detail. The research question is formulated using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) approach. A strict eligibility criteria is then established for inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting the primary studies for the review. Every stage of the systematic review methodology is pre-specified to the last detail and made publicly available, even before starting the review process. This makes all the stages in the methodology transparent and reproducible.

Reliable And Accurate Results

The results of a systematic review are either analyzed qualitatively and presented as a textual narrative or quantitatively using statistical methods such as meta-analyses and numeric effect estimates. The quality of evidence or the confidence in effect estimates is calculated using the standardized GRADE approach.

Comprehensive And Exhaustive

A systematic review involves a thorough search of all the available data on a certain topic. It is exhaustive and considers every bit of evidence in synthesizing the outcome. Primary sources for the review are collected from databases and multiple sources, such as blogs from pharmaceutical companies, unpublished research directly from researchers, government reports, and conference proceedings. These are referred to as grey literature. The search criteria and keywords used in sourcing are specific and predefined.

Reproducible

Learn more about distillersr.

(Article continues below)

Weaknesses Of Systematic Reviews

Although systematic reviews are robust tools in scientific research they are not immune to errors. They can be misleading, or even harmful if the data is inappropriately handled or if they are biased. Some of the limitations of systematic reviews include:

Mass Production

Due to the popularity systematic reviews have gained, they tend to be used more than required. The growth rate of systematic reviews has outpaced the growth rate of studies overall. This results in redundancy. For example, a survey published in the BMJ[1], included 73 randomly selected meta-analyses published in 2010 found that for two-thirds of these studies, there was at least one, and sometimes as many as 13, additional meta-analyses published on the same topic by early 2013.

Risk of Bias

Although systematic reviews have many advantages, they are also more susceptible to certain types of biases. A bias is a systematic or methodological error that causes misrepresentation of the study outcomes. As bias can appear at any stage, authors should be aware of the specific risks at each stage of the review process. Most of the known errors in systematic reviews arise in the selection and publication stages. The eligibility criterion in a systematic review helps to avoid selection bias. Poor study design and execution can also result in a biased outcome. It’s important to learn about the types of bias in systematic reviews .

Expressing Strong Opinions by Stealth

Selective outcome reporting is a major threat to a systematic review. The author or reviewer may decide to only report a selection of the statistically significant outcomes that suit his interest. The possibility of unfair or misleading interpretation of evidence outcomes in a systematic review can have serious implications.

Like any review system, systematic reviews have their advantages and disadvantages. Understanding them is essential to making a choice of which review system to use.

Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 2013; 347:f4501

3 Reasons to Connect

Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Affiliation.

• 1 Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University Health Science Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
• PMID: 19417748
• DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118

Systematic reviews systematically evaluate and summarize current knowledge and have many advantages over narrative reviews. Meta-analyses provide a more reliable and enhanced precision of effect estimate than do individual studies. Systematic reviews are invaluable for defining the methods used in subsequent studies, but, as retrospective research projects, they are subject to bias. Rigorous research methods are essential, and the quality depends on the extent to which scientific review methods are used. Systematic reviews can be misleading, unhelpful, or even harmful when data are inappropriately handled; meta-analyses can be misused when the difference between a patient seen in the clinic and those included in the meta-analysis is not considered. Furthermore, systematic reviews cannot answer all clinically relevant questions, and their conclusions may be difficult to incorporate into practice. They should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. As clinicians, we need proper methodological training to perform good systematic reviews and must ask the appropriate questions before we can properly interpret such a review and apply its conclusions to our patients. This paper aims to assist in the reading of a systematic review.

Publication types

• Comparative Study
• Systematic Review
• Evidence-Based Medicine / standards*
• Evidence-Based Medicine / trends
• Gastroenterology*
• Meta-Analysis as Topic*
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
• Reproducibility of Results
• Research Design
• Review Literature as Topic*
• Sensitivity and Specificity

Study Design 101

• Helpful formulas
• Finding specific study types
• Systematic Review
• Meta- Analysis
• Practice Guideline
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Cohort Study
• Case Control Study
• Case Reports

A document often written by a panel that provides a comprehensive review of all relevant studies on a particular clinical or health-related topic/question. The systematic review is created after reviewing and combining all the information from both published and unpublished studies (focusing on clinical trials of similar treatments) and then summarizing the findings.

• Exhaustive review of the current literature and other sources (unpublished studies, ongoing research)
• Less costly to review prior studies than to create a new study
• Less time required than conducting a new study
• Results can be generalized and extrapolated into the general population more broadly than individual studies
• More reliable and accurate than individual studies
• Considered an evidence-based resource

Disadvantages

• Very time-consuming
• May not be easy to combine studies

Design pitfalls to look out for

Studies included in systematic reviews may be of varying study designs, but should collectively be studying the same outcome.

Is each study included in the review studying the same variables?

Some reviews may group and analyze studies by variables such as age and gender; factors that were not allocated to participants.

Do the analyses in the systematic review fit the variables being studied in the original studies?

Fictitious Example

Does the regular wearing of ultraviolet-blocking sunscreen prevent melanoma? An exhaustive literature search was conducted, resulting in 54 studies on sunscreen and melanoma. Each study was then evaluated to determine whether the study focused specifically on ultraviolet-blocking sunscreen and melanoma prevention; 30 of the 54 studies were retained. The thirty studies were reviewed and showed a strong positive relationship between daily wearing of sunscreen and a reduced diagnosis of melanoma.

Real-life Examples

Yang, J., Chen, J., Yang, M., Yu, S., Ying, L., Liu, G., ... Liang, F. (2018). Acupuncture for hypertension. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11 (11), CD008821. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008821.pub2

This systematic review analyzed twenty-two randomized controlled trials to determine whether acupuncture is a safe and effective way to lower blood pressure in adults with primary hypertension. Due to the low quality of evidence in these studies and lack of blinding, it is not possible to link any short-term decrease in blood pressure to the use of acupuncture. Additional research is needed to determine if there is an effect due to acupuncture that lasts at least seven days.

Parker, H.W. and Vadiveloo, M.K. (2019). Diet quality of vegetarian diets compared with nonvegetarian diets: a systematic review. Nutrition Reviews , https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuy067

This systematic review was interested in comparing the diet quality of vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets. Twelve studies were included. Vegetarians more closely met recommendations for total fruit, whole grains, seafood and plant protein, and sodium intake. In nine of the twelve studies, vegetarians had higher overall diet quality compared to non-vegetarians. These findings may explain better health outcomes in vegetarians, but additional research is needed to remove any possible confounding variables.

Related Terms

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

A highly-regarded database of systematic reviews prepared by The Cochrane Collaboration , an international group of individuals and institutions who review and analyze the published literature.

Exclusion Criteria

The set of conditions that characterize some individuals which result in being excluded in the study (i.e. other health conditions, taking specific medications, etc.). Since systematic reviews seek to include all relevant studies, exclusion criteria are not generally utilized in this situation.

Inclusion Criteria

The set of conditions that studies must meet to be included in the review (or for individual studies - the set of conditions that participants must meet to be included in the study; often comprises age, gender, disease type and status, etc.).

Now test yourself!

1. Systematic Reviews are similar to Meta-Analyses, except they do not include a statistical analysis quantitatively combining all the studies.

a) True b) False

2. The panels writing Systematic Reviews may include which of the following publication types in their review?

a) Published studies b) Unpublished studies c) Cohort studies d) Randomized Controlled Trials e) All of the above

← Previous Next →

© 2011-2019, The Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library Questions? Ask us .

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychiatry Investig
• v.12(3); 2015 Jul

Why Systematic Review rather than Narrative Review?

1 Department of Psychiatry, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Sir: Recently review articles including systematic and narrative reviews have been significantly increasing in most psychiatric journals in the world alongside "Psychiatry Investigation (PI)". Since the launch of the "PI" at March 2004, there have been a number of review articles; indeed 54 papers were published as format of regular review papers or special articles in the "PI" from 2004 to 2014. However, of the 54 papers, only one review paper partially met the contemporary criteria of systematic review, otherwise were written as a format of narrative review for diverse topics such as epidemiological findings, concept and hypothesis of certain psychiatric disease, current understandings on certain disease, psychopharmacology, and treatment guidelines. This is unsatisfactory when reflecting the fact that systematic reviews have been rapidly and increasingly replacing traditional narrative (explicit) reviews as a standard platform of providing and updating currently available research findings as confident evidence. Most journals have started to change their policy in acceptance of review papers, they have been giving a priority to systematic review only as a regular review article and excluding narrative reviews, to provide the best evidence for all basic and clinical questions and further hypotheses. Of course, there should be Pros and Cons between systematic and narrative reviews; for instance, the major advantage of systematic reviews is that they are based on the findings of comprehensive and systematic literature searches in all available resources, with minimization of selection bias avoiding subjective selection bias, while narrative reviews, if they can be written experts in certain research area, can provide experts' intuitive, experiential and explicit perspectives in focused topics. 1

The absence of objective and systematic selection criteria in review method substantially results in a number of methodological shortcomings leading to clear bias of the author's interpretation and conclusions. Such differences are quite clear when referring to the review paper of Drs. Cipriani and Geddess, 2 where 7 narrative and 2 systematic reviews were compared and found that narrative reviews including same studies reached different conclusions against each other, indicating the difficulties of appraising and using narrative reviews to have conclusion on specific topic. Hence, narrative reviews may be evidence-based, but they are not truly useful as scientific evidence.

Even in reported as systematic review, it is also frequent that those papers are not true systematic review or they have certain bias in data search method and conclusions. For instance, due to lack of satisfactory pharmacotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its frequent comorbid psychotic symptoms, a possible role of atypical antipsychotics (AAs) for PTSD has been consistently proposed. 3 In fact various AAs have demonstrated positive antidepressant and ant-anxiety effects in a number of small-scale, open-label studies (OLSs) or randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). 4 In this context, a recent systematic review (4 olanzapine, 7 risperidone and 1 ziprasidone trials) by Wang et al. 5 has also suggested the positive prospect on the role of AAs for the treatment of PTSD; however, the review has a number of faulty and wrong selection of clinical trials data and interpretation of studies included in their review. The authors neglected wide range of clinical information such as patient characteristics (particularly, initial severity of disease), comorbidity issues, trial duration issues, trial design characteristics, primary endpoint difference, study sponsoring; that is, heterogeneity of clinical trials would substantially influence the quality and clinical implications of the study results. The basic problem of non-systematic search of data is that beneath the shining surface, it seems that the authors utilizing it often misunderstand the true value, underpinning meanings and correct nature of the data, or their true limitations and strengths, and they often go too far or short with the interpretation. 6 Indeed, the main conclusion of a narrative review may often be based on evidence, but such reviews themselves are not rigorous evidence since such reviews are too selective and thus little good quality information could be included. 2 In addition, I found one olanzapine trial was OLS but they included the study in the result (this is a mixture of data yielding a huge heterogeneity). 7 This clearly indicates they were not consistent in collection of the study for their review. Olanzapine has a lot of OLSs beyond the study, likewise other AAs also have a plenty of OLSs. Regarding an inclusion of OLSs for systematic reviews, an interesting metaanalyses are available on the role of olanzapine for adolescent bipolar disorder 8 and aripiprazole augmentation therapy 9 for depression. According to Pae et al. 9 the treatment effects were not significantly different between OLSs and RCTs in efficacy of aripiprazole augmentation for treating depression; the pooled effect size was statistically significant in both study design and also in a meta-analysis regression, study design was not a significant predictor of mean change in the primary endpoint, clearly indicating that OLSs are useful predictors of the potential safety and efficacy of a given compound. This finding was also supported by another meta-analysis. 8 Hence, the value of OLSs should be carefully re-evaluated for practical information source, development of new drugs or acquisition for new indications, and should not be neglected for data research, especially for narrative reviews. Furthermore, Dr. Wang et al. 5 did not include one important RCT; quetiapine has a RCT for PTSD, 10 which was presented in the thematic meeting of the CINP 2009. A 12-week RCT was conducted for 80 PTSD patients. Finally, Wang et al. 5 surprisingly did not present any effect size (ES) for studies, although such calculations are conventionally included in the review papers. Another critical example is Hickie and Rogers's review, 11 according to their article, agomelatine was efficacious antidepressant; however, subsequent researchers who avoided selection bias have clearly demonstrated its weak efficacy as an antidepressant. 12 Therefore, reflecting two review papers, 5 , 11 we can realize that inappropriate aggregation of studies may definitely bias conclusion. Hence, entire published and unpublished dataset should be considered in systematic review, especially, when clinical data is not sufficient and the medication has no officially approved indication by the regulatory agency.

To summarize, systematic review should include followings respecting recommendation from currently available systematic review guidelines (e.g., The Cochrane Library www.cochrane.org ); clear basic and clinical hypothesis, predefined protocol, designation of search resources, through data search (regardless of publication), transparent selection criteria, qualification of studies selected, synthesis of study data and information, relevant summary and conclusion. Table 1 compares systematic and narrative reviews ( Table 1 ). Since the evidence-based medicine is the current trend and also mandatory for establishment of heath policy, the PI should also turn to encourage submission of systematic reviews rather than narrative reviews.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI12C0003).

The future of evidence synthesis (2 of 3): The strengths and weaknesses of systematic reviews

Written By:

Maria Dellapina

Welcome to post two of a three-part Prism Academy series on systematic reviews! If you are thinking to yourself, “wait...post two?” be sure to check out the first post here . Trust me, it will help!

For those of you who don’t already know, my name is Maria, and I am the Head of Operations at Prism. Prior to joining the team, I was working in academia, coordinating research projects and spending a lot of time thinking about and synthesizing evidence. I want to thank you for joining me on this three-part series, where we are exploring the basics of systematic reviews, their current state, and how we must adapt them to keep pace with the world today. In today’s post, we are going to explore the strengths and weaknesses of systematic reviews and why bringing them up to speed with the pace of modern research is crucial to the everlasting pursuit of evidence-based practice.

But before we get too into the weeds, let's quickly discuss a bit of history:

Systematic reviews, as we know them today, were popularized in the 1970s when researchers at Oxford began synthesizing evidence in the pursuit of summarizing the effectiveness of health care interventions. This work, laid the foundation for Cochrane, "a global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers and people interested in health." Given their rigorous methodology, Cochrane reviews are considered among the highest quality systematic reviews, informing evidence-based practice for researchers and practitioners around the globe.

In recent years, systematic reviews have rapidly increased in popularity, with some estimates claiming that in 2019, over 80 systematic reviews were published every day . That represents a ton of work - and we’ll come back to discuss more about that in a moment.

As previously mentioned, systematic reviews are considered by many to be the gold standard of evidence synthesis. There are several good reasons for this:

• Systematic reviews utilize rigorous methods which aim to minimize bias in the review of evidence from individual studies.
• Systematic reviews attempt to be comprehensive in their search strategy, enabling reviewers to look at all of the available evidence and combine it accordingly.
• Systematic reviews, when paired with an appropriately conducted meta-analysis, can allow reviewers to better understand the efficacy and effect size of a given intervention, analyze safety risks and benefits more comprehensively, extrapolate findings to the larger population, and examine sub-populations.
• Systematic reviews tend to include only trials of high-quality, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, systematic reviews are conducted on other types of studies.
• Systematic reviews are often conducted using standardized quality-assurance practices and guidelines such as PRISMA, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, and GRADE.

Given all of the above, it is easy to see why systematic reviews have been relied upon for decades as a source of evidence-based answers to questions that critically affect the practice of researchers, clinicians, or practitioners.

Yet, systematic reviews are far from a perfect solution to evidence synthesis. Indeed, their drawbacks quickly become apparent when one examines them within the context of today’s biomedical research ecosystem. Some of the weaknesses include:

• Systematic reviews usually take several months to complete, and by the time the results are published, the findings may be out of date. Even if attempts to update the review are made, these too may take many months.
• As I already mentioned above, some researchers estimate that over 80 systematic reviews are published every day . Given that many reviews are 20-80+ pages in length, if one new review is published in a particular field each week, the consumers of this knowledge (i.e., busy academics and clinicians) will likely struggle to keep up.
• Given the sheer quantity of systematic reviews being published, there is a substantial amount of unnecessary duplication .
• Despite the presence of standardized guidelines and practices, many systematic reviews are still conducted without rigor and report methodology in obscure language. Meta-analyses are also sometimes conducted inappropriately or use incorrect or questionable statistical methods.
• Systematic reviews may ask questions that hold little to no value for the practice of other researchers, clinicians, or practitioners. It has even been suggested that some reviews are conducted simply to boost an author’s publication numbers .

Current Climate

Taken together, the strengths and weaknesses of systematic reviews reveal an interesting tension at the root of evidence synthesis:

When conducted using appropriate methods, systematic reviews are a high-quality source of evidence-based answers. However, reviews take many months to complete and often struggle to keep pace with the rate at which new data is published.

We add to this the fact that dozens of reviews of varying methodological quality get through peer-review and get published every day. This leaves it up to the consumers (i.e., those busy academics, clinicians, and practitioners) to read each review’s methods carefully and decide if the data are trustworthy and the conclusions are sound.

The result is a perfect storm of wasted time, misinterpretation of findings, and missed opportunities for implementation of evidence-based practice. Despite all the great things that systematic reviews can do, there is simply too much out there (of variable quality) for the experts to properly analyze, digest, and reliably fold into their practice.

That’s All for Now…

This is a dower to end on, perhaps - but also represents a great opportunity. I know I am not alone in the belief that we can do better. Many notable efforts are underway to ensure quality evidence-based decisions are at the heart of practice. In our next post, we will explore some of these efforts and how they each aim to amplify the strengths of systematic reviews while addressing some weaknesses. In the end, I hope you will find a way in which you can help systematic reviews meet the needs, capacities, and realities of the modern biomedical research ecosystem.

Additional Resources and References

• Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol . 2021;138:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022
• Naudet F, Schuit E, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping network meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. Int J Epidemiol . 2017;46(6):1999-2008. doi:10.1093/ije/dyx138
• Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q . 2016;94(3):485-514. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210

Latest Articles

Smmry: streamline your reading with prism's powerful tool.

Prism's Paragraph Generator: Efficient Content Creation Made Easy

Prism's Paragraph AI: Revolutionizing Content Creation

Understanding Large Perturbation Models

A brief, layperson's introduction to Large Perturbation Models (LPMs), a new tool in the drug development toolkit to simulate vast numbers of experiments digitally

Schedule a demo

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Patient Perspectives
• Methods Corner
• Science for Patients
• Invited Commentaries
• ESC Content Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Instructions for reviewers
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EJCN?
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Read & Publish
• About European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
• About ACNAP
• About European Society of Cardiology
• ESC Publications
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• War in Ukraine
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The problem: what if you need a synthesis of the evidence now, a solution: rapid reviews, examples of rapid reviews, limitations and pitfalls of rapid reviews, data availability.

• < Previous

Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Philip Moons, Eva Goossens, David R. Thompson, Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 5, June 2021, Pages 515–519, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab041

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Although systematic reviews are the method of choice to synthesize scientific evidence, they can take years to complete and publish. Clinicians, managers, and policy-makers often need input from scientific evidence in a more timely and resource-efficient manner. For this purpose, rapid reviews are conducted. Rapid reviews are performed using an accelerated process. However, they should not be less systematic than standard systematic reviews, and the introduction of bias must be avoided. In this article, we describe what rapid reviews are, present their characteristics, give some examples, highlight potential pitfalls, and draw attention to the importance of evidence summaries in order to facilitate adoption in clinical decision-making.

Knowing what rapid reviews are.

Understanding the features and benefits of rapid reviews.

Recognizing the limitations of rapid reviews and knowing when they are not the preferred choice.

Researchers, clinicians, managers, and policy-makers are typical consumers of empirical work published in the scientific literature. For researchers, reviewing the literature is part of the empirical cycle, in order to generate new research questions and to discuss their own study findings. When the available evidence has to be searched for, collated, critiqued, and summarized, systematic reviews are the gold standard. 1 Systematic reviews are rigorous in approach and transparent about how studies were searched, selected, and assessed. Doing so, they limit bias and random error, and hence, they yield the most valid and trustworthy evidence. Systematic reviews can be complemented by meta-analyses to compute an overall mean effect, proportion, or relationship. 2 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are seen as the pillars of evidence-based healthcare. The rigour in the methodology of a systematic review, however, also means that it often takes between 6 months and 2 years to undertake. 3

Clinicians, managers, and policy-makers also use the literature for their decision-making. They often cannot afford to wait for 2 years to get the answer to their questions by means of a systematic review. The evidence must be synthesized without undue delays. 4 Furthermore, the synthesis and reporting of systematic reviews often fail to address the needs of the users at the point of care 5 and are considered to be too large and too complex. 3 To facilitate the uptake of research findings in clinical practice, other types of reviews with a shorter lead time are needed, and alternative evidence summaries have to be developed. 5

Rapid reviews have been proposed as a method to provide summaries of the literature in a timely and resource-efficient manner by using methods to accelerate or streamline traditional systematic review processes. 5 , 6 It is argued that rapid reviews should be conducted in less than 8 weeks. 4 The purpose of rapid reviews is to respond to urgent situations or political pressures, often in a rapidly changing field. The typical target audiences for rapid reviews are policy-makers, healthcare institutions, managers, professionals, and patient associations. 6 The first rapid reviews were published in the 1960s and proliferated in the mid-2010s. Not surprisingly, the number of rapid reviews have boomed in 2020, in response to the global SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 1 ). Indeed, this pandemic has had a huge impact on healthcare delivery, 7–9 and triggered unprecedented clinical questions that needed a prompt answer. 10 Healthcare research, also, has had to adapt swiftly to the drastically changed situation. 11

Number of publications in the Pubmed database (1960–2020) referring to ‘rapid review’ (search performed 16 March 2021).

A rapid review is a ‘a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting various methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner’. 12 There is not a single-validated methodology in conducting rapid reviews. 13 Therefore, variation in methodological quality of rapid reviews can be observed. 14 When adopting the ‘Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) framework’ to rapid reviews, it is stipulated that the completeness of the search is determined by time constraints; the quality appraisal is time-limited, if performed at all; the synthesis is narrative and tabular; and the analysis pertains to the overall quality/direction of effect of literature. 15 In Table 1 , we describe the SALSA characteristics of rapid reviews and systematic reviews. Rapid reviews should not be less systematic, and they must adhere to the core principles of systematic reviews to avoid bias in the inclusion, assessment, and synthesis of studies. 4 The typical characteristic of a rapid review is that it provides less in-depth information and detail in its recommendations. 6 It is essential, however, that deviations from traditional systematic review methods are described well in the methods section. This can, for instance, be done by explicating where the PRISMA criteria were omitted or adapted. 4 The speed with which a rapid review is conducted largely depends on the availability of human and financial resources. 4 There is also often a close interaction between the commissioners and the reviewers because the review purports to guide decision-making.

Distinction between rapid and systematic reviews

Based on Grant and Booth. 15

Although rapid reviews do not meet the gold standard of systematic reviews, and therefore do have their limitations (see below), they frequently provide adequate advice on which to base clinical and policy decisions. 13 A direct comparison of the findings from rapid and full systematic reviews showed that the essential conclusions did not differ extensively. 13 Given the importance of rapid reviews, the Cochrane collaboration has established the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, which recently developed actionable recommendations and minimum standards for rapid reviews ( Table 2 ). 16

Cochrane rapid review methods recommendations

Reproduced from Garritty et al . 16 published under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

To date, three rapid reviews have been published in the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing . 17–19 The first, published in 2017, assessed the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on psychological distress in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. 17 A second rapid review, published in 2020 amidst the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, Europe, and North America, looked at the evidence for remote healthcare during quarantine situations to support people living with cardiovascular diseases. 18 Given the unprecedented global situation and the sense of urgency, this was a pre-eminent example for which a rapid review was appropriate. A third rapid review, published in 2021, investigated if participation in a support-based intervention exclusively for caregivers of people living with heart failure change their psychological and emotional wellbeing. 19 The authors explicitly chose the streamlined method of a rapid review to inform the methodological approach of a future caregiver-based intervention. 19

Although rapid and systematic reviews have shown to yield similar conclusions, 13 , 20 there are definitely some limitations or pitfalls to bear in mind. For instance, rapidity may lead to brevity. 4 In such cases, the search may be restricted to one database; limited inclusion criteria by date or language; having one person screen and another verify studies; not conducting quality appraisal; or presenting results only as a narrative summary. 14 If only one database is used, it is recommended to search Pubmed, because rapid reviews that did not use Pubmed as a database are more likely to obtain results that differ from systematic reviews. 21 It is also recommended that a quality appraisal of the included studies is not skipped. For this purpose, appraisal tools that account for different methodologies are very suitable, such as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). 22 It has also been observed that rapid reviews are often not explicitly defining the methodology that had been used. 4 , 13 Consequently, the search cannot always be replicated and the reasons for the differences between the findings are difficult to comprehend. Further, it is not clear if the review was performed in a systematic fashion, which is also mandatory for rapid reviews. Otherwise, they may bear the risks of any other narrative review or poorly conducted systematic review. 4 Rapid reviews should not be seen as a quick alternative to a full systematic review, 13 and authors must avoid making shortcuts that could lead to bias. 6 Therefore, a thorough evaluation of the appropriateness of a rapid review methodology, being the need for a summary of the evidence without delay, is imperative. If there is no urgent need to obtain the evidence for clinical practice or policy-making, a full systematic review would be more suitable. Furthermore, when there is a high need for accuracy, for instance for clinical guidelines or regulatory affairs, a systematic review is still the best option. 21

Transparency in the description of the methods used is of critical importance to appraise the quality of the rapid review. 4 A scoping review of rapid reviews found that the quality of reporting is generally poor. 14 This may lead to the interpretation that rapid reviews are inherently inferior to full systematic reviews, whereas this is not the case if properly conducted and reported. It is also vital to acknowledge the potential limitations of rapidity.

Since the typical reports of systematic reviews are often too long and too complex for clinicians and decision-makers, 3 new formats of evidence summaries have been developed. 5 Evidence summaries are synopses that summarize existing international evidence on healthcare interventions or activities’. 5 For rapid reviews, reporting the evidence in tabular format is indispensable to be used at the point of care. Such evidence summaries can be even integrated in electronic patient records, to provide recommendations for the care for that patient, based on their specific characteristics. 5 An extensive database with evidence summaries has been developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/know/jbi-resources/jbi-ebp-database, last accessed 27 March 2021 ).

Rapid reviews are meant to inform specific clinical or policy decisions in a timely and resource-efficient fashion. They are conducted within a timeframe of some weeks. The rapidity refers to the accelerated process but should not come at the cost of losing any of the important information that could be expected from full systematic reviews, and the introduction of biases that may jeopardize the validity of the conclusions must be avoided. The quality of rapid reviews is as important as for traditional systematic reviews. Rapid reviews need to be explicit in the methodology that has been used and clearly state how the review differs from a full systematic review. Sufficient attention ought to be given to the evidence summaries because the format of these summaries will largely determine the adoption in clinical care or decision-making.

The article is based on a review of the literature. No specific data sources have been used.

Conflict of interest : none declared.

Munn Z , Stern C , Aromataris E , Lockwood C , Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 ; 18 : 5 .

Google Scholar

Ruppar T. Meta-analysis: how to quantify and explain heterogeneity? Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 646 – 652 .

Khangura S , Konnyu K , Cushman R , Grimshaw J , Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach . Syst Rev 2012 ; 1 : 10 .

Schünemann HJ , Moja L. Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic . Syst Rev 2015 ; 4 : 4 .

Munn Z , Lockwood C , Moola S. The development and use of evidence summaries for point of care information systems: a streamlined rapid review approach . Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2015 ; 12 : 131 – 138 .

Ganann R , Ciliska D , Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews . Implement Sci 2010 ; 5 : 56 .

Klompstra L , Jaarsma T. Delivering healthcare at distance to cardiac patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from clinical practice . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 551 – 552 .

Lauck S , Forman J , Borregaard B , Sathananthan J , Achtem L , McCalmont G , Muir D , Hawkey MC , Smith A , Højberg Kirk B , Wood DA , Webb JG. Facilitating transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the era of COVID-19: recommendations for programmes . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 537 – 544 .

Hill L , Beattie JM , Geller TP , Baruah R , Boyne J , Stolfo GD , Jaarsma T. Palliative care: essential support for patients with heart failure in the COVID-19 pandemic . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 469 – 472 .

Tricco AC , Garritty CM , Boulos L , Lockwood C , Wilson M , McGowan J , McCaul M , Hutton B , Clement F , Mittmann N , Devane D , Langlois EV , Abou-Setta AM , Houghton C , Glenton C , Kelly SE , Welch VA , LeBlanc A , Wells GA , Pham B , Lewin S , Straus SE. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps . J Clin Epidemiol 2020 ; 126 : 177 – 183 .

Van Bulck L , Kovacs AH , Goossens E , Luyckx K , Jaarsma T , Stromberg A , Moons P. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing cardiovascular research projects: considerations and adaptations . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 465 – 468 .

Hamel C , Michaud A , Thuku M , Skidmore B , Stevens A , Nussbaumer-Streit B , Garritty C. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews . J Clin Epidemiol 2021 ; 129 : 74 – 85 .

Watt A , Cameron A , Sturm L , Lathlean T , Babidge W , Blamey S , Facey K , Hailey D , Norderhaug I , Maddern G. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg 2008 ; 78 : 1037 – 1040 .

Tricco AC , Antony J , Zarin W , Strifler L , Ghassemi M , Ivory J , Perrier L , Hutton B , Moher D , Straus SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods . BMC Med 2015 ; 13 : 224 .

Grant MJ , Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J 2009 ; 26 : 91 – 108 .

Garritty C , Gartlehner G , Nussbaumer-Streit B , King VJ , Hamel C , Kamel C , Affengruber L , Stevens A. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews . J Clin Epidemiol 2021 ; 130 : 13 – 22 .

Carroll DL , Malecki-Ketchell A , Astin F. Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce psychological distress in patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization: a rapid review . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2017 ; 16 : 92 – 103 .

Neubeck L , Hansen T , Jaarsma T , Klompstra L , Gallagher R. Delivering healthcare remotely to cardiovascular patients during COVID-19: a rapid review of the evidence . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 486 – 494 .

Carleton-Eagleton K , Walker I , Freene N , Gibson D , Semple S. Meeting support needs for informal caregivers of people with heart failure: a rapid review . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 .

Best L , Stevens A , Colin‐Jones D. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England . J Clin Eff 1997 ; 2 : 51 – 56 .

Marshall IJ , Marshall R , Wallace BC , Brassey J , Thomas J. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study . J Clin Epidemiol 2019 ; 109 : 30 – 41 .

Hong QN , Gonzalez-Reyes A , Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) . J Eval Clin Pract 2018 ; 24 : 459 – 467 .

Email alerts

Companion articles.

• Meeting support needs for informal caregivers of people with heart failure: a rapid review
• Comment on rapid reviews
• Response to letter from Dr Riegel and Mr James

Citing articles via

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1873-1953
• Print ISSN 1474-5151
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Dissertations - Skills Guide

• Where to start
• Research Proposal
• Ethics Form
• Primary Research

Literature Review

• Methodology
• Downloadable Resources
• Further Reading

What is it?

Literature reviews involve collecting information from literature that is already available, similar to a long essay. It is a written argument that builds a case from previous research (Machi and McEvoy, 2012). Every dissertation should include a literature review, but a dissertation as a whole can be a literature review. In this section we discuss literature reviews for the whole dissertation.

What are the benefits of a literature review?

There are advantages and disadvantages to any approach. The advantages of conducting a literature review include accessibility, deeper understanding of your chosen topic, identifying experts and current research within that area, and answering key questions about current research. The disadvantages might include not providing new information on the subject and, depending on the subject area, you may have to include information that is out of date.

How do I write it?

A literature review is often split into chapters, you can choose if these chapters have titles that represent the information within them, or call them chapter 1, chapter 2, ect. A regular format for a literature review is:

Introduction (including methodology)

This particular example is split into 6 sections, however it may be more or less depending on your topic.

Literature Reviews Further Reading

• << Previous: Primary Research
• Next: Methodology >>
• Last Updated: Oct 18, 2023 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/c.php?g=690330

Advantages and disadvantages of literature review

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

What is literature review?

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

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

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

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

Advantages of literature review

Information synthesis

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

Familiarity with the current knowledge

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

Creation of new body of knowledge

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

Answers to a range of questions

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

Disadvantages of literature review

Time consuming

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

Lack of quality sources  

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

Descriptive writing

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

Key features of literature review

Clear organisation

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

No obvious bias

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

Proper citation

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

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

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

Other useful articles:

How to evaluate website content

Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research

Advantages and disadvantages of simple random sampling

Last update: 08 May 2022

References:

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

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

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

Author: M Rahman

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

Related Posts

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

A systematic exploration of scoping and mapping literature reviews

• Brief Report
• Open access
• Published: 23 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Eirini Christou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6928-1013 1 ,
• Antigoni Parmaxi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0687-0176 1 &
• Panayiotis Zaphiris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8112-5099 1  

341 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Systematic literature mapping can help researchers identify gaps in the research and provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence. Despite the importance and benefits of conducting systematic scoping and mapping reviews, many researchers may not be familiar with the methods and best practices for conducting these types of reviews. This paper aims to address this gap by providing a step-by-step guide to conducting a systematic scoping or mapping review, drawing on examples from different fields. This study adopts a systematic literature review approach aiming to identify and present the steps of conducting scoping and mapping literature reviews and serves as a guide on conducting scoping or mapping systematic literature reviews. A number of 90 studies were included in this study. The findings describe the steps to follow when conducting scoping and mapping reviews and suggest the integration of the card sorting method as part of the process. The proposed steps for undertaking scoping and mapping reviews presented in this manuscript, highlight the importance of following a rigorous approach for conducting scoping or mapping reviews.

Similar content being viewed by others

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

What is qualitative in qualitative research.

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

An essential component of academic research is literature review. A systematic literature review, also known as a systematic review, is a method for locating, assessing, and interpreting all research related to a specific research question, topic, or phenomenon of interest [ 1 ].

Scoping and mapping reviews are variations of systematic literature mapping [ 2 ]. Both mapping and scoping reviews can help researchers to understand the scope and breadth of the literature in a given field, identify gaps in the research, and provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence. Systematic literature mapping purposely focuses on a narrower but more general academic or policy issue and does not try to synthesize the results of research to address a particular subject. The scoping review is exploratory in nature, whereas the mapping review can be conclusive in describing the available evidence and identifying gaps. Mapping review includes a thorough, systematic search of a wide field. It identifies the body of literature that is currently available on a subject and points out any glaring gaps in the evidence [ 3 ].

1.1 Rationale

Despite the importance and benefits of conducting systematic scoping and mapping reviews, many researchers may not be familiar with the methods and best practices for conducting these types of reviews. This paper aims to address this gap by providing a step-by-step guide to conducting a systematic scoping or mapping review, drawing on examples from different fields.

This study adopts a systematic literature review approach aiming to identify and present the differences and the steps of conducting scoping and mapping literature review. The paper provides practical guidance on how to address common challenges in conducting systematic scoping or mapping reviews, such as dealing with the volume of studies identified, managing the data extraction and synthesis process, and ensuring rigor and reproducibility in the review methodology. The main research questions that guide this study are:

RQ1: What is a systematic scoping review and how is it conducted?

RQ2: What is a systematic mapping review and how is it conducted?

RQ3: What are the main differences between systematic scoping and systematic mapping reviews?

Overall, this paper will be a valuable resource for researchers who are interested in conducting a systematic scoping or mapping review. By providing clear guidance and practical examples, the paper aims to promote best practices in systematic scoping and mapping review methodology. The study is organized as follows: The following section presents the methodology of the study, followed by the results showing the process of the scoping and mapping literature review and presenting some examples. Finally, suggestions on how to plan and perform a quality scoping and mapping review are presented.

2 Methodology

The methodology of this paper was adopted by Xiao and Watson [ 4 ].

2.1 Literature search

The search was conducted in two well-known online databases, Web of Science and EBSCOHost, across various disciplines. The searched terms combined keywords related to the performance of scoping and mapping literature review, such as “systematic literature review”, “methodology”, “map”, “mapping” and “scoping”. The title of each manuscript was used to determine its initial relevance. If the content of the title suggested that it would explain the method of the literature review process, we obtained the full reference, which included the author, year, title, and abstract, for additional analysis.

2.2 Initial search results

The query string used for the database search is the following: systematic literature review AND methodology AND (“map” OR “mapping” OR “scoping”). Abstract search was conducted in both databases for the last 10 years (2013–2022). A search on EBSCOHost revealed 643 results of which 291 were duplicated and automatically removed. After applying the database filters to limit the articles to peer-reviewed academic journal articles written in English, a number of 102 papers were excluded. Additional 109 papers were duplicated and removed manually. After an initial screening of the titles, a total of 13 studies were identified as relevant to the methodology of the scoping and mapping literature review. A search on Web of Science, revealed 888 results of which 9 were duplicate and removed, and 157 were found to be related to the methodology of scoping or mapping literature reviews after the first title screening. Last search was conducted on the 2nd of November 2022. Both sources revealed 161 related studies, excluding 9 duplicates that were removed.

2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only studies that provide instructions on how to perform a scoping or mapping review were included in this paper. Reviews of the literature on certain subjects and in languages other than English were excluded. The study is limited to papers published within the last 10 years, aiming to collect recent information for performing scoping or mapping reviews. Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in Table  1 .

2.4 Screening

To further assess the 161 studies’ applicability to the study topic, their abstracts were reviewed. The manuscripts were evaluated independently and in parallel by two researchers. The researchers’ differing opinions were discussed and settled. Then the full-text of a total of 20 studies was acquired for quality evaluation.

2.5 Eligibility and quality evaluation

To further assess the quality and relevance of the studies, the full-text papers were reviewed. Journal articles and books published by prominent publishers were included in the review as they contained high-quality research. Because there is no peer review procedure, the majority of technical reports and online presentations were excluded.

Two researchers worked independently and simultaneously on evaluating eligibility and quality. Any disagreements between them were discussed and resolved. A total of ten (10) studies were excluded after careful review: one study was excluded because it lacked instructions on how the scoping or mapping review methodology was conducted, three studies were excluded because the methodology was not related to scoping or mapping review, while five studies were disregarded because they focused on a particular subject. One of the studies’ full text couldn’t be accessed. This resulted in ten (10) eligible for full-text analysis.

2.6 Iterations

Through backward and forward searching, additional 18 studies were discovered, from which only 10 met the inclusion criteria. The forward and backward search was also used to find manuscripts that applied scoping or mapping literature review methodology. After finding the article that established the scoping or mapping review methodology, articles that had cited the methodology paper to find instances of best practices in different fields were searched. Following consideration of examples’ adherence to the methodology, preference was given to planning-related articles. In total, 90 studies were analyzed in this study, i.e. 10 methodological papers that describe the application of scoping or mapping review, as well as 80 papers that demonstrate the application of the scoping and mapping methodology in different fields, that are used as examples. The PRISMA flow diagram (see Fig.  1 ) depicts the process of the search strategy [ 5 ].

PRISMA flow diagram

2.7 Extraction and analysis of data

Data were extracted in the process of scoping literature reviews, including information with regards to formulating the problem, establishing and validating the review procedure, searching the literature, screening for inclusion, evaluating quality, extracting data, analyzing and synthesizing data, and reporting the findings (Xiao & Watson, 2019). NVivo software was used for all data extraction and coding procedures. Initially, two researchers each took information from articles for cross-checking. The two researchers reached an agreement on what to extract from the publications after reviewing a few articles together. Then the first author classified the data based on the research questions.

In this section we present the findings of our review.

3.1 Defining “Scoping” and “mapping” review

According to [ 2 ], scoping and mapping reviews are variations of systematic literature mapping that focus on narrower but more general academic or policy issues. A scoping review is exploratory in nature, seeking to identify the nature and extent of research on a particular topic, and can be used to identify gaps in the literature. An example of a research question suitable for a scoping review is “What engagement strategies do educators use in classroom settings to facilitate teaching and learning of diverse students in undergraduate nursing programs?“ [ 6 ]. A mapping review, on the other hand, is a thorough and systematic search of a wide field of literature that aims to identify the body of literature currently available on a subject and point out any glaring gaps in the evidence. An example of a research question suitable for a mapping review is “What are the currently available animal models for cystic fibrosis” [ 3 ]. Overall, each type of review has its own specific aims and can be useful for different types of research questions.

3.1.1 Defining scoping review

There is no single definition for scoping reviews in the literature. According to [ 7 ], scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that uses a systematic process to map the evidence on a subject and identify key ideas, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. The goal of a scoping review is to include all relevant information that is available, including ‘grey’ literature, which includes unpublished research findings, therefore including all available literature and evidence, but the reviewers can decide what type of publications they would like to include [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].

Scoping review process is sometimes used as a preliminary step before a systematic literature review, in cases where the topic or research area in focus has not yet been extensively reviewed or is complicated or heterogeneous in nature and the types of evidence available remain unclear [ 3 ]. For example, while a scoping review might serve as the foundation for a full systematic review, it does not aim to evaluate the quality of the evidence like systematic reviews do [ 8 ]. Moreover, scoping review is also referred to as a “pilot study” [ 12 ], that can be used as a “trial run” of the entire systematic map; it helps to mold the intended approach for the review and inform the protocol development.

Rapid and scoping meta-reviews were also referred as types of scoping reviews. A “rapid review” is a particular kind of scoping review, which aims to provide an answer to a particular query and can shorten the process compared to a full systematic review [ 3 ]. The “scoping meta-review” (SMR) is a scoping evaluation of systematic reviews that offers researchers a flexible framework for field mapping and a way to condense pertinent research activities and findings, similar to a scoping review [ 13 ].

Almost all of the scoping studies identified in the corpus, draw from previews scoping review frameworks, such as the one proposed by [ 14 , 15 ] and the authors’ manual provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute [ 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 ].

3.1.2 Defining mapping review

A mapping review, also referred to as a “systematic map”, is “a high-level review with a broad research question” [ 3 ](p.133). The mapping review includes a thorough, systematic search of a wide field. It identifies the body of literature that is currently available on a subject and points out any gaps in the evidence. The mapping review can be conclusive in describing the available evidence and identifying gaps, whereas the scoping review is exploratory in nature [ 3 ].

The term “mapping” is used to describe the process of synthesizing and representing the literature numerically and thematically in tables, figures, or graphical representations, which can be thought of as the review output. Mapping enables researchers to pinpoint potential areas for further study as well as gaps in the literature [ 19 ].

Systematic mapping uses the same strict procedures as systematic reviews do. However, systematic mapping can be used to address open or closed-framed questions on broad or specific topics, because it is not constrained by the requirement to include fully specified and defined key elements [ 12 ]. Systematic mapping is especially useful for broad, multifaceted questions about an interesting topic that might not be appropriate for systematic review because they involve a variety of interventions, populations, or outcomes, or because they draw on evidence that is not just from primary research [ 12 ].

3.2 Process of conducting mapping and scoping reviews

As noted in the previous sections, mapping reviews and scoping reviews both aim to provide a broad overview of the literature, but the former focuses on the scope of the literature while the latter focuses on the nature and extent of available evidence on a specific research question or topic. In understanding the process for conducting mapping and scoping reviews, we adopted the eight steps proposed by Xiao and Watson [ 4 ] that are common for all types of reviews: (1) Formulate the problem; (2) Establishing and validating the review procedure; (3) Searching the literature; (4) Screening for inclusion; (5) Evaluating quality; (6) Extracting data; (7) Analyzing and synthesizing data; (8) Reporting the findings. The steps are explained in detail below and describe the methodology for both scoping and mapping reviews, distinguishing their differences where applicable. A summary of the review types along with their characteristics and steps as identified from the literature are presented in Table  2 .

3.2.1 Step 1 formulate the problem

The first step for undertaking a mapping or a scoping review is to formulate the problem by setting the research question that should be investigated, taking into account the topic’s scope [ 12 ]. It is important to clearly state the review objectives and specific review questions for the scoping review. The objectives should indicate what the scoping review is trying to achieve [ 10 , 20 ].

In mapping reviews, it can be helpful to create a conceptual framework or model (visual or textual) to describe what will be explored by the map when determining the mapping review’s scope. It should also be determined whether the topic’s scope is broad, specific, or likely to be supported by a substantial body of evidence [ 12 ].

3.2.1.1 Defining the research question(s)

Prior to beginning their search and paper selection process, the authors should typically define their research question(s) [ 3 ]. There are specific formats that are recommended for structuring the research question(s), as well as the exclusion and inclusion criteria of mapping and scoping reviews [ 21 ] (see Table  3 ).

PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) and PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) are often used in scoping and mapping reviews. It is recommended that research questions for scoping reviews follow the PCC format and include all of its components [ 17 , 18 , 21 ]. Information about the participants (e.g. age), the principal idea or “concept,” and the setting of the review, should all be included in the research question. The context should be made explicit and may take into account geographical or locational considerations, cultural considerations, and particular racial or gender-based concerns [ 10 ].

Researchers use the PCC format in order to determine the eligibility of their research questions, as well as to define their inclusion criteria (e.g [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]). Most scoping reviews have a single main question, but some of them are better served by one or more sub-questions that focus on specific PCC characteristics [ 8 , 18 ].

3.2.2 Step 2. Establishing and validating the review procedure

A protocol is crucial for scoping and mapping reviews because it pre-defines the scoping review’s goals and procedures [ 11 , 17 , 18 , 20 ], it clearly states all methodological decisions since the very beginning [ 2 ], and it also specifies the strategy to be used at each stage of the review process [ 12 ]. Similar to all systematic reviews, scoping reviews start with the creation of an a-priori protocol that includes inclusion and exclusion criteria that are directly related to the review’s objectives and questions [ 7 , 11 , 17 , 18 , 20 ]. In order to decrease study duplication and improve data reporting transparency, the use of formalized, registered protocols is suggested [ 18 , 19 ]. The international prospective register of systematic reviews, known as PROSPERO, states that scoping reviews (and literature reviews) are currently ineligible for registration in the database. While this could change in the future, scoping reviews can currently be registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ) or Figshare ( https://figshare.com/ ), and their protocols can be published in select publications, including the JBI Evidence Synthesis [ 18 ].

Scoping and mapping reviews should require at least two reviewers in order to minimize reporting bias, as well as to ensure consistency and clarity [ 3 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The reviewers should include a plan for the results presentation during the protocol development, such as a draft chart or table that could be improved at the end when the reviewers become more familiar with the information they have included in the review [ 17 , 18 ].

3.2.3 Step 3. Searching the literature

Searching the literature requires to prepare a search strategy, decide on search terms, search databases or journals, and perform a manual search [ 27 ]. For example, deciding on search terms, can follow an iterative process that is further explained in the sub-section below. Thinking about searching in terms of broader to narrower strategies is helpful. Fewer databases and/or journals will be checked out in narrower searches (search only in the title, keywords, and abstract fields), which are frequently used in scoping reviews, while multiple databases can be checked for mapping reviews [ 2 ].

Search strategy

Mapping and scoping review search should aim to be as thorough as possible [ 12 ] to find both published and unpublished evidence. An inclusive approach is frequently preferred for scoping reviews to prevent potential omission of crucial information [ 10 , 17 , 18 ].

According to JBI, there should be a three-step search process for scoping reviews [ 10 , 17 , 18 ]. The first step is a quick search of at least two databases followed by a text word check of the article’s title, abstract, and body of text that are then analyzed. All determined index terms and keywords are used in the second stage across all included databases. In the third stage, additional studies should be looked up in the identified reports and articles’ reference lists [ 10 , 11 , 18 ]. The reviewers may look solely at the reference lists of the studies that were chosen from the full-text and/or included in the review, or they may look at the reference lists of all identified studies. In any case, it needs to be made very clear which group of studies will be looked at [ 8 , 11 , 18 ]. As reviewers gain more familiarity with the body of available evidence, new keywords, sources, and possibly helpful search terms may be found and incorporated into the search strategy, hence the search for a scoping review may be quite iterative. If so, it is crucial that the entire search process and the outcomes are open to scrutiny and audit [ 11 , 18 ].

In the same line, it is recommended for mapping reviews to search multiple databases [ 2 ] in all pertinent searchable fields (e.g., title, abstract, keywords, etc.) [ 3 ]. Thematic keywords, along with all of their synonyms and regional/temporal variations, are joined together to form Boolean strings using Boolean signs. Building looser, multiple Boolean strings instead of well-targeted ones (for example, using OR instead of AND, NOT, and exact phrases, respectively) is preferable. The latter runs the risk of omitting crucial references, whereas the former may return a sizable sample of sparsely relevant references [ 2 ]. Focusing the search on a specific component and then filtering all the results can be more effective for mapping reviews [ 3 ].

3.2.4 Step 4. Screening for inclusion

Screening and choosing the studies to be included in a review are the main objectives of this phase. According to [ 27 ], there are two levels of screening. Titles and abstracts are scanned in the first level to limit the range of the studies to be included, while full texts are scanned in the second level to re-examine the relevance of the studies and to settle disagreements between reviewers regarding the study selection. Discussions, meetings, consulting a third reviewer, and determining inter-rater reliability/agreement (using Cohen’s kappa coefficient or intraclass correlation coefficient) are the most typical ways to resolve disagreements. Soaita et al. (2020) [ 2 ] also support that the sample of retrieved references should be ‘cleaned-up’ once it has been finalized and duplicates have been automatically removed.

Different methodological approaches, including primary research articles, summary articles, opinion pieces, and grey literature, can all be included in the literature that scoping reviews identify and analyze [ 7 , 18 , 19 ], but they may also serve as an exclusion criterion [ 2 ]. Peters, Godfrey, et al. (2020) [ 18 ] advice against limiting source inclusion based on language unless there are compelling justifications for doing so (such as practical considerations).

According to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), a description of the study selection process must be provided in both a narrative and flow diagram format. Including the date of the most recent literature search, enables the reader to assess how current the scoping review is [ 7 ].

3.2.4.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria offer a framework on which the reviewers can decide which sources to include in the scoping review. To ensure transparency and replicability, the exclusion and inclusion criteria need to be documented [ 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 17 ]. Authors should specify any limitations by year, language, publication status, or other factors, and explain why each one was put in place [ 7 ].

When it comes to mapping reviews, criteria should be created whenever possible with participation from stakeholders. Depending on the type of research questions, stakeholders may include practitioners, designers, policy makers, scientists and research funding bodies, but attention should be paid to avoid bias [ 12 ].

3.2.5 Step 5. Evaluating quality

Scoping and mapping reviews are not concerned with quality assessment as a criterion for inclusion [ 2 ]. Assessments of reporting quality and bias risk are typically outside the scope. Although it is possible to extract study characteristics that reflect study and reporting quality, bias cannot be assessed against a specific hypothesis if a mapping review is exploratory [ 3 ].

3.2.6 Step 6. Extracting data

The process of data extraction for a scoping review is also known as “charting the results”. A draft charting table or form needs to be created to capture the key details about the relevance of the included studies to the review question, as well as the characteristics of the included studies. The data extraction process can be iterative, with the charting table being constantly updated.

The reviewers should become familiar with the source results and test the extraction form on two or three studies to ensure that all relevant results are extracted [ 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 17 , 18 , 28 ]. In order to increase reporting transparency, authors should explain the main revisions with a justification if the charting process was iterative (i.e., the form was continuously updated). If appropriate, details about the procedures used to collect and verify information from the researchers of the included sources of evidence should be provided [ 7 ]. Author(s), year of publication, source origin, country of origin, objectives, purpose, study population, sample size, methodology, intervention type and comparator, concept, duration of the intervention, how outcomes are measured, and key findings that are related to the review question are all types of information that may be extracted [ 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 17 ].

When it comes to data extraction for mapping reviews, it is restricted to important study characteristics and outcomes due to the size of a mapping review [ 3 ]. The process of mapping is intended to produce a practical and organized resource that provides enough detail about studies to be helpful in further work [ 12 ].

To move beyond a straightforward list of citations, it is crucial to maintain a high level of clarity throughout any databases that are created. Studies that are discussed in several papers or that seem to be connected should be marked in the database. In the future, this helps prevent the double counting of research findings in syntheses that might overlook connections between study lines in the databases [ 12 ].

Aiming to capture the key characteristics of the included studies in the scoping and mapping reviews, we suggest the use of a guiding table for extracting data (see Supplementary_Material_1_Guiding_Table).

3.2.7 Step 7. Analyzing and synthesizing data

Authors may extract results and map descriptively. Simple frequency counts of concepts, populations, characteristics, or other fields of data will suffice for many scoping reviews [ 17 , 18 ]. In-depth analysis of quantitative data is not typically required in scoping reviews, although in some cases the authors may take into consideration a more advanced analysis depending on the nature and purpose of their review. A meta-analysis or interpretive qualitative analysis is probably not necessary in scoping reviews [ 17 , 18 ].

When it comes to mapping reviews, no results synthesis is carried out [ 12 ]. Different analytical approaches can be used to map chronological, geographical, conceptual, and thematic trends, which include some form of coding, once the sample has been limited to the pertinent references [ 2 ]. It is possible to identify correlations, trends, gaps, and clusters using simple numerical accounts of frequencies in each category (for example, the number of studies looking at a specific species) and more complex cross-tabulations (for instance, the number of studies looking at the effectiveness of a specific intervention, in a particular farming system, for a named species). Users have access to the map and can query it to find information pertaining to any chosen combinations of the subsets of the meta-data [ 12 ].

3.2.8 Step 8. Reporting the findings

Authors should specify exactly how the evidence will be presented, whether it be in a narrative format, table, or visual representation, such as a map or diagram [ 7 ].

In scoping reviews, a summary of all the relevant information gathered can be presented [ 8 ] using a logical and descriptive summary of the findings based on the research questions [ 10 , 11 , 17 ]. The distribution of studies by year or period of publication, countries of origin, field of intervention, and research methodologies, may be displayed in the tables and charts accompanied with a narrative summary that explains how the results relate to the review’s objectives [ 7 , 11 , 17 , 18 ].

The conclusions should be consistent with the review objective or question based on the findings of the scoping review [ 10 ]. Following the conclusions, specific recommendations for future research based on gaps in knowledge identified by the review results can be presented. Because of the lack of a methodological quality appraisal, recommendations for practice may be unable to be developed; however, suggestions based on the conclusions may be made [ 10 ].

A scoping review’s results section should include a PRISMA flow diagram and details the outcomes of the search strategy and selection procedure [ 7 , 17 ] outlining the grounds for exclusion at the full-text level of screening [ 7 ]. For example, a study [ 29 ] used the PRISMA-ScR extension for scoping reviews to ensure all important sections have been covered in their review.

Mapping reviews may place more emphasis on describing the evidence. The use of pivot tables and pivot charts is helpful for quickly visualizing the amount (and quality, if it is measured) of evidence across a variety of meta-data variables [ 12 ]. Such visualizations can display the quantity of research, the conclusions of a critical appraisal, the sample size across nations, outcomes, populations, or variables. These visualizations can contain categorical variables as additional dimensions. The geographic distribution of study effort and type may be particularly important in mapping reviews with a global or large-scale reach [ 12 ].

4 Discussion

This systematic literature review aimed to describe the process of conducting mapping and scoping literature reviews. In summary, the main difference between the two types of reviews is in their focus and scope. Mapping reviews provide a comprehensive overview of the literature while scoping reviews identify gaps and inconsistencies in the literature and outline potential areas for future research.

A lot of the methodological papers included in this systematic literature review (e.g [ 10 , 19 , 28 ]), referred to the “consultation process” as an additional, optional step that has been suggested by [ 14 ]. In this stage, subject experts or potential review users like practitioners, consumers, and policymakers may be consulted [ 8 ]. Researchers argue that this step should be mandatory [ 15 , 28 ]. In agreement with Levac et al.’s [ 15 ] choice, Daudt et al. [ 28 ] encourage the use of the consultation stage whenever it is practical because it adds richness to the entire research process and, consequently, the findings. Despite the fact that stakeholder consultations can make scoping review planning and execution more difficult, they guarantee that the findings are pertinent to educational practice and/or policies [ 19 ].

Scoping and mapping reviews should require more than one author to eliminate bias and ensure their quality. The card-sorting technique is suggested to be employed within the review process as a means for resolving discrepancies between the stakeholders and come to an agreement on the categorization and evaluation of the data to be included. Other studies (e.g [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]), propose the card-sorting technique as a method for resolving disagreements between people’s disparities, as well as to evaluate and verify extracted themes from datasets. Card sorting is a quick and reliable sorting method that finds patterns in how users would expect to find content or functionality. Due to the patterns and insights it exposes about how people organize and categorize content, card sorting is a successful approach for resolving categorization disagreements [ 34 ]. According to Wood and Wood [ 35 ], the majority of card sorting projects involve an open sort, where participants receive a list of items and are asked to organize them in the most appropriate way. However, in some cases, a pre-existing set of categories is given to the participants, the so-called closed card sorting project. This assumes that the existing categories are already well-organized, and the goal is to make minor adjustments. Wood and Wood [ 35 ], suggest that it’s best to start with an open sort and analyze the data before conducting a closed sort for validation. If a closed sort is necessary, it should be kept simple, and the results may not be optimal. For example, in a study [ 30 ] that aimed to review the use of makerspaces for educational purposes, the card sorting technique was used for the development of the coding scheme. A three-member academic committee, consisting of three professors took part in the card sorting exercise where they went through the abstracts of the relevant papers and were asked to categorize each manuscript after discussion. They then categorized the manuscripts in the three major themes and 11 subcategories that emerged during the card sorting exercise [ 30 ]. Similarly, the authors of [ 31 ] employed the card sorting technique in their research in order to agree on the main categorization and sub-categorization of the articles identified for inclusion in their review. Card sorting can be integrated as an additional step when conducting scoping and mapping reviews, as it provides useful insights from the experts’ perspective and makes the mapping process more inclusive (see Fig.  2 ).

Proposed steps for conducting scoping and mapping reviews

5 Conclusion

Scoping and mapping reviews need a methodological framework that is rigorous, consistent, and transparent, so that the results can be trusted and the review replicated. This provides enough information for the readers to evaluate the review’s accuracy, relevance, and thoroughness [ 8 ]. Scoping reviews should be carried out in accordance with established methodological guidance and reported using reporting standards (like PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [ 36 ]. The proposed steps for undertaking scoping and mapping reviews presented in this manuscript, highlight the importance of following a rigorous approach for conducting scoping or mapping reviews. Overall, this paper is a valuable resource for researchers who are interested in conducting a systematic scoping or mapping review in different fields and are looking to apply these review methods to their own research questions.

5.1 Limitations and future work

This study does not lack limitations. As specific keywords and specific databases were searched, not all relevant work is included. The study was also limited to the past 10 years, letting out methodologies and frameworks for scoping and mapping literature reviews that were not published within the specific timeframe. The fact that the number of methodological papers identified for inclusion are limited to ten, makes it difficult to clarify the differences between mapping and scoping reviews. Therefore, further research is encouraged in order to clarify and verify the differences and similarities between the two. The application of the proposed process for conducting systematic scoping and mapping reviews on specific topics will verify the process.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [EC], upon reasonable request.

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2603219

Soaita, A.M., Serin, B., Preece, J.: A methodological quest for systematic literature mapping. Int. J. Hous. Policy. 20 , 320–343 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2019.1649040

Article   Google Scholar  

Leenaars, C., Tsaioun, K., Stafleu, F., Rooney, K., Meijboom, F., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., Bleich, A.: Reviewing the animal literature: How to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews. Lab. Anim. 55 , 129–141 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677220968599

Xiao, Y., Watson, M.: Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 39 , 93–112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Haddaway, N.R., Page, M.J., Pritchard, C.C., McGuinness, L.A.: PRISMA: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis, Campbell Syst. Rev. 18 (2022). (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.1230

Iduye, D., Vukic, A., Waldron, I., Price, S., Sheffer, C., McKibbon, S., Dorey, R., Yu, Z.: Educators’ strategies for engaging diverse students in undergraduate nursing education programs: A scoping review protocol. JBI Evid. Synth. 19 , 1178–1185 (2021). https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00039

Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E.A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M.G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C.M., MacDonald, M.T., Langlois, E.V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö., Straus, S.E.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169 , 467–473 (2018). https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850/SUPPL_FILE/M18-0850_SUPPLEMENT.PDF

McKinstry, C., Brown, T., Gustafsson, L.: Scoping reviews in occupational therapy: The what, why, and how to. Aust Occup. Ther. J. 61 , 58–66 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12080 WE - Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)

Peterson, J., Pearce, P.F., Ferguson, L.A., Langford, C.A.: Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 29 , 12–16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12380

Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C.M., McInerney, P., Soares, C.B., Parker, D.: An evidence-based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 13 , 118–123 (2016)

Peters, M.D.J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Trico, A., Khalil, H.: Chap. 11: Scoping reviews, in: JBI Man. Evid. Synth. JBI. (2017). https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12

James, K.L., Randall, N.P., Haddaway, N.R.: A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ. Evid. 5 , 1–13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6

Sarrami-Foroushani, P., Travaglia, J., Debono, D., Clay-Williams, R., Braithwaite, J.: Scoping Meta-review: Introducing a New Methodology. Clin. Transl Sci. 8 , 77–81 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/CTS.12188

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

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., O’Brien, K.K.: Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 5 , 1–9 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814563.003

Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Soares, C., Parker, K.H.D.: Chap. 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris, E., Munn, Z. (eds.) JBI Rev. Man. JBI, Adelaide (2015)

Google Scholar  

Peters, M.D.J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A.C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 18 , 2119–2126 (2020). https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 WE - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

Peters, M.D.J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Trico, A., Khalil, H.: Chap. 11: Scoping Reviews, JBI Man. Evid. Synth. (2020). https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12

Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Durning, S.J., Young, M.E.: Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Acad. Med. 92 , 161–166 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452

Peters, M.D.J., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., Soares, C.B.: Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 13 , 141–146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

Sager, M., Pistone, I.: Mismatches in the production of a scoping review: Highlighting the interplay of (in)formalities. J. Eval Clin. Pract. 25 , 930–937 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13251

Balsiger, F., Wagner, B., Jende, J.M.E., Marty, B., Bendszus, M., Scheidegger, O., Kurz, F.T.: Methodologies and MR parameters in quantitative magnetic resonance neurography: A scoping review protocol. METHODS Protoc. 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5030039 WE - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

Kesztyus, D., Brucher, S., Kesztyus, T.: Use of infrared thermography in medical diagnostics: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059833 WE - Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)

Olaniyi, A.A., Ncama, B.P., Amod, H.: Mapping evidence of neonatal resuscitation training on the practices of Unskilled Birth attendants in Low-Resource Countries: Protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Res. Protoc. 10 (2021). https://doi.org/10.2196/18935 WE - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

Rosca, E.C., Tudor, R., Cornea, A., Simu, M.: Parkinson’s Disease in Romania: A scoping review protocol. BRAIN Sci. 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11020251 WE - Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)

Walker, K., Asoodar, M., Rudolph, J., Meguerdichian, M., Yusaf, T., Campbell-Taylor, K., van Merrienboer, J.: Optimising expert dyad performance in acute care settings: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047260 WE - Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)

Chong, S.W., Lin, T.J., Chen, Y.: A methodological review of systematic literature reviews in higher education: Heterogeneity and homogeneity. Educ. Res. Rev. 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100426

Daudt, H.M.L., Van Mossel, C., Scott, S.J.: Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13 , 1–9 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48

Qiu, Y.J., Osadnik, C.R., Team, V., Weller, C.D.: Physical activity as an Adjunct to Compression Therapy on Healing outcomes and recurrence in patients with venous Leg ulcers: A scoping review protocol. Front. Med. 8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.614059 WE - Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)

Konstantinou, D., Parmaxi, A., Zaphiris, P.: Mapping research directions on makerspaces in education, EMI. Educ. Media Int. 58 , 223–247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2021.1976826

Pallaris, G., Zaphiris, P., Parmaxi, A.: Mapping the landscape of Makerspaces in higher education: An inventory of research findings. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-01-2022-0013

Parmaxi, A., Zaphiris, P., Papadima-Sophocleous, S., Ioannou, A.: Mapping the landscape of computer-assisted language learning: An inventory of research. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 10 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2013-0004

Parmaxi, A., Zaphiris, P.: Computer-mediated communication in computer-assisted language learning: Implications for culture-centered design. Univers. Access. Inf. Soc. 15 , 169–177 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/S10209-015-0405-4/TABLES/3

Morville, P., Rosenfeld, L.: Information architecture for the World Wide Web: Designing large-scale web sites, (2006). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2d2Ry2hZc2MC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Morville+%26+Rosenfeld,+2007&ots=opbfyu0ODb&sig=cAyUSw0mmdVRYf5ARSNp6DaYYLA (accessed January 17, 2024)

Wood, J.R., Wood, L.E.: Card sorting: Current practices and beyond. J. Usability Stud. 4 , 1–6 (2008). http://usabilityprofessionals.org/upa_publications/jus/2008november/JUS_Wood_Nov2008.pdf

Munn, Z., Pollock, D., Khalil, H., Alexander, L., Mclnerney, P., Godfrey, C.M., Peters, M., Tricco, A.C.: What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid. Synth. 20 , 950–952 (2022). https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00483 WE - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported through funding from the Cyprus University of Technology.

Open access funding provided by the Cyprus Libraries Consortium (CLC).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus

Eirini Christou, Antigoni Parmaxi & Panayiotis Zaphiris

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

E.C. and A.P. wrote the main manuscript text. All authors contributed and agreed on the methodology to be followed. A.P. and E.C. screened and decided on the papers to be included in the study. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eirini Christou .

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Christou, E., Parmaxi, A. & Zaphiris, P. A systematic exploration of scoping and mapping literature reviews. Univ Access Inf Soc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01120-3

Download citation

Accepted : 15 May 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01120-3

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scoping review
• Mapping review
• Review methodology
• Systematic literature mapping
• Card sorting
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

A comprehensive review of sustainable materials and toolpath optimization in 3D concrete printing

• Zicheng Zhuang 1   na1 ,
• Fengming Xu 1   na1 ,
• Junhong Ye 1   na1 ,
• Liming Jiang 3 &
• Yiwei Weng 1  

npj Materials Sustainability volume  2 , Article number:  12 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Climate sciences
• Environmental sciences

The construction sector has experienced remarkable advancements in recent years, driven by the demand for sustainable and efficient building practices. Among these advancements, 3D concrete printing has emerged as a highly promising technology that holds the potential to revolutionize the construction industry. This review paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the latest developments in three vital areas related to 3D concrete printing: sustainable materials, structural optimization, and toolpath design. A systematic literature review approach is employed based on established practices in additive manufacturing for construction to explore the intersections between these areas. The review reveals that material recycling plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable construction practices. Extensive research has been conducted on structural optimization methodologies to enhance the performance and efficiency of 3D printed concrete structures. In the printing process, toolpath design plays a significant role in ensuring the precise and efficient deposition of concrete. This paper discusses various toolpath generation strategies that take factors such as geometric complexity, printing constraints, and material flow control into account. In summary, the insights presented in this paper may serve as guidelines for researchers, engineers, and industry professionals towards sustainable and efficient construction practices using 3D concrete printing technology.

Similar content being viewed by others

Framework for sustainable building design and construction using off-cut wood

Simplified local infill size optimization for FDM printed PLA parts

Automated BIM-based structural design and cost optimization model for reinforced concrete buildings

Introduction.

Climate change has emerged as a global challenge due to the substantial carbon emissions and energy consumption. In 2022, the global carbon emissions and energy consumption reached 36.8 gigatons and 14,585 million tonnes of oil equivalent 1 , 2 , respectively. The construction sector is a major contributor to global carbon emission and energy consumption, accounting for 40% and 36% in 2022 3 , respectively. With the urban population estimated to increase to 68% by 2050, the environmental impacts of the construction sector will continuously increase 4 , underscoring the urgent need for developing sustainable construction technologies.

3D concrete printing (3DCP), also known as additive manufacturing (AM) in the construction sector 5 , offers a promising solution for achieving sustainable construction. 3DCP constructs structures by depositing printable concrete materials layer-atop-layer based on a pre-designed building model. The unique construction process possesses the advantages of enhanced sustainability and design flexibility. For example, a prefabricated bathroom unit (PBU) constructed by 3DCP achieved a reduction of 85.9% and 87.1% in carbon emissions and energy consumption, respectively, compared to that of a mold-cast counterpart 6 .

3DCP has gained much attention from both academia and engineering. Figure 1a shows the rapid growth in the publications and citations related to the keywords of “3DCP” based on data obtained from Web of Science. The number of publications reached 444 and 420 in 2022 and 2023, respectively. In these publications, several review works have been conducted in the fields of 3DCP and its potential applications 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 . Wangler et al. 8 present a technical review of 3DCP from fresh materials to hardened materials and further practical applications. Lu et al. 9 provide a comprehensive review of the material behaviors of 3DCP. However, the review articles primarily focus on the technical or material advancements of 3DCP, with less attention given to its sustainability aspects. Figure 1b illustrates the growth of publications related to the keywords of “3DCP and Sustainability”. Despite the growing interest in 3DCP, only 46 publications in 2023, approximately 10% of total 3DCP-related publications, focused on sustainability (Fig. 1a ). Among these publications, Dey et al. 11 provide a comprehensive review of the utilization of industrial wastes in printable materials to improve the sustainability of 3DCP. However, there is a lack of in-depth understanding of how to improve sustainability in 3DCP across its various construction processes.

a Keywords of “3DCP”; b keywords of “3DCP and Sustainability”.

The typical construction processes of 3DCP include the development of printable materials, structural optimization, toolpath design, and printing 12 , as shown in Fig. 2 . Each of these processes offers opportunities for enhancing sustainability. At the material level, sustainability can be improved by developing printable materials incorporated with waste materials. The waste materials are used as the substitutions of aggregate and binder contents, thereby reducing the carbon emission associated with the material extraction. At the structural level, the design of hollow structures via topology optimization (TO) 13 , 14 reduces the material usage and thus enhances sustainability. TO involves the optimization of material distribution to achieve the desired performance. In addition, the design flexibility of 3DCP is compatible with the structural TO. Finally, to implement the optimized structure into 3DCP, toolpath design methods 15 , 16 are adopted to determine the efficient path for sustainable concrete printing. The integration of sustainable printable materials, TO, and toolpath design techniques with 3DCP represents a promising synergy for future research and sustainability development in the construction sector. However, comprehensive reviews covering these three aspects are currently lacking in the existing literature.

The typical processes include the development of printable materials, structural optimization, toolpath generation, and printing.

This paper aims to fill the abovementioned research gap by providing a comprehensive review of sustainable materials, structural topology optimization, and toolpath planning for the enhancement of sustainability in 3DCP. Based on the findings of these reviewed articles, the perspectives and methods to enhance sustainability with respect to the abovementioned three aspects of 3DCP are highlighted. Finally, Section 5 conclusions are summarized and future research directions are identified.

Sustainable materials in 3D concrete printing

Integrating sustainable materials into 3DCP is a potential strategy for enhancing the sustainability of 3DCP 17 since the construction sector increasingly focuses on the recycling of natural resources, reduction in material waste and carbon emissions. The commonly developed 3D printable cementitious materials consist of binder materials (primarily cement), natural fine aggregates, additives, admixtures, and water 18 . However, two main challenges impede the development of sustainable 3D printable cementitious materials. Firstly, the high usage of ordinary Portland cement (OPC, 700–800 kg/m 3 ) 18 impacts sustainability due to the associated carbon footprint 8 . Secondly, during the printing process, most developed material mixtures only use fine aggregates for 3DCP due to the limitation of the pumping process and nozzle opening 19 , 20 .

Employing sustainable binder and aggregate alternatives is a potential solution to address these challenges 6 , 21 . This section reviews relevant advancements in adopting recycled aggregates and supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) into 3D printable materials. Figure 3 shows the number of publications associated with the keywords “3D printed concrete”, “Recycled glass”, “Recycled sand”, “Recycled concrete aggregate”, “Recycled plastics”, “Recycled rubber”, “3D printed concrete”, “Silica fume”, “Rice husk”, “Fly ash”, “Limestone”, “Calcined clay”, “Granulated blast-furnace slag” and “Sustainable” from the Web of Science database. As shown in Fig. 3 , a growing academic interest is observed related to recycled aggregates and SCMs. The following sections discuss the performance characteristics and implications of these sustainable materials in 3DCP applications.

The literature study includes research on two main types of sustainable materials, recycled aggregates and SCM, from 2018 to 2023.

The impact of recycled aggregates, such as recycled glass 22 , concrete 23 , plastics 24 , and rubber 25 , alongside SCMs, such as silica fume 26 , rice husk ash 27 , fly ash 28 , limestone 29 , calcined clay 30 , and granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) 31 , on the fresh and hardened properties of 3D printable materials are analyzed. The analysis underscores the importance of these materials in advancing 3DCP sustainability but also reveals the future potential research direction to mitigate environmental impacts and foster sustainable development in 3D printable cementitious materials 19 , 32 , 33 .

3D printable material performance with recycled aggregates

The primary recycled materials in 3D printed concrete for sustainability enhancement include sand 34 , glass 22 , concrete 35 , plastics 24 , and rubber 25 . According to the data from the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department in 2022 36 , daily waste generation in Hong Kong includes 222.6 tons of glass and 2336.9 tons of plastics. In addition, concrete and sand, derived mainly from construction and demolition debris and construction waste, account for a considerable portion of the waste, with daily production of construction waste reaching 49,865 tons 36 . In the blueprint for Hong Kong 2035 37 , the government proposes a new target concerning “Waste Reduction, Resources Circulation, Zero Landfill”, which presents a significant challenge for the recycling of waste materials in sustainable construction.

In 3DCP, it is essential to achieve a balance of fresh properties and hardened properties for printable materials. Fresh properties such as printability and pumpability, hardened properties such as strength and durability, and sustainability are critical factors for material tailoring 19 , 38 . Recycled aggregates are sustainable alternatives to natural aggregates, helping to conserve natural resources and reduce land waste from landfills 24 , 39 , 40 , 41 . This section discusses the various recycled aggregates in 3DCP (see Table 1 for details) to illustrate their impact on material fresh and hardened performance as well as sustainability.

Impacts of recycled aggregates on fresh properties

Summarizing the findings from Table 1 , the usage of recycled aggregates impacts the fresh properties of cementitious materials. The fresh properties are critical factors, which determine the printability of materials during the printing process. The printability can be characterized by workability, pumpability, extrudability, and buildability 34 . In the 3D printing process, the most essential steps are conveying mixed materials to the nozzle via a delivery system and depositing materials to build the solid object in a layer-by-layer manner 42 . In the conveying step, the materials are required to have good workability and pumpability, which indicates how easily the material can be conveyed. In addition, extrudability indicates the ability of a material to be extruded with minimal energy consumption during the delivery 43 . In the deposition step, the materials are required to have good buildability, which indicates how well the materials can be stacked stably.

With respect to workability, research has indicated that the presence of recycled sand, characterized by its high water absorption rate and irregular shape, tends to reduce the workability of concrete 44 . Similarly, incorporating recycled rubber particles with poor shape and rough surfaces has diminished the workability of 3D printed concrete, resulting in the slow relative motion of rubber particles within the concrete mixture, causing reduced processability 25 . In terms of pumpability, studies conducted by Ting et al. 45 have shown that adding recycled glass to concrete reduces its pumpability. This phenomenon can be attributed to recycled glass particles’ angular and sharp-edged nature, which obstruct flow and decrease pumpability.

Analyzing the extrudability in recycled aggregate concrete, it has been observed that the high water absorption of recycled sand necessitates the addition of extra water and superplasticizers to enhance the extrudability of 3D printed concrete 34 . In addition, the water-absorbing nature of surface cracks in recycled rubber can result in reduced extrudability. However, subjecting recycled rubber to heat treatment can partially close these surface cracks, reducing water absorption and significantly improving extrudability 46 .

Finally, with respect to buildability, increasing the substitution rate of recycled concrete aggregates has been found to improve the buildability of 3D printed concrete. Liu et al.’s 35 research suggests that the buildability increases with the rising substitution rate of recycled concrete aggregates due to the reduction in concrete density. Conversely, studies involving recycled plastics have revealed that while plastic’s hydrophobic nature enhances material flow, it also delays the hydration reaction of calcium silicate, slowing the thixotropic behavior of concrete and ultimately reducing its buildability 24 , 41 .

In summary, recycled aggregates’ influence on cementation materials’ fresh properties is multifaceted and crucial for 3D printing applications. Workability can be compromised by recycled sand and rubber, while pumpability may be hindered when using recycled glass due to its angular characteristics. Extrudability can be improved with additional water and heat treatment for specific recycled materials. In addition, buildability is positively correlated with higher substitution rates of recycled concrete aggregates, while challenges arise from the delayed hydration reaction of calcium silicate when recycled plastics are involved. These insights underscore the need for careful material selection and processing adjustments to optimize the performance of 3D printable materials.

Impacts of recycled aggregates on mechanical properties and sustainability

The mechanical performance of printed structures is paramount for ensuring their structural integrity and safety. Table 1 summarizes the mechanical properties of various types of recycled aggregates, revealing their impact on the mechanical properties of 3D printed concrete. Specifically, incorporating recycled materials such as recycled sand, coarse aggregates, glass, and plastics as sustainable alternatives in concrete leads to decreased compressive strength with increasing substitution rates 22 , 24 , 34 , 35 . This reduction in compressive strength can be attributed to the increased porosity within the concrete resulting from the addition of recycled materials, with higher porosity leading to reduced compressive strength 24 , 39 .

Beyond the problem of increased porosity, the bond between recycled aggregates and the cement matrix plays a significant role in the mechanical performance of 3D printed concrete. The smoother surface and sharper edges of recycled glass particles compared to that of natural sand particles may result in weaker bonding between the particles and the cement matrix at the interface transition zone, decreasing mechanical strength 45 . The inherent properties of recycled aggregates also impact the strength of 3D printed concrete. Recycled concrete aggregates containing old mortar and aggregates with adhering old mortar, which have lower mechanical properties, can serve as weak areas of a structure, decreasing mechanical performance 35 . On the contrary, adding cement-coated modified recycled rubber in 3D printed concrete enhances its compressive strength. This enhancement is primarily attributed to the transformation of the rubber from a hydrophobic material to a hydrophilic material after modification, promoting its interaction with the fresh mortar during mixing and resulting in a more compact interface transition zone within the structure 33 .

These findings emphasize the necessity of incorporating recycled aggregates in 3D printed concrete in appropriate amounts after considering the structural integrity and safety to achieve the desired overall properties of 3D printed concrete. As a type of sustainable material, utilizing recycled aggregates in 3DCP can reduce material costs and mitigate environmental impacts 47 . Han et al. indicate that as the proportion of recycled aggregates increases from 0% to 100%, the CO 2 emissions of 3D printed concrete decrease from 5637.647 kg to 5499.505 kg 48 . Cost analyses demonstrate a downward trend in the total cost of 3D printed concrete with the increasing proportion of recycled aggregates. For instance, the costs of 3D printed concrete with recycling proportions of 0%, 50%, and 100% are 12,913.54 CNY, 12,555.77 CNY, and 12,194.97 CNY, respectively 48 . This underscores that increasing the proportion of recycled aggregates can effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions during concrete production and enhance building materials’ sustainability in the practical application.

3D printable material performance with supplementary cementitious materials

This section explores the impact of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) on the performance of 3D printable cementitious materials. In the area of 3DCP, a significant aspect is its heavy reliance on OPC compared to traditional concrete 18 . Specifically, 3D printable cementitious materials contain more than 20% of OPC, expressed by mass weight due to the requirements of printability 19 . Including SCMs in material mixtures is an alternative solution to address his problem. Various types of SCMs have been adopted for the mixture design of 3D printable concrete in the existing literature, such as fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and calcined clay from various industrial processes 49 . Fly ash, a residue from coal combustion in power plants 50 , and calcined clay, derived from high-temperature treatment of clay materials 29 , are among these industrially sourced SCM. In addition, GGBS originates from the milling process of waste slag from steel production 51 , while silica fume comes from silicon ferroalloy smelting 52 , and rice husk ash is a by-product of rice milling 27 . Incorporating these SCMs reduces the environmental burden associated with concrete production and addresses the high carbon dioxide emissions from cement production 29 , 53 .

In the selection of SCMs for 3D printable concrete, optimizing characteristics such as fresh properties, mechanical properties, durability, and sustainability is crucial 29 , 30 , 54 . These attributes directly impact the efficiency of the printing process and the performance of the final structure. Table 2 summarizes the material characteristics of individual SCM used in 3DCP and their impacts on the performance of 3D printable concrete by a systematic literature review.

Impacts of SCMs on fresh properties

Based on Table 2 , the utilization of SCMs affects the printability of 3D printed concrete. These parameters serve as crucial indicators of the stability and performance of materials during processes such as pumping, extrusion, and bearing continuous printing layer loads. In terms of workability, adding silica fume reduces the workability of 3D printed concrete. This is primarily attributed to the high surface area of silica fume, which easily aggregates with cement particles to form flocculent structures, partially hindering the free flow of water, and therefore, affecting the workability 26 , 53 .

In terms of pumpability and extrudability, the appropriate addition of fly ash and GGBS can enhance the pumpability and extrudability of cementitious materials. This is primarily attributed to the spherical and smooth surface characteristics of fly ash 55 and GGBS 56 , as shown in Table 2 , and therefore, contribute to improving the extrudability of concrete. However, excessive fly ash and GGBS may diminish extrudability due to increased water absorption. As the dosage increases, the water absorption rate rises, resulting in increased viscosity, thereby impeding the extrusion process during 3D printing 57 . The replacement of cement with silica fume 26 , rice husk ash 27 , limestone, and calcined clay 29 can enhance buildability. For example, torque viscosity rises while flow resistance and thixotropy are decreased with the rise of fly ash-to-cement ratio, negatively impacting the buildability 55 . Conversely, the influence of the silica fume-to-cement ratio shows an opposite trend on rheological properties as compared to that of the fly ash-to-cement ratio. Adding silica fume increases the filler content in concrete, strengthening the interaction between particles and thereby improving the 3D printing performance of the material 50 . Rice husk ash exhibits strong water absorption capability, reducing voids between concrete particles and promoting flocculation and hydration product formation, thereby enhancing the buildability of 3D printed concrete 27 . The addition of limestone and calcined clay can enhance the buildability due to the reduced water film thickness 30 .

In summary, incorporating SCMs significantly impacts the workability, pumpability, extrudability, and buildability of 3D printed concrete. While silica fume reduces workability due to its high surface area 26 , fly ash and GGBS can enhance pumpability and extrudability when added appropriately. However, excessive amounts may hinder extrudability due to increased water absorption 57 . Substituting cement with fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash, limestone, and calcined clay enhances buildability 26 , 27 , 58 .

Impacts of SCMs on mechanical properties and sustainability

The mechanical performance of 3D printed concrete is crucial for construction practices. Incorporating SCMs can reduce the environmental impact and directly influence the mechanical properties of 3D printed concrete. Studies have shown that materials such as silica fume 26 , limestone, and calcined clay 29 can positively impact the mechanical properties of concrete. Silica fume acts as an inert filler in 3D printed concrete, filling voids, improving pore structure, and therefore, enhancing mechanical performance 50 . Liu et al. 26 attributed the improvement in the mechanical properties of silica fume to the fact that silica fume increases the density of the concrete, which increases the pore densities and reduces the number of connecting and oversized pores.

Moreover, the quantity of SCMs added also affects the mechanical properties of 3D printed concrete. Increasing the content of limestone and calcined clay can increase the amount of fine particles in concrete, promoting microstructure development 54 . However, small additions of fly ash and GGBS can enhance mechanical properties but excessive amounts may compromise concrete strength. This is mainly due to that the high amount of replacement of cement with fly ash or GGBS reduces the initial cement hydration at the early stage 57 . As a result, the mechanical performance of 3D printable concrete decreases. Therefore, when designing formulations for 3D printed concrete, it is essential to consider the type, quantity, and interactions of SCMs to achieve optimal mechanical performance and ensure the sustainability and durability of structures.

In 3DCP, the CO 2 emission in the material production stage is 583.1 kg CO 2 -eq/m 3 , 75% of which is contributed by the production of cement and other binder materials 18 . Therefore, using SCMs as the substitution of binder materials showed possible advantages in enhancing the environmental sustainability of 3D printable concrete 26 , 28 , 54 . Most of the reviewed studies focus on the fresh and hardened properties of 3D printable concrete with SCMs, with limited attention to the quantitative carbon emission assessment of the materials. Long et al. 59 reported that the 3D printable Limestone & Calcined clay cement composites (LC3) reduced carbon emission by 45% and energy consumption by 40%. Conversely, Yao et al. 60 reported that the carbon emission of printable materials was when geopolymer was used as the binder material. The increased carbon emission of geopolymer was due to the use of silicate (alkaline activator). Liu et al. 61 reported that the printable materials with fly ash showed less carbon emission compared to that of the printable geopolymer concrete. Different conclusions were drawn from the existing articles in terms of the carbon emission of 3D printable materials with SCM. Therefore, to comprehensively assess the sustainability effectiveness of SCMs in 3DCP, additional research is necessary in future works by conducting the quantitative carbon emission assessment.

Conventional structural topology optimization methods

Traditional design principles and considerations are being re-evaluated to leverage the unique capabilities provided by 3D printing 62 . This section aims to review the specific structural optimization methods and considerations tailored for 3DCP technology, with a particular focus on the potential to create functional, efficient, and sustainable designs using topology optimization approaches.

Structural topology optimization is the process of arranging the distribution of materials within a specified design domain to maximize specific mechanical or physical properties, while adhering to prescribed constraints. This concept arose in 1904 when Michell proposed a theoretical analysis to obtain the lightest truss 63 . The advent of finite element analysis (FEA) and the development of the widely used homogenization method 64 , 65 in the late 1980s significantly progressed this concept. Since then, the field has seen substantial advancements, thanks to methods such as Solid Isotropic Microstructure with Penalization (SIMP) 66 , Evolutionary Structural Optimization (ESO) 67 , Bi-directional Evolutionary Structural Optimization (BESO) 68 , 69 , and level set method 70 , 71 . These developments have allowed for more sophisticated and efficient designs and further expanded the possibilities of structural topology optimization. As shown in Table 3 , the various topology optimization approaches have continuously evolved to improve their effectiveness and efficiency, which are introduced individually in this section.

After the introduction of the homogenization-based topology optimization method by Bendsoe and Kikuchi 64 and later developments by Bendsoe 72 , the SIMP method was proposed 73 , 74 . Sigmund 75 provided a clear explanation of the numerical implementation of the SIMP method in 2001 using a concise 99-line Matlab code. The SIMP method assumes constant material properties for the solid material within the design domain. The design variables in the optimization process are the relative densities of each element, which range between zero and one. The material properties are modeled as the relative material density raised to a power multiplied by the properties of the solid material. During the early 1990s, Xie and Steven initially put forth the Evolutionary Structural Optimization (ESO) method to attain optimal topologies for continuum structures 67 , 76 , 77 . Subsequently, Querin et al. 68 and Yang et al. 78 advanced the ESO method to develop the Bi-directional Evolutionary Structural Optimization (BESO) method. The level set-based topology optimization method utilizes a higher-dimensional embedded function to implicitly represent solid-void interfaces 79 , 80 . In the traditional level set method, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (PDE) is solved using the velocity normal to the interface 71 , 81 , 82 . The zero-level contour of the embedded function in the conventional level set method defines the material boundary, serving as the partition between the solid and void domains.

Advanced structural topology optimization methods

In recent years, a variety of innovative optimization algorithms have emerged to tackle the practical challenges associated with flexible design domains, smooth material boundaries, and complex fabrication constraints. One such method is the Reaction diffusion-based level set (RDLS) approach, which was initially introduced in 2014 83 . The RDLS method enables the specification of geometrical complexities within the optimal configuration, thereby facilitating the identification of the desired structure shape through the evolution of the level set function. Another notable advancement is the Floating projection topology optimization (FPTO) method, which was unveiled in 2021 84 . FPTO ensures that design variables take discrete values, resulting in more robust and practical optimization outcomes. Lastly, the Node moving-based topology optimization (NMTO) method, introduced in 2023 85 utilizes a narrowband offset from the structural profile to establish a signed-distance function, which determines the direction of node movement. NMTO aims to optimize the structural topology and enhance its overall performance by manipulating node positions. These cutting-edge methods show great promise for advancing the capabilities of 3DCP and optimizing the production of high-performance structures.

Nowadays, structural topology optimization has become increasingly popular in various fields, including additive manufacturing 69 , 86 , architectural design 87 , 88 , biochemical 89 , 90 , and aerospace engineering 91 , 92 . Among them, the high design flexibility of 3DCP makes it compatible with topology optimization to decrease material usage and improve sustainability. With the integration of these approaches and 3DCP, it becomes possible to create intricate designs that are both structurally sound and resource-efficient.

To find an appropriate method for 3DCP, the benefits and limitations of each topology optimization method should be fully understood, which are introduced and summarized in this subsection. The key scientific differences between the various topology optimization methods include mathematical formulation, optimization algorithms, material models, sensitivity analysis, and post-processing techniques.

The advantages and disadvantages of these topology optimization methods can be concluded to judge whether they can be integrated with 3DCP to fabricate efficient and environmentally friendly structures. For instance, the homogenization method allows for accurate computation of material properties using a systematic approach to obtain optimal topology. However, it may not be suitable for structures with complex material distributions and may struggle with handling geometric complexities. The SIMP method is advantageous as it provides a simple and effective way to model material properties and incorporate manufacturing constraints. Nevertheless, it produces designs with intermediate densities and may suffer from numerical instabilities. Next, the ESO method offers improved utilization of material resources by gradually removing ineffective material but may require a large number of iterations and struggle with complex geometries. Similarly, the BESO method efficiently optimizes structures by employing fundamental strategies but may produce designs with checkerboard patterns and require careful parameter tuning. On the other hand, the conventional level set method utilizes higher-dimensional embedded functions to implicitly represent solid-void interfaces accurately, which can handle topological changes during the optimization process. Nonetheless, it requires careful handling of interface tracking to avoid spurious geometries and may suffer from numerical diffusion and grid-related issues.

On the other hand, the RDLS method allows for specifying geometrical complexity but requires significant computational resources. Besides, this method is sensitive to parameter settings. The FPTO method incorporates floating projection constraints and heuristically simulates 0/1 constraints of design variables, leading to discrete and practical solutions, that provide robust optimization results by considering upper and lower bounds. However, the method’s heuristic nature may not guarantee global optimality, and it may require careful tuning of parameters to balance feasibility and optimality. The NMTO method establishes a signed-distance function to determine node-moving directions, allowing for efficient topology optimization, complex structure design, and flexibility in node manipulation. The disadvantage of the NMTO method is that it may struggle with handling complex boundary conditions and geometric constraints. These are just some general advantages and disadvantages of the topology optimization methods mentioned.

In summary, the suitability of each method regarding 3DCP depends on specific applications and requirements. Different topology optimization methods employ various mathematical formulations to represent and solve the optimization problem. Each formulation has its advantages and limitations in terms of modeling flexibility, convergence behavior, and computational efficiency. Besides, topology optimization methods may differ in the sensitivity analysis approach employed to evaluate the influence of design changes on the objective function and constraints. After obtaining an optimized design, different methods employ various post-processing techniques to interpret and convert the obtained results into manufacturable forms. These techniques can include filtering, mesh smoothing, or shape reconstruction algorithms. The selection of post-processing techniques impacts the final quality, manufacturability, and practicality of the optimized design.

Structural topology optimization in 3D concrete printing

Structural topology optimization has been widely applied in the field of 3DCP, due to the benefits to create efficient and optimized structures. By combining these two techniques, engineers can maximize the use of material, reduce weight, and enhance load-bearing capabilities, resulting in more sustainable and cost-effective structures.

The emergence of 3DCP technology has revolutionized the field of structural design by providing unprecedented freedom in creating intricate geometries and customized structures 93 . This capability opens up new opportunities for designers to push the boundaries of traditional design principles 94 , 95 . By harnessing the inherent freedom of design, 3DCP can create structures that are aesthetically appealing and optimized for performance and functionality 87 . For instance, the optimization of material distribution in 3DCP is a vital research direction to minimize material waste and optimize structural efficiency 14 , 96 . Since the last decade, structural topology optimization has been increasingly applied in 3DCP 97 , 98 . Figure 4 shows the research article number in the last decade integrating different topology optimization approaches and 3DCP using the keywords “3D printed concrete”, “Homogenization method”, “SIMP method”, “ESO method”, “BESO method”, “Level set method”, and “Phase field method” based on data obtained from the Web of Science database. This section focuses on the approaches that have been explored to achieve structural topology optimization in 3DCP. These include using additive manufacturing techniques to build complex geometries and incorporating reinforcement elements during the printing process 14 , 86 , 99 . Existing works 96 , 97 have demonstrated the ability to optimize the internal structure of concrete components, resulting in improved mechanical properties and enhanced performance.

The literature study includes research on the application of six typical optimization methods from 2014 to 2024.

The integration of topology optimization and 3DCP has the potential to enhance the performance and resource efficiency of buildings. With the increasing emphasis on sustainable and eco-friendly practices, optimized structural design has emerged as a critical strategy to reduce material usage while maintaining structural strength 99 , 100 . For instance, the varying physical properties present in functionally graded materials can be customized to meet specific requirements, all while making efficient use of material resources 101 . Building on the multi-material BESO method, a novel approach to 3DCP structural design was introduced 102 . In this approach, 3DPC components primarily experience compression without the need for extra reinforcement. Instead, they synergistically collaborate with tensioned steel cables to create an effective composite structural system. The previous study 96 examined the production process of a topology-optimized 3D printed concrete bridge structure, highlighting its significant deviation from the manufacturing procedures of conventional concrete structures. Yang et al. 103 presented an integrated design method for 3DCP by incorporating extrusion-based manufacturing characteristics into the topology optimization algorithm. Lightweight structures tend to have better seismic performance, increased durability, and reduced energy consumption compared to their heavier counterparts 61 . In addition, lighter structures require less foundation support, resulting in cost savings during construction 104 . Since construction activities are responsible for a significant amount of carbon emissions, reducing the amount of material used can significantly decrease the carbon footprint of a building.

Several examples of a combination of topology optimization and waste materials have been achieved using additive manufacturing 105 , 106 . These technologies provide benefits including minimized waste materials, accelerated construction timelines, and the capacity to create distinctive designs with intricate details. In addition, they classify large-scale 3DCP technologies, emphasizing the importance of optimizing printing ink to enhance economic and environmental results by utilizing waste materials in 3DCP applications. The combination of topology optimization and waste materials offers numerous benefits. Firstly, it promotes sustainable design practices by utilizing recycled or waste materials, contributing to the circular economy and reducing waste. Secondly, it helps reduce costs as waste materials are often less expensive or even available for free compared to conventional materials. In addition, incorporating waste materials into the design improves resource efficiency by minimizing the need for extracting and processing new materials. Moreover, the unique properties of waste materials can enhance the performance of the optimized design, such as strength, durability, or lightweight. This combination also encourages innovation and creativity by exploring unconventional design solutions.

In summary, the integration of topology optimization and 3DCP can enhance the performance and resource efficiency of buildings. The impact of structural lightweighting on seismic performance, durability, and energy consumption makes it a compulsory consideration in achieving resource efficiency. In terms of future research directions, further advancements in structural topology optimization for 3DCP are anticipated. This includes developing advanced algorithms that can handle anisotropic, large-scale optimization problems and integrating multi-material printing capabilities. In addition, research efforts could focus on exploring the potential of bio-inspired design principles and incorporating functional requirements such as interlocking, thermal insulation, and acoustic performance into the optimization process.

Toolpath design and optimization in 3D concrete printing

Toolpath design is a critical aspect of 3DCP as it directly impacts the quality, efficiency, and structural integrity of the printed components. Firstly, toolpath design takes into account material-related problems, such as the flowability and workability of the concrete mixture. By carefully planning the toolpath, engineers can ensure that the material is properly deposited, minimizing problems, such as clogging or inconsistent layering. Toolpath design also addresses process-related concerns, such as the prevention of sagging or deformation during printing. Optimizing the toolpath by the integration of factors such as load-bearing capabilities, stress distribution, and reinforcement placement, can enhance the structural integrity of the printed components.

Toolpath planning determines the success of the 3DCP process. Toolpath design involves mapping out the trajectory and deposition strategy of the printing toolhead to ensure accurate material placement and optimal structural integrity 101 , 107 , 108 . By carefully coordinating the movement of the toolhead, designers can achieve precise layering, intricate geometries, improved sustainability, and desired material properties in the printed structure. Xia et al. 109 proposed an integrated design method to improve the mechanical performance and manufacturability of material extrusion structures according to the technical characteristics of material extrusion. The technical aspects of toolpath planning encompass various considerations, such as path optimization 110 , 111 , 112 , layer sequencing 113 , 114 , manufacturing constraints 14 , 115 , 116 , and support structure generation 86 , 117 , 118 .

Figure 5 illustrates the number of publications during the past decade related to the keywords “3D printed concrete”, “Extrusion-based toolpath design”, “Geometric toolpath design”, “Toolpath visualization”, “Manufacturing constraints”, “Topology optimization-based toolpath design”, “Sliced toolpath design”, and “Toolpath design efficiency/performance” based on data obtained from the Web of Science database. Path optimization algorithms aim to minimize print time, reduce material waste, and enhance printing efficiency by optimizing the toolhead’s movement trajectory. Layer sequencing determines the order in which layers are printed to ensure stability and prevent collapse during the printing process. Material flow control involves adjusting the printing parameters, such as nozzle speed and extrusion rate, to achieve consistent material deposition and avoid defects. Lastly, support structure generation ensures the stability of overhanging or complex geometries during printing.

The literature study includes research on different toolpath design approaches from 2016 to 2024.

In recent years, there have been key research developments 14 , 15 , 96 , 119 in toolpath design and optimization. One of the key areas of focus has been on optimizing toolpaths for material efficiency and print time reduction. Researchers have explored various toolpath design methods with the instruction of topology optimization to achieve efficient and environmentally friendly structures. In addition, advancements in path optimization algorithms 110 , 111 , 112 , layer sequencing 113 , 114 , and support structure generation 86 , 117 , 118 have helped to enhance the printing efficiency and accuracy of 3DCP. Two novel printing techniques, “knitting” and “tilting” filaments, were proposed to address the anisotropy inherent in 3D printed ECC, emulating the natural crossed-lamellar structure of conch shells 120 . Three-dimensional spatial paths were devised to distribute tensile and flexural resistance in multiple directions and establish an interwoven interface system to enhance the strength of the structure.

The integration of toolpath design, 3D concrete printing, and topology optimization

Toolpath planning includes the strategic arrangement of the printing toolhead’s movement paths and deposition patterns to achieve the desired structural form 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 . This section aims to highlight the significance of toolpath planning in 3DCP and topology optimization. Existing methods for toolpath design in 3DCP involve a combination of computational algorithms, simulation techniques, and empirical knowledge. These methods consider various constraints and challenges, including printer limitations 14 , geometric complexity 16 , surface finish requirements 125 , overhang (self-support) problem 86 , interlocking 126 , and stability 127 during the printing process. They aim to generate toolpaths that maximize printing efficiency while ensuring the structural integrity and quality of the final product.

The toolpath design methods displayed in Fig. 5 can be integrated with 3DCP to fabricate efficient and high-performance structures depending on the fabrication requirements. Extrusion-based toolpath design in 3D concrete printing refers to the process of planning and creating the specific paths along which the extrusion nozzle will move to deposit layers of concrete material in a three-dimensional printed structure. Extrusion-based toolpath design 128 , 129 offers several advantages. It allows for the generation of toolpaths tailored to the specific material deposition process, resulting in efficient and optimized printing trajectories. By considering the extrusion process, this method can minimize print time, reduce material waste, and enhance printing efficiency. However, it may be limited in its ability to handle complex geometries and struggle with intricate support structure generation. Geometric toolpath design 16 , 130 focuses on creating toolpaths based on the geometric characteristics of the part being printed. This approach can lead to precise toolpaths that align with the part’s geometry, potentially reducing material waste. However, it may be less effective in optimizing toolpaths for overall printing efficiency and may struggle with handling complex layer sequencing. Toolpath visualization 131 , 132 provides a visual representation of the toolpaths, aiding in the identification of potential issues such as collisions, inefficient trajectories, or inadequate support structures. While it can help in identifying and addressing these issues, it may not actively optimize the toolpaths for print time, material waste, or printing efficiency. This method allows for precise control over layer sequencing and material flow control, ensuring stable and accurate printing. However, it may require additional computational resources and not fully optimize toolpaths for overall printing efficiency.

Toolpath design can be integrated with topology optimization to generate better performance 103 , 133 . Topology optimization-based toolpath design integrates the principles of topology optimization into the generation of toolpaths. By considering material deposition constraints and printing process dynamics, this method aims to create toolpaths that are not only geometrically optimized but also aligned with manufacturing constraints and support structure requirements. This approach can lead to highly efficient toolpaths that minimize print time, material waste, and enhance overall printing efficiency.

In summary, each of these toolpath design methods offers unique advantages and considerations. The selection of the most suitable method depends on the specific printing requirements, material characteristics, geometric complexity, and manufacturing constraints of the part being printed.

Benefits and challenges for future applications

The impact of toolpath optimization on the quality and efficiency of 3DCP has garnered significant attention. This section aims to analyze how optimized toolpaths positively influence printing quality and efficiency, emphasizing the reduction of waste and energy consumption. Advanced algorithms and computational models 119 , 127 , 134 are being developed to strategically plan the movement paths and deposition patterns of the printing toolhead, enabling precise material placement and optimized structural performance. A well-planned toolpath can result in structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing printed structures, while inadequate planning can lead to issues like material sagging, poor bonding between layers, or excessive material use 15 , 135 , 136 . Therefore, understanding and optimizing the toolpath planning process is vital for successful and reliable 3DCP 137 , 138 . Furthermore, toolpath planning also provides opportunities for customization and innovation in construction 16 , 125 . With the ability to precisely control the deposition pattern and material properties, designers can explore novel architectural forms, integrate functional features, and optimize performance characteristics.

Through systematic toolpath planning, it becomes possible to mitigate issues such as over-extrusion, uneven material distribution, and inaccuracies in layer deposition, ultimately leading to superior printing quality 112 , 139 . Moreover, the relationship between toolpath planning and material efficiency is paramount in the context of sustainable manufacturing practices. Optimized toolpaths contribute to the reduction of material waste and energy consumption by streamlining the printing process. Efficient toolpaths enable precise material deposition, minimize unnecessary movements, and optimize the use of support structures, thereby reducing material consumption and enhancing overall sustainability in 3DCP 132 , 140 , 141 .

The technical considerations involved in toolpath optimization for 3DCP encompass path optimization algorithms, print speed adjustments, and support structure generation. Path optimization algorithms aim to minimize print time and reduce material waste by optimizing the toolhead’s movement trajectory, while print speed adjustments ensure consistent material flow and deposition 132 . In addition, support structure generation and layer sequencing contribute to the stability and efficiency of the printing process 86 . Real-world case studies provide valuable insights into the benefits and challenges associated with toolpath optimization in construction projects 142 , 143 .

In terms of future research directions, there is a requirement to address additional constraints for the practical usage of 3DCP. For instance, the development of artificial intelligence empowered toolpath design methods for structures with complex geometric features. The integration of real-time monitoring and feedback systems into the toolpath design process can help improve accuracy and adaptability during printing. In addition, considering sustainability aspects, such as the use of recycled materials or minimizing waste, presents another avenue for future research in toolpath design for 3DCP.

Conclusions

This study presents a comprehensive overview of three vital aspects integrated with 3D concrete printing (3DCP) that contribute to enhancing sustainability in the construction sector. The first area of focus is sustainable material, which involves optimizing the constituents of printable materials through the recycling of waste materials into aggregates and supplementary cementitious materials. This approach reduces the environmental impact of the materials but also enhances the economic viability of 3DCP. The second vital area discussed is structural optimization, which plays a crucial role in maximizing structural performance and efficiency by rearranging material distribution. This optimization leads to improved structural integrity, reduced material usage, and minimized construction time and cost. Lastly, advances in toolpath planning have significantly improved the quality and efficiency of 3DCP. By strategically planning the movement paths and deposition patterns of the printing toolhead, toolpath optimization enhances printing accuracy, minimizes defects, and improves overall structural integrity. Furthermore, the review article also explores the influence of printing parameters on the quality and integrity of printed structures, providing valuable insights for future research and development in the field. By investigating the synergies between these three elements, this research aims to provide valuable insights for advancing sustainable and efficient building practices through the implementation of 3DCP technology.

The future of 3DCP in the construction sector is promising, while more systematic works are required to facilitate the practical application and sustainability of 3DCP:

Integration of Advanced Technologies: Future research should focus on integrating advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotic control into toolpath optimization. These technologies can be adopted in the material design, system integration, and real-time optimization of printing processes.

Development of New Algorithms: There is a need for the development of new algorithms for toolpath optimization that can address specific challenges in 3DCP, such as handling complex geometries, optimizing material flow, and managing overhangs. These algorithms should also aim to optimize multiple objectives simultaneously.

Exploration of Novel Applications: Future research should explore novel applications of toolpath optimization in construction, such as printing complex architectural forms, integrating functional features, and creating customized structures. The potential of toolpath optimization in challenging environments, such as underwater or in space, should also be investigated.

Systematic literature review

This review article employs a systematic literature review approach based on established practices in additive manufacturing for construction to explore the intersections between 3DCP, material sustainability, structural topology optimization, and toolpath design. The Web of Science Core Collection, including indices such as SCI, SSCI, SCI-Expanded, and ESCI, is utilized to gather diverse publications until December 2023, encompassing journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and reports. A three-stage review method is meticulously designed to ensure objectivity and reproducibility.

Initially, relevant keywords, including “3D concrete printing,” “sustainable material,” “structural topology optimization,” and “toolpath design,” are defined to ensure a focused review. The literature reviews for sustainable material, TO, and toolpath design sections are conducted independently by different researchers. In the first stage, 1033 papers related to 3DCP are identified, with further breakdowns of 400 papers for sustainable material, 472 for structural topology optimization, and 161 for toolpath design. In the second stage, manual screening is conducted based on predefined criteria, including methodology robustness, published year, bibliographic information, and sustainability considerations. Comparative analysis results in the identification of 476 papers, comprising 245 for sustainable material, 136 for structural topology optimization, and 95 for toolpath design, as displayed in Figs. 3 , 4 , and 5 . In the third stage, the literature was further narrowed down to 160 references for inclusion in this review according to the specific criteria, including published journals, impact in the field, and number of citations. This three-step screening procedure guarantees that the literature review remains focused and relevant.

An analytical synthesis is then performed to summarize the primary studies of additive manufacturing in construction. The 160 studies obtained by the screening procedure are integrated systematically and classified into three sections according to their context, study design, and outcomes. The references cited in the sections on sustainable material, structural topology optimization, and toolpath design are 61, 76, and 23, respectively. In conclusion, the systematic literature review methodology minimizes reliance on subjective judgments, mitigates personal biases and errors, and upholds the integrity of scholarly research 144 .

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

I.E. Agency. CO 2 Emissions in 2022 . https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022 (2023).

Enerdata. World Energy & Climate Statistics—Yearbook 2022 . World Energy Consumption Statistics| Enerdata France. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html (2022).

C.I. Council. Sustainable Construction . https://www.sc.cic.hk/index.php/en/ (2023).

Khan, S. A., Koç, M. & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. Sustainability assessment, potentials and challenges of 3D printed concrete structures: a systematic review for built environmental applications. J. Clean. Prod. 303 , 127027 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Tay, Y. W. D. et al. 3D printing trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 12 , 261–276 (2017).

Weng, Y. et al. Comparative economic, environmental and productivity assessment of a concrete bathroom unit fabricated through 3D printing and a precast approach. J. Clean. Prod. 261 , 121245 (2020).

Ngo, T. D. et al. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos. Part B: Eng. 143 , 172–196 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wangler, T. et al. Digital concrete: a review. Cem. Concr. Res. 123 , 105780 (2019).

Lu, B. et al. A systematical review of 3D printable cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 207 , 477–490 (2019).

Xiao, J. et al. Large-scale 3D printing concrete technology: current status and future opportunities. Cem. Concr. Compos. 122 , 104115 (2021).

Dey, D. et al. Use of industrial waste materials for 3D printing of sustainable concrete: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 340 , 130749 (2022).

Teng, F. et al. BIM-enabled collaborative-robots 3D concrete printing to construct MiC with reinforcement. HKIE Trans. 30 , 106–115 (2023).

Vantyghem, G., De Corte, W., Shakour, E. & Amir, O. 3D printing of a post-tensioned concrete girder designed by topology optimization. Autom. Constr. 112 , 103084 (2020).

Bi, M. et al. Topology optimization for 3D concrete printing with various manufacturing constraints. Addit. Manuf. 57 , 102982 (2022).

Google Scholar  

Weng, Y. et al. Extracting BIM information for lattice toolpath planning in digital concrete printing with developed dynamo script: a case study. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 35 , 05021001 (2021).

Breseghello, L. & Naboni, R. Toolpath-based design for 3D concrete printing of carbon-efficient architectural structures. Addit. Manuf. 56 , 102872 (2022).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Adaloudis, M. & Roca, J. B. Sustainability tradeoffs in the adoption of 3D Concrete Printing in the construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 307 , 127201 (2021).

Tinoco, M. P. et al. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental sustainability of cementitious materials for 3D concrete printing: a systematic literature review. J. Build. Eng. 52 , 104456 (2022).

Chen, Y. et al. A review of printing strategies, sustainable cementitious materials and characterization methods in the context of extrusion-based 3D concrete printing. J. Build. Eng. 45 , 103599 (2022).

Lu, B., Li, M., Wong, T. N. & Qian, S. Effect of printing parameters on material distribution in spray-based 3D concrete printing (S-3DCP). Autom. Constr. 124 , 103570 (2021).

Ford, S. & Despeisse, M. Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 137 , 1573–1587 (2016).

Liu, J. et al. 3D-printed concrete with recycled glass: effect of glass gradation on flexural strength and microstructure. Constr. Build. Mater. 314 , 125561 (2022).

Wu, Y. et al. Study on the rheology and buildability of 3D printed concrete with recycled coarse aggregates. J. Build. Eng. 42 , 103030 (2021).

Oosthuizen, J. D., Babafemi, A. J. & Walls, R. S. 3D-printed recycled plastic eco-aggregate (Resin8) concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 408 , 133712 (2023).

Valente, M., Sambucci, M., Chougan, M. & Ghaffar, S. H. Composite alkali-activated materials with waste tire rubber designed for additive manufacturing: an eco-sustainable and energy saving approach. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 24 , 3098–3117 (2023).

Liu, C. et al. Influence of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and silica fume on stability, rheological properties, and printability of 3D printing foam concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 122 , 104158 (2021).

Tinoco, M. Pimentel et al. The use of rice husk particles to adjust the rheological properties of 3D printable cementitious composites through water sorption. Constr. Build. Mater. 365 , 130046 (2023).

Ye, J. et al. Development of 3D printable engineered cementitious composites with incineration bottom ash (IBA) for sustainable and digital construction. J. Clean. Prod. 422 , 138639 (2023).

Ibrahim, K. A., van Zijl, G. P. A. G. & Babafemi, A. J. Influence of limestone calcined clay cement on properties of 3D printed concrete for sustainable construction. J. Build. Eng. 69 , 106186 (2023).

Chen, Y. et al. 3D printing of calcined clay-limestone-based cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 149 , 106553 (2021).

Qian, H. et al. Synergistic effect of EVA copolymer and sodium desulfurization ash on the printing performance of high volume blast furnace slag mixtures. Addit. Manuf. 46 , 102183 (2021).

Bhattacherjee, S. et al. Sustainable materials for 3D concrete printing. Cem. Concr. Compos. 122 , 104156 (2021).

Liu, J., Setunge, S. & Tran, P. 3D concrete printing with cement-coated recycled crumb rubber: compressive and microstructural properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 347 , 128507 (2022).

Ding, T., Xiao, J., Zou, S. & Wang, Y. Hardened properties of layered 3D printed concrete with recycled sand. Cem. Concr. Compos. 113 , 103724 (2020).

Liu, H. et al. Hardened properties of 3D printed concrete with recycled coarse aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 159 , 106868 (2022).

H.K.E.P. Department. Hong Kong Solid Waste Monitoring Report Waste Statistics 2022 (2022).

H.K.E.P. Department. Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035 (2021).

Ahmed, G. H., Askandar, N. H. & Jumaa, G. B. A review of largescale 3DCP: material characteristics, mix design, printing process, and reinforcement strategies. Structures 43 , 508–532 (2022).

Christen, H., van Zijl, G. & de Villiers, W. The incorporation of recycled brick aggregate in 3D printed concrete. Clean. Mater. 4 , 100090 (2022).

Sambucci, M., Biblioteca, I. & Valente, M. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of 3D concrete printing and casting processes for cementitious materials incorporating ground waste tire rubber. Recycling 8 , 15 (2023).

Skibicki, S. et al. The effect of using recycled PET aggregates on mechanical and durability properties of 3D printed mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 335 , 127443 (2022).

Weng, Y., Li, M., Tan, M. J. & Qian, S. Design 3D printing cementitious materials via Fuller Thompson theory and Marson-Percy model. Constr. Build. Mater. 163 , 600–610 (2018).

Nerella, V. N. et al. Inline quantification of extrudability of cementitious materials for digital construction. Cem. Concr. Compos. 95 , 260–270 (2019).

Wu, Y. et al. 3D printed concrete with recycled sand: pore structures and triaxial compression properties. Cem. Concr. Compos. 139 , 105048 (2023).

Ting, G. H. A., Tay, Y. W. D., Qian, Y. & Tan, M. J. Utilization of recycled glass for 3D concrete printing: rheological and mechanical properties. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 21 , 994–1003 (2019).

Zou, M. et al. Evaluation and control of printability and rheological properties of 3D-printed rubberized concrete. J. Build. Eng. 80 , 107988 (2023).

Ding, T., Xiao, J. & Tam, V. W. Y. A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Manag. 56 , 367–375 (2016).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Han, Y., Yang, Z., Ding, T. & Xiao, J. Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 278 , 123884 (2021).

Shen, W. et al. Quantifying CO 2 emissions from China’s cement industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 , 1004–1012 (2015).

Weng, Y. et al. Feasibility study on sustainable magnesium potassium phosphate cement paste for 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 221 , 595–603 (2019).

Gardner, L. J. et al. Characterisation of magnesium potassium phosphate cements blended with fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Res. 74 , 78–87 (2015).

Tangstad, M. in Handbook of Ferroalloys (ed. Gasik, M.) 179–220 (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013).

Lucen, H. et al. The synergistic effect of greenhouse gas CO 2 and silica fume on the properties of 3D printed mortar. Compos. Part B: Eng. 271 , 111188 (2024).

Chen, Y. et al. Limestone and calcined clay-based sustainable cementitious materials for 3D concrete printing: a fundamental study of extrudability and early-age strength development. Appl. Sci. 9 , 1809 (2019).

Weng, Y. et al. Empirical models to predict rheological properties of fiber reinforced cementitious composites for 3D printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 189 , 676–685 (2018).

Zhao, Y. et al. Development of low-carbon materials from GGBS and clay brick powder for 3D concrete printing. Constr. Build. Mater. 383 , 131232 (2023).

Xu, Z. et al. Effect of FA and GGBFS on compressive strength, rheology, and printing properties of cement-based 3D printing material. Constr. Build. Mater. 339 , 127685 (2022).

Rahul, A. V., Santhanam, M., Meena, H. & Ghani, Z. 3D printable concrete: Mixture design and test methods. Cem. Concr. Compos. 97 , 13–23 (2019).

Long, W.-J. et al. Printability and particle packing of 3D-printable limestone calcined clay cement composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 282 , 122647 (2021).

Yao, Y., Hu, M., Di Maio, F. & Cucurachi, S. Life cycle assessment of 3D printing geo‐polymer concrete: an ex‐ante study. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 , 116–127 (2020).

Liu, S. et al. A comparative study on environmental performance of 3D printing and conventional casting of concrete products with industrial wastes. Chemosphere 298 , 134310 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gao, W. et al. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput. Aided Des. 69 , 65–89 (2015).

Michell, A. G. M. The limits of economy of material in frame structures. Philos. Mag. 8 , 589–597 (1904).

Bendsoe, M. P. & Kikuchi, N. Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 71 , 197–224 (1988).

Lurie, K. A., Cherkaev, A. V. & Fedorov, A. V. Regularization of optimal design problems for bars and plates, part 1. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 37 , 499–522 (1982).

Suzuki, K. & Kikuchi, N. A homogenization method for shape and topology optimization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 93 , 291–318 (1991).

Xie, Y. M. & Steven, G. P. A simple evolutionary procedure for structural optimization. Comput. Struct. 49 , 885–896 (1993).

Querin, O. M., Steven, G. P. & Xie, Y. M. Evolutionary structural optimisation (ESO) using a bidirectional algorithm. Eng. Comput. 15 , 1031–1048 (1998).

Zhuang, Z., Xie, Y. M., Li, Q. & Zhou, S. Body-fitted bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization using nonlinear diffusion regularization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 396 , 115114 (2022).

Sethian, J. A. & Wiegmann, A. Structural boundary design via level set and immersed interface methods. J. Comput. Phys. 163 , 489–528 (2000).

Allaire, G., Jouve, F. & Toader, A.-M. A level set method for shape optimization. C. R. Math. 334 , 1125–1130 (2002).

Bendsoe, M. P. Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem. Struct. Optim. 1 , 193–202 (1989).

Sigmund, O. Materials with prescribed constitutive parameters: an inverse homogenization problem. Int. J. Solids Struct. 31 , 2313–2329 (1994).

Sigmund, O. On the design of compliant mechanisms using topology optimization. Mech. Struct. Mach. 25 , 493–524 (1997).

Sigmund, O. A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 21 , 120–127 (2001).

Xie, Y. M. & Steven, G. P. Evolutionary Structural Optimization (Springer-Verlag, 1997).

Xie, Y. M. & Steven, G. P. Evolutionary structural optimization for dynamic problems. Comput. Struct. 58 , 1067–1073 (1996).

Yang, X. Y., Xie, Y. M., Steven, G. & Querin, O. Bidirectional evolutionary method for stiffness optimization. AIAA J. 37 , 1483–1488 (1999).

Osher, S. & Sethian, J. A. Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi formulations. J. Comput. Phys. 79 , 12–49 (1988).

Vese, L. A. & Chan, T. F. A multiphase level set framework for image segmentation using the mumford and Shah model. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 50 , 271–293 (2002).

Wang, M. Y., Wang, X. & Guo, D. A level set method for structural topology optimization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 192 , 227–246 (2003).

Wang, M. Y. & Wang, X. “Color” level sets: a multi-phase method for structural topology optimization with multiple materials. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 193 , 469–496 (2004).

Otomori, M., Yamada, T., Izui, K. & Nishiwaki, S. Matlab code for a level set-based topology optimization method using a reaction diffusion equation. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 51 , 1159–1172 (2014).

Huang, X. On smooth or 0/1 designs of the fixed-mesh element-based topology optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 151 , 102942 (2021).

Zhuang, Z. et al. A node moving-based structural topology optimization method in the body-fitted mesh. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 419 , 116663 (2024).

Bi, M., Tran, P. & Xie, Y. M. Topology optimization of 3D continuum structures under geometric self-supporting constraint. Addit. Manuf. 36 , 101422 (2020).

Xie, Y. M. Generalized topology optimization for architectural design. Architect. Intell. 1 , 1–11 (2022).

Liu, Y. et al. Reducing the number of different faces in free-form surface approximations through clustering and optimization. Comput. Aided Des. 166 , 103633 (2024).

Zhao, Z.-L., Zhou, S., Feng, X.-Q. & Xie, Y. M. Morphological optimization of scorpion telson. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 135 , 103773 (2020).

Cai, K., Chen, B. S. & Zhang, H. W. Topology optimization of continuum structures based on a new bionics method. Int. J. Computat. Methods Eng. Sci. Mech. 8 , 233–242 (2007).

Zhu, J., Zhang, W. & Xia, L. Topology optimization in aircraft and aerospace structures design. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 23 , 595–622 (2016).

Leader, M. K., Chin, T. W. & Kennedy, G. High resolution topology optimization of aerospace structures with stress and frequency constraints, In Proc. 2018 Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2018).

Menna, C. et al. Opportunities and challenges for structural engineering of digitally fabricated concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 133 , 106079 (2020).

Chen, Y., Zhou, C. & Lao, J. A layerless additive manufacturing process based on CNC accumulation. Rapid Prototyp. J. 17 , 218–227 (2011).

Pan, Y., Zhou, C., Chen, Y. & Partanen, J. Multi-tool and multi-axis CNC Accumulation for fabricating conformal features on curved surfaces. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136 , 031007 (2014).

Ooms, T. et al. Third RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication 37–42 (Springer International Publishing, 2022).

Asprone, D., Auricchio, F., Menna, C. & Mercuri, V. 3D printing of reinforced concrete elements: Technology and design approach. Constr. Build. Mater. 165 , 218–231 (2018).

Gebhard, L. et al. Structural behaviour of 3D printed concrete beams with various reinforcement strategies. Eng. Struct. 240 , 112380 (2021).

Martens, P., Mathot, M., Bos, F. & Coenders, J. High Tech Concrete: Where Technology and Engineering Meet 301–309 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

Ahmed, G. H. A review of “3D concrete printing”: materials and process characterization, economic considerations and environmental sustainability. J. Build. Eng. 66 , 105863 (2023).

Tay, Y. W. D., Lim, J. H., Li, M. & Tan, M. J. Creating functionally graded concrete materials with varying 3D printing parameters. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 17 , 662–681 (2022).

Li, Y. et al. FloatArch: a cable-supported, unreinforced, and re-assemblable 3D-printed concrete structure designed using multi-material topology optimization. Addit. Manuf. 81 , 104012 (2024).

Yang, W., Wang, L., Ma, G. & Feng, P. An integrated method of topological optimization and path design for 3D concrete printing. Eng. Struct. 291 , 116435 (2023).

Mechtcherine, V. et al. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing with cement-based materials—production steps, processes, and their underlying physics: A review. Cem. Concr. Res. 132 , 106037 (2020).

Tu, H. et al. Recent advancements and future trends in 3D concrete printing using waste materials. Dev. Built Environ. 16 , 100187 (2023).

Heywood, K. & Nicholas, P. Sustainability and 3D concrete printing: identifying a need for a more holistic approach to assessing environmental impacts. Architect. Intell. 2 , 12 (2023).

Wang, L., Jiang, H., Li, Z. & Ma, G. Mechanical behaviors of 3D printed lightweight concrete structure with hollow section. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 20 , 16 (2020).

Geng, Z., Pan, H., Zuo, W. & She, W. Functionally graded lightweight cement-based composites with outstanding mechanical performances via additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 56 , 102911 (2022).

Xia, L. et al. Integrated lightweight design method via structural optimization and path planning for material extrusion. Addit. Manuf. 62 , 103387 (2023).

Jin, Y.-a et al. Optimization of tool-path generation for material extrusion-based additive manufacturing technology. Addit. Manuf. 1-4 , 32–47 (2014).

Jin, Y. et al. An optimization approach for path planning of high-quality and uniform additive manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 92 , 651–662 (2017).

Ding, D., Pan, Z., Cuiuri, D. & Li, H. A practical path planning methodology for wire and arc additive manufacturing of thin-walled structures. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 34 , 8–19 (2015).

Sales, E., Kwok, T.-H. & Chen, Y. Function-aware slicing using principal stress line for toolpath planning in additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process. 64 , 1420–1433 (2021).

Chakraborty, D., Reddy, B. & Choudhury, A. Extruder path generation for Curved Layer Fused Deposition Modeling. Comput. Aided Des. 40 , 235–243 (2008).

Jiang, J. & Ma, Y. Path planning strategies to optimize accuracy, quality, build time and material use in additive manufacturing: a review. Micromachines 11 , 633 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Giberti, H., Sbaglia, L. & Urgo, M. A path planning algorithm for industrial processes under velocity constraints with an application to additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 43 , 160–167 (2017).

Jin, Y. et al. A non-retraction path planning approach for extrusion-based additive manufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 48 , 132–144 (2017).

Wang, T. et al. Load-dependent path planning method for 3D printing of continuous fiber reinforced plastics. Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 140 , 106181 (2021).

Chen, X., Fang, G., Liao, W.-H. & Wang, C. C. L. Field-based toolpath generation for 3D printing continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites. Addit. Manuf. 49 , 102470 (2022).

Zhou, W., McGee, W., Gökçe, H. S. & Li, V. C. A bio-inspired solution to alleviate anisotropy of 3D printed engineered cementitious composites (3DP-ECC): Knitting/tilting filaments. Autom. Constr. 155 , 105051 (2023).

Anton, A. et al. A 3D concrete printing prefabrication platform for bespoke columns. Autom. Constr. 122 , 103467 (2021).

Dörrie, R. et al. Automated force-flow-oriented reinforcement integration for Shotcrete 3D Printing. Autom. Constr. 155 , 105075 (2023).

Breseghello, L., Hajikarimian, H., Jørgensen, H. B. & Naboni, R. 3DLightBeam+. Design, simulation, and testing of carbon-efficient reinforced 3D concrete printed beams. Eng. Struct. 292 , 116511 (2023).

Moini, M. et al. Additive manufacturing and performance of architectured cement-based materials. Adv. Mater. 30 , 1802123 (2018).

Lin, Z. et al. Tool path generation for multi-axis freeform surface finishing with the LKH TSP solver. Comput. Aided Des. 69 , 51–61 (2015).

Zareiyan, B. & Khoshnevis, B. Effects of interlocking on interlayer adhesion and strength of structures in 3D printing of concrete. Autom. Constr. 83 , 212–221 (2017).

Bi, M. et al. Continuous contour-zigzag hybrid toolpath for large format additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 55 , 102822 (2022).

Vispute, M., Kumar, N., Taufik, M. & Jain, P. K. Improving surface finish of extrusion based additive manufactured parts using novel triangle based toolpath approach. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 18 , 433–452 (2024).

Jensen, M. L. et al. Toolpath strategies for 5DOF and 6DOF extrusion-based additive manufacturing, Appl. Sci. 9 , 4168 (2019).

Li, C. L. A geometric approach to boundary-conformed toolpath generation. Comput. Aided Des. 39 , 941–952 (2007).

Breseghello, L. & Naboni, R. Adaptive toolpath: enhanced design and process control for robotic 3DCP. In International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Futures 301–316 (2022).

Liu, W., Chen, L., Mai, G. & Song, L. Toolpath planning for additive manufacturing using sliced model decomposition and metaheuristic algorithms. Adv. Eng. Softw. 149 , 102906 (2020).

Yang, W. et al. An integrated topology optimization method including manufacturing constraints for 3D printed fiber-reinforced concrete structures. Mater. Lett. 355 , 135442 (2024).

Lin, S. et al. A maze-like path generation scheme for fused deposition modeling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 104 , 1509–1519 (2019).

Jin, G. Q., Li, W. D., Gao, L. & Popplewell, K. A hybrid and adaptive tool-path generation approach of rapid prototyping and manufacturing for biomedical models. Comput. Ind. 64 , 336–349 (2013).

Moini, R. Perspectives in architected infrastructure materials. RILEM Tech. Lett. 8 , 125–140 (2024).

Xia, L., Lin, S. & Ma, G. Stress-based tool-path planning methodology for fused filament fabrication. Addit. Manuf. 32 , 101020 (2020).

Xia, L. et al. Globally continuous hybrid path for extrusion-based additive manufacturing. Autom. Constr. 137 , 104175 (2022).

Li, N. et al. Path-designed 3D printing for topological optimized continuous carbon fibre reinforced composite structures. Compos. Part B: Eng. 182 , 107612 (2020).

Liu, J., Ma, Y., Qureshi, A. J. & Ahmad, D. R. Light-weight shape and topology optimization with hybrid deposition path planning for FDM parts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 97 , 1123–1135 (2018).

Ye, J. et al. Feasibility of using ultra-high ductile concrete to print self-reinforced hollow structures. in Proc. Third RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication 133–138 (2022).

Jin, G. Q., Li, W. D., Tsai, C. F. & Wang, L. Adaptive tool-path generation of rapid prototyping for complex product models. J. Manuf. Syst. 30 , 154–164 (2011).

Jin, Y.-A., He, Y., Xue, G.-H. & Fu, J.-Z. A parallel-based path generation method for fused deposition modeling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 77 , 927–937 (2015).

Roberts, H. & Petticrew, M. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (Wiley, 2006).

Glowinski, R. Trends and Applications of Pure Mathematics to Mechanics 96–145 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1984).

Kikuchi, N., Chung, K. Y., Torigaki, T. & Taylor, J. E. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 139–169 (1986).

Andreassen, E. et al. Efficient topology optimization in MATLAB using 88 lines of code. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 43 , 1–16 (2011).

Ferrari, F. & Sigmund, O. A new generation 99 line Matlab code for compliance topology optimization and its extension to 3D. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 62 , 2211–2228 (2020).

Rozvany, G. I. N., Zhou, M. & Birker, T. Generalized shape optimization without homogenization. Struct. Optim. 4 , 250–252 (1992).

Huang, X. & Xie, Y. M. Evolutionary Topology Optimization of Continuum Structures: Methods and Applications (Wiley, 2010).

Zuo, Z. H. & Xie, Y. M. A simple and compact Python code for complex 3D topology optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 85 , 1–11 (2015).

Huang, X., Xie, Y. M. & Burry, M. C. A new algorithm for bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization. JSME Int. J. Ser. C. Mech. Syst., Mach. Elem. Manuf. 49 , 1091–1099 (2006).

Challis, V. J. A discrete level-set topology optimization code written in Matlab. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41 , 453–464 (2010).

Allaire, G., Jouve, F. & Toader, A.-M. Structural optimization using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. J. Comput. Phys. 194 , 363–393 (2004).

Zhuang, Z., Xie, Y. M., Li, Q. & Zhou, S. A 172-line Matlab code for structural topology optimization in the body-fitted mesh. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 66 , 11 (2022).

Yamada, T., Izui, K., Nishiwaki, S. & Takezawa, A. A topology optimization method based on the level set method incorporating a fictitious interface energy. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 199 , 2876–2891 (2010).

Li, H. et al. Full-scale 3D structural topology optimization using adaptive mesh refinement based on the level-set method. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 194 , 103561 (2021).

Zhuang, Z., Xie, Y. M. & Zhou, S. A reaction diffusion-based level set method using body-fitted mesh for structural topology optimization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 381 , 113829 (2021).

Huang, X. A Matlab code of topology optimization by imposing the implicit floating projection constraint. (2022).

Huang, X. & Li, W. Three-field floating projection topology optimization of continuum structures. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 399 , 115444 (2022).

Zhang, X. et al. A nodal-based optimization method for the design of continuous fiber-reinforced structures. Compos. Struct. 323 , 117455 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by National Science and Foundation of China (52308284), Department of Science and Technology of Guangdong Province (306071352047), and Hong Kong Polytechnic University (P0038598, P0038966, P0044299, P0045796). The funder played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Zicheng Zhuang, Fengming Xu, Junhong Ye.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Zicheng Zhuang, Fengming Xu, Junhong Ye & Yiwei Weng

Department of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Hong Kong, China

Department of Building Environment and Energy Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

Liming Jiang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.Z., M.X., and J.Y. conducted the review and wrote the manuscript. H.N., L.J., and Y.W. made suggestions and revised the manuscript. Y.W. provided the resources and supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiwei Weng .

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.

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

Cite this article.

Zhuang, Z., Xu, F., Ye, J. et al. A comprehensive review of sustainable materials and toolpath optimization in 3D concrete printing. npj Mater. Sustain. 2 , 12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-024-00017-9

Download citation

Received : 30 December 2023

Accepted : 02 March 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-024-00017-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.