Selected papers for systematic literature review
No. | Authors | Year | Journal | Methodology |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Homer, G. and Thompson, D. | 2001 | Case study | |
2 | White, R.E. and Pearson, J.N. | 2001 | Framework | |
3 | Heikkila, J. | 2002 | Case study | |
4 | Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J.D. | 2002 | Survey | |
5 | Berkhout and Hertin | 2004 | Framework | |
6 | Bruun, P. and Mefford, R.N. | 2004 | Framework | |
7 | Ward, P. and Zhou, H. | 2006 | Survey | |
8 | Adamides, E.D., Karacapilidis, N., Pylarinou, H. and Koumanakos, D. | 2008 | Case study | |
9 | Hong, P.C., Dobrzykowski, D.D. and Vonderembse, M.A. | 2010 | Survey | |
10 | Ge X. and Jackson J. | 2014 | Case study | |
11 | Lasi, H., Kemper, H.G., Fettke, P., Feld, T. and Hoffmann, M. | 2014 | Framework | |
12 | Digiesi, S., Facchini, F., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G. and Verriello, R. | 2015 | Case study | |
13 | Haq, A.N. and Boddu, V. | 2015 | Case study | |
14 | Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. | 2015 | Framework | |
15 | Hermann, M., Pentek, T. and Otto, B. | 2016 | Case study | |
16 | Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C. and Wulfsberg, J. | 2016 | Literature review | |
17 | Davies, R., Coole, T. and Smith, A. | 2017 | Case study | |
18 | Lu | 2017 | Survey | |
19 | Mrugalska, B., Wyrwicka, M.K. | 2017 | Framework | |
20 | Pinho, C. and Mendes, L. | 2017 | Literature review | |
21 | Vazquez-Martinez, G.A., Gonzalez-Compean, J.L., Sosa-Sosa, V.J., Morales-Sandoval, M. and Perez, J.C. | 2018 | Simulation | |
22 | Perboli, G., Musso, S. and Rosano, M. | 2018 | Case study | |
23 | Ante, G., Facchini, F., Mossa, G. and Digiesi, S. | 2018 | Framework | |
24 | Tortorella, G. L. and Fettermann, D. | 2018 | Survey | |
25 | Horváth, D. and Szabó, R.Z. | 2019 | Interview | |
26 | Rossini, M., Costa, F., Tortorella, G.L. and Portioli-Staudacher, A. | 2019 | Survey | |
27 | Haddud, A. and Khare, A. | 2019 | Survey | |
28 | Bittencourt, V.L., Alves, A.C. and Leão, C.P. | 2019 | Literature review | |
29 | Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E. and Antomarioni, S. | 2019 | Framework | |
30 | Ashrafian, A., Powell, D.J., Ingvaldsen, J.A., Dreyer, H.C., Holtskog, H., Schütz, P., Holmen, E., Pedersen, A. and Lodgaard, E. | 2019 | Literature review | |
31 | Roy, M. and Roy, A. | 2019 | Case study | |
32 | De Giovanni, P. and Cariola, A. | 2020 | Survey | |
33 | Núñez-Merino, M., Maqueira-Marín, J.M., Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Martínez-Jurado, P.J. | 2020 | Literature review | |
34 | Chiarini, A., Belvedere, V. and Grando, A. | 2020 | Survey | |
35 | Pekarcikova, M., Trebuna, P., Kliment, M. and Rosocha, L. | 2020 | Simulation | |
36 | Saxby, R., Cano-Kourouklis, M. and Viza, E. | 2020 | Interview | |
37 | Alieva, J. and von Haartman, R. | 2020 | Interview | |
38 | Frontoni, E., Rosetti, R., Paolanti, M. and Alves, A.C. | 2020 | Case study | |
39 | Ramirez-Peña, M., Sánchez Sotano, A.J., Pérez-Fernandez, V., Abad, F.J. and Batista, M. | 2020 | Case study | |
40 | Buer, S. V., Semini, M., Strandhagen, J. O. and Sgarbossa, F. | 2020 | Survey | |
41 | Nunez-Merino, M., Maqueira-Marin, J.M., Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Martinez-Jurado, P.J. | 2020 | Literature review | |
42 | Bittencourt, V.L., Alves, A.C. and Leao, C.P. | 2021 | Literature review | |
43 | Ciano, M.P., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G. and Rossi, T. | 2021 | Case study | |
44 | Raji, I.O., Shevtshenko, E., Rossi, T. and Strozzi, F. | 2021 | Framework | |
45 | Spenhoff, P., Wortmann, J.C.H. and Semini, M. | 2021 | Case study |
Literature details
Lean favouring Industry 4.0 | Mutual support of lean and Industry 4.0 | Industry 4.0 supporting lean |
---|---|---|
Ge and Jackson (2014) | ||
Vazquez-Martinez (2018) | Digiesi (2015) | White and Pearson (2001) |
(2019) | Davies (2017) | Heikkila (2002) |
Ramirez-Pena (2019) | Lu (2017) | Tan (2002) |
(2019) | Mrugalska and Wyrwicka (2017) | |
(2018) | Ward and Zhou (2006) | |
Saxby (2020) | Tortorella and Fettermann (2018) | (2008) |
(2021) | (2020) | Hong (2010) |
Nunez-Merino (2020) | Lasi (2014) | |
Ciano (2021) | Haq and Boddu (2015) | |
Raji (2021) | Jasti and Kodali (2015) | |
(2021) | (2016) | |
Sanders (2016) | ||
Pinho and Mendes (2017) | ||
Perboli (2018) | ||
(2019) | ||
(2019) | ||
Haddud and Khare (2019) | ||
Roy and Roy (2019) | ||
Chiarini (2020) | ||
(2020) | ||
Giovanni and Cariola (2020) | ||
Pekarcikova (2020) |
Adamides , E.D. , Karacapilidis , N. , Pylarinou , H. and Koumanakos , D. ( 2008 ), “ Supporting collaboration in the development and management of lean supply networks ”, Production Planning and Control , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 35 - 52 .
Agarwal , A. , Shankar , R. and Tiwari , M. ( 2006 ), “ Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: an ANP-based approach ”, European Journal of Operational Research , Vol. 173 No. 1 , pp. 211 - 225 .
Ahmed , A.K. , Kumar , C.B.S. and Nallusamy , S. ( 2018 ), “ Study on environmental impact through analysis of big data for sustainable and green supply chain management ”, International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 1245 - 1254 .
Alieva , J. and von Haartman , R. ( 2020 ), “ Digital Muda – the new form of waste by Industry 4.0 ”, Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol. 13 No. 3 , pp. 269 - 278 .
Anand , G. and Kodali , R. ( 2008 ), “ A conceptual framework for lean supply chain and its implementation ”, International Journal of Value Chain Management , Vol. 2 No. 3 , pp. 313 - 357 .
Ante , G. , Facchini , F. and Digiesi , S. ( 2018 ), Developing a Key Performance Indicators Tree for Lean and Smart Production Systems , IFAC .
Ashrafian , A. , Powell , D.J. , Ingvaldsen , J.A. , Dreyer , H.C. , Holtskog , H. , Schütz , P. , Holmen , E. , Pedersen , A.-C. and Lodgaard , E. ( 2019 ), Sketching the Landscape for Lean Digital Transformation , IFIP International Federation for Information Processing .
Bayliss , H.R. and Beyer , F.R. ( 2015 ), “ Information retrieval for ecological syntheses ”, Research Synthesis Methods , Vol. 6 No. 2 , pp. 136 - 148 .
Berkhout , F. and Hertin , J. ( 2004 ), “ De-materialising and re-materialising: digital technologies and the environment ”, Futures , Vol. 36 No. 8 , pp. 903 - 920 , doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2004.01.003 .
Bevilacqua , M. , Ciarapica , F.E. and Antomarioni , S. ( 2019 ), “ Lean principles for organizing items in an automated storage and retrieval system: an association rule mining – based approach ”, Management and Production Engineering Review , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 29 - 36 .
Bittencourt , V.L. , Alves , A.C. and Leão , C.P. ( 2019 ), “ Lean thinking contributions for Industry 4: a systematic literature review ”, IFAC-PapersOnLine , Vol. 52 No. 13 , pp. 904 - 909 .
Bittencourt , V.L. , Alves , A.C. and Leão , C.P. ( 2021 ), “ Industry 4.0 triggered by lean thinking: insights from a systematic literature review ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 59 No. 5 , pp. 1496 - 1510 , doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1832274 .
Bleicher , J. and Stanley , H. ( 2018 ), “ Digitization as a catalyst for business model innovation a three-step approach to facilitating economic success ”, Journal of Business Management , Vol. 4 No. 2 , pp. 62 - 71 .
Borges , G.A. , Tortorella , G. , Rossini , M. and Portioli-Staudacher , A. ( 2019 ), “ Lean implementation in healthcare supply chain: a scoping review ”, Journal of Health Organization and Management , Vol. 33 No. 3 , doi: 10.1108/JHOM-06-2018-0176 .
Bruun , P. and Mefford , R.N. ( 2004 ), “ Lean production and the internet ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol. 89 No. 3 , pp. 247 - 260 , doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.10.007 .
Buer , S.V. , Strandhagen , J.O. and Chan , F.T.S. ( 2018 ), “ The link between Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 56 No. 8 , doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1442945 .
Buer , S.V. , Semini , M. , Strandhagen , J.O. and Sgarbossa , F. ( 2020 ), “ The complementary effect of lean manufacturing and digitalisation on operational performance ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 59 No. 7 , doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1790684 .
Buhr , D. ( 2017 ), “ Social innovation policy for Industry 4.0 ”, Division for Social and Economic Policies .
Chakrabarty , S. and Wang , L.L. ( 2021 ), “ Sensitivity about inventory leanness ”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol. 32 No. 2 , pp. 376 - 399 , doi: 10.1108/JMTM-12-2019-0422 .
Chiarini , A. and Kumar , M. ( 2021 ), “ Lean six sigma and industry 4.0 integration for operational excellence: evidence from italian manufacturing companies ”, Production Planning and Control , Vol. 32 No. 13 , pp. 1084 - 1101 , doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1784485 .
Chu , N. , Nie , X. , Xu , J. and Li , K. ( 2021 ), “ A systematic approach of lean supply chain management in shipbuilding ”, Applied Sciences , Vol. 3 No. 5 .
Ciano , M.P. , Dallasega , P. , Orzes , G. and Rossi , T. ( 2021 ), “ One-to-one relationships between industry 4.0 technologies and lean production techniques: a multiple case study ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 59 No. 5 , pp. 1386 - 1410 , doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1821119 .
Cronin , M.A. , Gonzalez , C. and Sterman , J.D. ( 2008 ), “ Difficulties understanding system dynamics: a challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens ”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol. 108 No. 1 , pp. 116 - 130 .
De Giovanni , P. and Cariola , A. ( 2021 ), “ Process innovation through industry 4.0 technologies, lean practices and green supply chains ”, Research in Transportation Economics , Vol. 90 , p. 100869 , doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100869 .
Digiesi , S. , Facchini , F. , Mossa , G. , Mummolo , G. and Verriello , R. ( 2015 ), “ A cyber-based DSS for a low carbon integrated waste management system in a smart city ”, IFAC-PapersOnLine , Vol. 48 No. 3 , pp. 2356 - 2361 .
Frontoni , E. , Rosetti , R. , Paolanti , M. and Alves , A.C. ( 2020 ), “ HATS project for lean and smart global logistic: a shipping company case study ”, Manufacturing Letters , Vol. 23 , pp. 71 - 74 .
Ge , X. and Jackson , J. ( 2014 ), “ The big data application strategy for cost reduction in automotive industry ”, SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles , Vol. 7 No. 2 , pp. 588 - 598 .
Ghadge , A. , Er Kara , M. , Moradlou , H. and Goswami , M. ( 2020 ), “ The impact of industry 4.0 implementation on supply chains ”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol. 31 No. 4 , pp. 669 - 686 , doi: 10.1108/JMTM-10-2019-0368 .
Gomersall , J.S. , Jadotte , Y.T. , Xue , Y. , Lockwood , S. , Riddle , D. and Preda , A. ( 2015 ), “ Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations ”, International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , Vol. 13 No. 3 , pp. 170 - 178 , doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000063 .
Haddud , A. and Khare , A. ( 2019 ), “ Digitalizing supply chains potential benefits and impact on lean operations ”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 731 - 765 , doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-03-2019-0026 .
Haq , A.N. and Boddu , V. ( 2015 ), “ Analysis of agile supply chain enablers for indian food processing industries using analytical hierarchy process ”, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management , Vol. 29 Nos 1/2 , pp. 30 - 47 .
Hecklau , F. , Galeitzke , M. , Flachs , S. and Kohl , H. ( 2016 ), “ Holistic approach for human resource management in industry 4.0 ”, Procedia CIRP , Vol. 54 , pp. 1 - 6 .
Heikkilä , J. and Cordon , C. ( 2002 ), “ Outsourcing: a core or non‐core strategic management decision? ”, Strategic Change , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 183 - 193 .
Hermann , M. , Pentek , T. and Otto , B. ( 2016 ), “ Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios ”, 49th HI International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) , IEEE , pp. 3928 - 3937 .
Hines , P. , Holweg , M. and Rich , N. ( 2004 ), “ Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking ”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management .
Homer , G. and Thompson , D. ( 2001 ), “ The contribution of internet technology in achieving lean management within british automotive supply chains ”, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management , Vol. 1 Nos 2/3 , pp. 369 - 378 .
Hong , J. , Li , X. and Zhaojie , C. ( 2010 ), “ Life cycle assessment of four municipal solid waste management scenarios in China ”, Waste Management , Vol. 30 No. 11 , pp. 2362 - 2369 .
Horváth , D. and Szabó , R.Z. ( 2019 ), “ Driving forces and barriers of industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? ”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change , Vol. 146 , pp. 119 - 132 .
Jasti , N.V.K. and Kodali , R. ( 2015 ), “ Lean production: literature review and trends ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 53 No. 3 , pp. 867 - 885 .
Kagermann , H. , Wahister , W. and Helbig , J. ( 2013 ), “ Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0: securing the future of german manufacturing industry ”.
Kitchenham , B. and Charters , S. ( 2007 ), “ Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering ”.
Kolberg , D. and Zühlke , D. ( 2015 ), “ Lean automation enabled by industry 4.0 technologies ”, IFAC-PapersOnLine , Vol. 48 No. 3 , pp. 1870 - 1875 .
Lagorio , A. Cimini , C. and Gaiardelli , P. ( 2021 ), “ Reshaping the concepts of job enrichment and job enlargement: the impacts of lean and Industry 4.0 ”, Advances in Production Management Systems: Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable and Resilient Production Systems , pp. 721 - 729 , doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85874-2_79 .
Meier , C. ( 2016 ), “ Digital supply chain management ”, Digital Enterprise Transformation , pp. 231 - 262 , doi: 10.4324/9781315577166-9 .
Núñez-Merino , M. , Maqueira-Marín , J.M. , Moyano-Fuentes , J. and Martínez-Jurado , P.J. ( 2020 ), “ Information and digital technologies of Industry 4.0 and lean supply chain management: a systematic literature review ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 58 No. 16 , doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1743896 .
Powell , D. , Riezebos , J. and Strandhagen , J.O. ( 2013 ), “ Lean production and ERP systems in small-and medium-sized enterprises: ERP support for pull production ”, International Journal of Production Research , Vol. 51 No. 2 , pp. 395 - 409 .
Reitsma , E. , Manfredsson , P. , Hilletofth , P. and Anderson , R. ( 2020 ), “ The outcomes of providing lean training to strategic suppliers: a Swedish case study ”, The TQM Journal , Vol. 33 No. 5 , p. 33 .
Rossini , M. , Costa , F. , Tortorella , G.L. and Portioli-Staudacher , A. ( 2019 ), “ The interrelation between Industry 4.0 and lean production: an empirical study on European manufacturers ”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , doi: 10.1007/s00170-019-03441-7 .
Rossini , M. , Cifone , F.D. , Kassem , B. , Costa , F. and P.-S , A. ( 2021 ), “ Being lean: how to shape digital transformation in the manufacturing sector ”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , Vol. 32 No. 9 , p. 32 .
Spenhoff , P. , Wortmann , J.C.H. and Semini , M. ( 2021 ), “ EPEC 4.0: an Industry 4.0-supported lean production control concept for the semi-process industry ”, Production Planning and Control , doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1864496 .
Tortorella , G. , Miorando , R. and Mac Cawley Vergara , A.F. ( 2019a ), “ The moderating effect of Industry 4.0 on the relationship between lean supply chain management and performance improvement ”, Supply Chain Management , Vol. 24 No. 2 .
Tortorella , G.L. , Miorando , R. and Marodin , G. ( 2017 ), “ Lean supply chain management: empirical research on practices, contexts and performance ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol. 193 , doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.006 .
Tortorella , G.L. , Narayanamurthy , G. and Thurer , M. ( 2021 ), “ Identifying pathways to a high-performing lean automation implementation: an empirical study in the manufacturing industry ”, International Journal of Production Economics , Vol. 231 , doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107918 .
Tortorella , G.L. , Rossini , M. , Costa , F. , Portioli Staudacher , A. and Sawhney , R. ( 2019b ), “ A comparison on Industry 4.0 and lean production between manufacturers from emerging and developed economies ”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence , doi: 10.1080/14783363.2019.1696184 .
Related articles, all feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
Perspective of leadership 4.0 in the era of fourth industrial revolution: a comprehensive view, fintech and smes financing: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis, digital leadership towards performance through mediation of organizational commitment to e-commerce in indonesia, e-leadership: unveiling the role of digital era leadership in enhancing employee performance in higher education institution, the role of digital leadership, customer orientation and business model innovation for iot companies, bibliometric analysis for working capital: identifying gaps, co-authorships and insights from a literature survey, understanding future leaders: how are personal values of generations y and z tailored to leadership in industry 4.0, back to the future. is industry 4.0 a new tecno-organizational paradigm implications for latin american countries, leadership 4.0: digital leaders in the age of industry 4.0, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
41 Accesses
Explore all metrics
The article aims to study the literature on Industry-4.0 technologies and “Triple Bottom Line” (social, economical and environmental) parameters in the construction industry. The study focuses on analyzing the gaps in various researches conducted till now and suggests possible information that can be used to improve business processes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Method is adopted to select the articles. One hundred fifty-six published articles from 2015 to 2023 are examined to understand various theoretical frameworks. Content-based analysis is used for the categorization of five significant categories: (1) Industry 4.0 Enablers; (2) Barriers in Industry 4.0 Adoption; (3) Challenges in Construction Industry; (4) Opportunities for the principle Industry 4.0 Technology; (5) Impact of “Industry 4.0” Technologies. Based on categorization, rewards or incentives, management involvement, employers training, Building Information Modeling, Big Data, Cloud computing, etc., are major enablers of Industry 4.0 in the construction industry. Implementation cost, lack of knowledge, and poor long-term planning are analyzed as common barriers. Numerous challenges and opportunities related to Industry 4.0 technologies have been identified.
Moreover, the Triple Bottom Line impacts of Industry 4.0 technologies, such as waste management, cost reduction, health and security, and resource planning, are also analyzed. The study also revealed that there are numerous research gaps in the integrated application of technology and sustainability because of information inadequacy and unawareness of the stakeholders. The study’s findings will help uncover detailed information in a systematical manner for developing an integrated sustainable business environment in the construction industry. The study considering the specific period and inclusion/exclusion criteria can possibly develop limitations of missing a few relevant articles and information in this context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Abbasnejad B, Nepal MP, Ahankoob A, Nasirian A, Drogemuller R (2021) Building information modelling (BIM) adoption and implementation enablers in AEC firms: a systematic literature review. Archit Eng Design Manag 17(5–6):411–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1793721
Article Google Scholar
Abioye SO, Oyedele LO, Akanbi L, Ajayi A, Davila Delgado JM, Bilal M, Akinade OO, Ahmed A (2021) Artificial intelligence in the construction industry: a review of present status, opportunities and future challenges. J Build Eng 44:103299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103299
Adepoju O (2021) Drone/unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) technology. Re-Skilling Hum Resour Constr 4:65–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85973-2_4
Afzal F, Lim B (2022) Organizational factors influencing the sustainability performance of construction organizations. Sustainability 14(16):10449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610449
Aghimien D, Aigbavboa C, Aghimien L, Thwala W, Ndlovu L (2021) 3D printing for sustainable low-income housing in South Africa: A case for the urban poor. J Green Build 16(2):129–141. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.16.2.129
Ahmad MW, Mourshed M, Mundow D, Sisinni M, Rezgui Y (2016) Building energy metering and environmental monitoring—a state-of-the-art review and directions for future research. Energy Build 120:85–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.059
Ahmed S (2018) A review on using opportunities of augmented reality and virtual reality in construction project management. Organ Technol Manag Constr Int J 11(1):1839–1852. https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2018-0012
Al Amri T, Puskas Khetani K, Marey-Perez M (2021) Towards sustainable i4.0: Key skill areas for project managers in GCC construction industry. Sustainability 13(15):8121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158121
Albeaino G, Gheisari M, Issa RR (2022) Human-drone interaction (HDI): Opportunities and considerations in construction. Automation and robotics in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry, 111–142
Alirezaei S, Taghaddos H, Ghorab K, Tak AN, Alirezaei S (2022) BIM-augmented reality integrated approach to risk management. Autom Constr 141:104458
Al-Yami A, Sanni-Anibire MO (2021) Bim in the Saudi Arabian construction industry: state of the art, benefit and barriers. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 39(1):33–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-08-2018-0065
Anjomshoaa A, Curry E (2022) Transfer learning in smart environments. Mach Learn Knowl Extr 3(2):318–332. https://doi.org/10.3390/make3020016
Ariono B, Wasesa M, Dhewanto W (2022) The drivers, barriers, and enablers of building information modeling (BIM) innovation in developing countries: insights from systematic literature review and comparative analysis. Buildings 12(11):1912. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111912
Athari Nikooravan H, Golabchi M (2023). Analysis of Barriers of Implementing BIM in Construction Industry: Iranian Private Projects. Sharif Journal of Civil Engineering
Attiany MS, Al-kharabsheh SA, Al-Makhariz S, lafie S, Abed-Qader MA, Al-Hawary SI, Mohammad AA, Rahamneh AA (2023) Barriers to adopt industry 4.0 in supply chains using interpretive structural modeling. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 11(1), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2022.9.013
Babu Loganathan, G. (2022). Agility through Product design in the era of Industry 4.0. Int J Early Child Spec Edu, 14(2)
Baduge SK, Thilakarathna S, Perera JS, Arashpour M, Sharafi P, Teodosio B, Shringi A, Mendis P (2022) Artificial Intelligence and smart vision for building and construction 4.0: machine and deep learning methods and applications. Autom Constr 141:104440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104440
Bajpai A, Misra SC (2022) Barriers to implementing digitalization in the Indian construction industry. Int J Qual Reliability Manage 39(10):2438–2464. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-04-2021-0121
Barbero I, Rezgui Y, Petri I (2023) A European-wide exploratory study to analyse the relationship between training and energy efficiency in the construction sector. Environ Syst Decis 43(3):337–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09891-x
Beekaroo D, Callychurn DS, Hurreeram DK (2019) Developing a sustainability index for Mauritian manufacturing companies. Ecol Ind 96:250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.003
Bellini OE (2020) Adaptive exoskeleton systems: remodelage for social housing on piazzale visconti (BG). Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33256-3_34
Bhatt JG, Jani OK (2019) Smart development of Ahmedabad-Gandhinagar Twin City Metropolitan Region. Smart metropolitan regional development, Gujarat, India. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8588-8_5
Book Google Scholar
Botín-Sanabria DM, Mihaita A-S, Peimbert-García RE, Ramírez-Moreno MA, Ramírez-Mendoza RA, de Lozoya-Santos J (2022) Digital twin technology challenges and applications: a comprehensive review. Remote Sens 14(6):1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061335
Bouchard S, Abdulnour G, Gamache S (2022) Agility and industry 4.0 implementation strategy in a quebec manufacturing sme. Sustainability 14(13):7884
Brum EM, Pandolfo A, Berticelli R, Kalil RML, Pasquali PB (2021) Economic, social and environmental aspects of the sustainability of a construction waste recycling plant. Gestão Produção 28(3):e5120
Buchanan C, Gardner L (2019) Metal 3D printing in construction: a review of methods, research, applications, opportunities and challenges. Eng Struct 180:332–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.045
Caldona EB, Dizon JR, Espera AH, Advincula RC (2022) On the economic, environmental, and sustainability aspects of 3D printing toward a cyclic economy. ACS Symp Ser. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2022-1412.ch011
Carlander J, Thollander P (2023) Barriers to implementation of energy-efficient technologies in building construction projects—results from a Swedish case study. Res Environ Sustain 11:100097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2022.100097
Chan DWM, Olawumi TO, Ho AML (2019) Perceived benefits of and barriers to building information modelling (BIM) implementation in construction: the case of hong kong. J Build Eng 25:100764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100764
Chauhan C, Singh A, Luthra S (2021) Barriers to industry 4.0 adoption and its performance implications: an empirical investigation of emerging economy. J Clean Prod 285:124809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124809
Choi S-W, Lee E-B, Kim J-H (2021) The engineering machine-learning automation platform (EMAP): a big-data-driven AI tool for contractors’ sustainable management solutions for plant projects. Sustainability 13(18):10384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810384
Dallasega P, Rauch E, Linder C (2018) Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for construction supply chains: A Systematic Literature Review. Comput Ind 99:205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.039
Davenport, Linder (1994) Information management infrastructure: The new competitive weapon? In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii international conference on system SCIEnces HICSS-94. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.1994.323420
de Almeida Barbosa Franco J, Domingues AM, de Almeida Africano N, Deus RM, Battistelle RAG (2022) Sustainability in the civil construction sector supported by industry 4.0 technologies: challenges and opportunities. Infrastructur. 7(3), 43
De Bruin B, Floridi L (2017) The ethics of cloud computing. Sci Eng Ethics 23:21–39
De Vita M, Panunzi S, Fabbrocino G, Mannella A (2022) A discussion on the conceptual design of multifunctional exoskeletons for sustainable regeneration of buildings in urban areas. Buildings 12(8):1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081100
de Matos Camarinha R, Goulding J, Peter C (2022) Construction sector transformation: developing a new learning paradigm. Lecture Notes Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20241-4_25
Debrah C, Chan AP, Darko A (2022) Artificial intelligence in green building. Autom Constr 137:104192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104192
Demirkesen S, Tezel A (2022) Investigating major challenges for industry 4.0 adoption among construction companies. Eng Constr Archit Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-12-2020-1059
Devi KS, Paranitharan KP, Agniveesh AI (2021) Interpretive framework by analysing the enablers for implementation of industry 4.0: an ISM approach. Total Quality Manag Bus Excel 32(13–14):1494–1514. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1735933
Dong P (2020) quantitative weld quality acceptance criteria: an enabler for structural light weighting and additive manufacturing. Weld J. https://doi.org/10.29391/2020.99.004
Dörfler K, Dielemans G, Lachmayer L, Recker T, Raatz A, Lowke D, Gerke M (2022) Additive manufacturing using mobile robots: opportunities and challenges for building construction. Cem Concr Res 158:106772
Dzedzickis A, Subačiūtė-Žemaitienė J, Šutinys E, Samukaitė-Bubnienė U, Bučinskas V (2021) Advanced applications of industrial robotics: new trends and possibilities. Appl Sci 12(1):135
Elghaish F, Hosseini MR, Kocaturk T, Arashpour M, Bararzadeh Ledari M (2023) Digitalised circular construction supply chain: an integrated BIM-blockchain solution. Autom Constr 148:104746
El Hajj C, Martínez Montes G, Jawad D (2023) An overview of BIM adoption barriers in the Middle East and North Africa developing countries. Eng Constr Archit Manage 30(2):889–913
Elkington J (1994) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ Qual Manage 8(1):37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
Fathalizadeh A, Hosseini MR, Vaezzadeh SS, Edwards DJ, Martek I, Shooshtarian S (2022) Barriers to sustainable construction project management: the case of Iran. Smart Sustain Built Environ 11(3):717–739. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-09-2020-0132
Figueiredo K, Hammad AW, Haddad A, Tam VWY (2022) Assessing the usability of block chain for sustainability: extending key themes to the construction industry. J Clean Prod 343:131047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131047
Filho MV, da Costa BB, Najjar M, Figueiredo KV, de Mendonça MB, Haddad AN (2022) Sustainability assessment of a low-income building: a Bim-LCSA-FAHP-based analysis. Buildings 12(2):181. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020181
Fitriani H, Ajayi S (2022) Barriers to sustainable practices in the Indonesian Construction Industry. J Environ Planning Manage 66(10):2028–2050. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2057281
Fokaides PA, Apanaviciene R, Černeckiene J, Jurelionis A, Klumbyte E, Kriauciunaite-Neklejonoviene V, Pupeikis D, Rekus D, Sadauskiene J, Seduikyte L, Stasiuliene L, Vaiciunas J, Valancius R, Ždankus T (2020) Research challenges and advancements in the field of sustainable energy technologies in the built environment. Sustainability 12(20):8417. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208417
Fugate H, Alzraiee H (2023) Quantitative analysis of construction labor acceptance of wearable sensing devices to enhance workers’ safety. Results Eng 17:100841
Gamil Y, Abdullah MA, Abd Rahman I, Asad MM (2020) Internet of things in construction industry revolution 4.0. J Eng Design Technol 18(5):1091–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/jedt-06-2019-0164
Gharaibeh L, Eriksson KM, Lantz B, Matarneh S, Elghaish F (2022) Toward digital construction supply chain-based industry 4.0 solutions: scientometric-thematic analysis. Smart Sustain Built Environ 13(1):42–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-12-2021-0224
Goel P, Kumar R, Banga HK, Kaur S, Kumar R, Pimenov DY, Giasin K (2022) Deployment of interpretive structural modeling in barriers to industry 4.0: a case of small and medium enterprises. J Risk Financial Manag 15(4):171. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15040171
Gopal M, Lemu HG, Gutema EM (2023) Sustainable additive manufacturing and environmental implications: literature review. Sustainability 15(1):504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010504
Griffin G, Gaustad G, Badami K (2019) A framework for firm-level critical material supply management and mitigation. Resour Policy 60:262–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.01.004
Gunasekaran A, Nath B (1997) The role of information technology in business process reengineering. Int J Prod Econ 50(2–3):91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(97)00035-2
Haggarty L (1996) What is content analysis? Med Teach 18(2):99–101. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599609034141
Hall AT, Durdyev S, Koc K, Ekmekcioglu O, Tupenaite L (2022) Multi-criteria analysis of barriers to building information modeling (BIM) adoption for smes in New Zealand Construction industry. Eng Constr Archit Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2022-0215/full/html
Hayes AF, Krippendorff K (2007) Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas 1(1):77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
Hoang GV, Vu DK, Le NH, Nguyen TP (2020) Benefits and challenges of BIM implementation for facility management in operation and maintenance face of buildings in Vietnam. IOP Conf Series Mate Sci Eng 869(2):022032
Honghong S, Gang Y, Haijiang L, Tian Z, Annan J (2023) Digital twin enhanced BIM to shape full life cycle digital transformation for bridge engineering. Autom Constr 147:104736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104736
Hou L, Wu S, Zhang G, Tan Y, Wang X (2020) Literature review of Digital twins applications in construction workforce safety. Appl Sci 11(1):339. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010339
Hu W, Lim KY, Cai Y (2022) Digital twin and industry 4.0 enablers in building and construction: a survey. Buildings 12(11):2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12112004
Huang D, Wang X, Liu J, Li J, Tang W (2022) Virtual reality safety training using deep EEG-net and physiology data. Vis Comput 38(4):1195–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-021-02140-3
Hwang BG, Ngo J, Teo JZK (2022) Challenges and strategies for the adoption of smart technologies in the construction industry: the case of singapore. J Manag Eng 38(1):05021014
Ibrahim I, Eltarabishi F, Abdalla H, Abdallah M (2022) 3D printing in sustainable buildings: systematic review and applications in the united arab emirates. Buildings 12(10):1703. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101703
Irani Z (2002) Information systems evaluation: navigating through the problem domain. Inform Manag 40(1):11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00128-8
Jeelani I, Gheisari M (2021) Safety challenges of UAV integration in construction: conceptual analysis and future research road map. Saf Sci 144:105473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105473
Jemal KM, Kabzhassarova M, Shaimkhanov R, Dikhanbayeva D, Turkyilmaz A, Durdyev S, Karaca F (2023) Facilitating circular economy strategies using digital construction tools: framework development. Sustainability 15(1):877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010877
Jha NK (2022) Additive manufacturing as an enabler for Industry 4.0 practices. GIT Technido, 1(1)
Jiang Y, Yang G, Li H, Zhang T (2023) Knowledge driven approach for smart bridge maintenance using big data mining. Autom Constr 146:104673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104673
Kang K, Liu X, Jiang Y, Lee K, Kam, Wan SK, Huang GQ, Zhong RY (2023) Blockchain opportunities for construction industry in Hong Kong: A case study of risc and site diary. Construction Innovation, 23(2): 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-08-2021-0153
Karnik N, Bora U, Bhadri K, Kadambi P, Dhatrak P (2022) A comprehensive study on current and future trends towards the characteristics and enablers of industry 4.0. J Ind Inf Integrat 27:100294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100294
Kas KA, Johnson GK (2020) Using unmanned aerial vehicles and robotics in hazardous locations safely. Process Safe Progress. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12066
Kazemian A, Seylabi E, Ekenel M (2022) Concrete 3D printing: challenges and opportunities for the construction industry. Innov in Constr. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95798-8_12
Khoshfetrat R, Sarvari H, Chan DW, Rakhshanifar M (2022) Critical risk factors for implementing building information modelling (BIM): a delphi-based survey. Int J Constr Manag 22(12):2375–2384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1788759
Khoumbati K, Themistocleous M, Irani Z (2006) Investigating enterprise application integration benefits and barriers in healthcare organisations: an exploratory case study. Int J Electron Healthc 2(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeh.2006.008697
Kitchenham B (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele UK Keele Univ 33(2004):1–26
Google Scholar
Kolaei AZ, Hedayati E, Khanzadi M, Amiri GG (2022) Challenges and opportunities of augmented reality during the construction phase. Autom Constr 143:104586
Krippendorff K (2018) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology
Kulejewski J, Rosłon J (2023) Optimization of ecological and economic aspects of the construction schedule with the use of metaheuristic algorithms and artificial intelligence. Sustainability 15(1):890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010890
Kumar A, Moktadir A, Liman ZR, Gunasekaran A, Hegemann K, Rehman Khan SA (2020) Evaluating sustainable drivers for social responsibility in the context of ready-made garments supply chain. J Clean Prod 248:119231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119231
Kumar G, Bakshi A, Khandelwal A, Panchal A, Soni U (2022) Analyzing industry 4.0 implementation barriers in Indian smes. J Ind Integrat Manag 07(01):153–169. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2424862221500020
Kurniawan TA, Meidiana C, Dzarfan Othman MH, Goh HH, Chew KW (2023) Strengthening waste recycling industry in Malang (Indonesia): lessons from waste management in the era of industry 4.0. J Clean Prod 382:135296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135296
Labò S, Passoni C, Milesi M, Zanni J, Marini A, Belleri A, Brumana G (2023) Iso-performance retrofit solutions adopting a life cycle thinking approach. Proced Structur Integr 44:950–957
Lakhouit A, Shaban M, Alatawi A, Abbas SYH, Asiri E, Al Juhni T, Elsawy M (2023) Machine-learning approaches in geo-environmental engineering: exploring smart solid waste management. J Environ Manag 330:117174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117174
Latan H, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, de Sousa L, Jabbour AB (2019) ‘whistleblowing triangle’: framework and empirical evidence. J Bus Ethics 160(1):189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3862-x
Latan H, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, de Sousa L, Jabbour AB (2021) Social media as a form of virtual whistleblowing: empirical evidence for elements of the diamond model. J Bus Ethics 174(3):529–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04598-y
Latif HH, Gopalakrishnan B, Nimbarte A, Currie K (2017) Sustainability index development for manufacturing industry. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 24:82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.01.010
Lee ML, Lee YL, Goh SL, Koo CH, Lau SH, Chong SY (2021) Case studies and challenges of implementing geotechnical building information modelling in Malaysia. Infrastructures 6(10):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6100145
Leesakul N, Oostveen A-M, Eimontaite I, Wilson ML, Hyde R (2022) Workplace 4.0: exploring the implications of technology adoption in digital manufacturing on a sustainable workforce. Sustainability 14(6):3311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063311
Ling YM, Abdul Hamid NA, Chuan LT (2020) is Malaysia ready for industry 4.0? Issues and challenges in manufacturing industry. International Journal of Integrated Engineering. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2020.12.07.016
Liu Y, Zhu Q, Seuring S (2017) Linking capabilities to green operations strategies: the moderating role of corporate environmental proactivity. Int J Prod Econ 187:182–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.007
Love PED, Huang JC, Edwards DJ, Irani Z (2004) Nurturing a learning organization in construction: a focus on strategic shift, organizational transformation, customer orientation and quality centered learning. Constr Innov 4(2):113–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170410815033
Lu Y (2017) Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. J Ind Inf Integr 6:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005
Lu W, Webster C, Peng Y, Chen X, Chen K (2018) Big data in construction waste management: prospects and challenges. Detritus, In Press (0), 1. https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2018.13737
MacDougall W (2014) Industrie 4.0: Smart manufacturing for the future. Germany Trade Invest
Mahmud D, Bennett ST, Zhu Z, Adamczyk PG, Wehner M, Veeramani D, Dai F (2022) Identifying facilitators, barriers, and potential solutions of adopting exoskeletons and exosuits in construction workplaces. Sensors 22(24):9987. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22249987
Mahroof K, Omar A, Rana NP, Sivarajah U, Weerakkody V (2021) Drone as a service (DAAS) in promoting cleaner agricultural production and circular economy for ethical sustainable supply chain development. J Clean Prod 287:125522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125522
Mani V, Gunasekaran A, Delgado C (2018) Supply chain social sustainability: standard adoption practices in portuguese manufacturing firms. Int J Prod Econ 198:149–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.01.032
Maqbool R, Saiba MR, Ashfaq S (2022) Emerging industry 4.0 and internet of things (IOT) technologies in the Ghanaian construction industry: sustainability, implementation challenges, and benefits. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30(13):37076–37091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24764-1
Maqbool R, Namaghi JR, Rashid Y, Altuwaim A (2023) How modern methods of construction would support to meet the sustainable construction 2025 targets, the answer is still unclear. Ain Shams Eng J 14(4):101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101943
Mathiyazhagan K, Gnanavelbabu A, Lokesh Prabhuraj B (2019) A sustainable assessment model for material selection in construction industries perspective using Hybrid MCDM approaches. J Adv Manag Res 16(2):234–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/jamr-09-2018-0085
Menegon J, Isatto EL (2023) Digital twins as enablers of structure inspection and maintenance. Gest Produção. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2022v30e4922
Meredith J (1993) Theory building through conceptual methods. Int J Oper Prod Manag 13(5):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579310028120
Mirghafoori SH, Morovati Sharifabadi A, Karimi Takalo S (2018) Development of causal model of sustainable hospital supply chain management using the intuitionistic fuzzy cognitive map (IFCM) method. J Ind Eng Manag 11(3):588. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2517
Mirzaei K, Arashpour M, Asadi E, Masoumi H, Bai Y, Behnood A (2022) 3D point cloud data processing with machine learning for construction and infrastructure applications: a comprehensive review. Adv Eng Inform 51:101501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101501
Moktadir MdA, Ali SM, Kusi-Sarpong S, Shaikh MdA (2018) Assessing challenges for implementing industry 4.0: Implications for process safety and environmental protection. Process Saf Environ Prot 117:730–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.04.020
Müller JM, Kiel D, Voigt K-I (2018) What drives the implementation of industry 4.0? The role of opportunities and challenges in the context of sustainability. Sustainability 10(1):247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010247
Munawar HS, Ullah F, Qayyum S, Shahzad D (2022) Big data in construction: current applications and future opportunities. Big Data Cogn Comput 6(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6010018
Nagy O, Papp I, Szabó RZ (2021) Construction 4.0 organisational level challenges and solutions. Sustainability 13(21):12321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112321
Nascimento DL, Alencastro V, Quelhas OL, Caiado RG, Garza-Reyes JA, Rocha-Lona L, Tortorella G (2019) Exploring industry 4.0 technologies to enable circular economy practices in a manufacturing context. J Manuf Technol Manage 30(3):607–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-03-2018-0071
Navaratnam S, Satheeskumar A, Zhang G, Nguyen K, Venkatesan S, Poologanathan K (2022) The challenges confronting the growth of sustainable prefabricated building construction in Australia: construction industry views. J Build Eng 48:103935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103935
Neuendorf KA (2017) The content analysis guidebook. Sage
Newman C, Edwards D, Martek I, Lai J, Thwala WD, Rillie I (2021) Industry 4.0 deployment in the construction industry: a bibliometric literature review and UK-based case study. Smart Sustain Built Environ 10(4):557–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-02-2020-0016
Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng 143:172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
Nnaji C, Karakhan AA (2020) Technologies for safety and health management in construction: current use, implementation benefits and limitations, and adoption barriers. J Build Eng 29:101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101212
Nnaji C, Okpala I, Gambatese J, Jin Z (2023) Controlling Safety and health challenges intrinsic in exoskeleton use in construction. Saf Sci 157:105943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105943
Nowotarski P, Paslawski J (2017) Industry 4.0 concept introduction into construction smes. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 245:052043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/245/5/052043
Obiso JJ, Himang CM, Ocampo LA, Bongo MF, Caballes SA, Abellana DP, Deocaris CC, Padua R, Ancheta R Jr (2019) Management of Industry 40—reviewing intrinsic and extrinsic adoption drivers and barriers. Int J Technol Manag 81(3/4):210
Oesterreich TD, Teuteberg F (2016) Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput Ind 83:121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006
Ogunsanya OA, Aigbavboa CO, Thwala DW, Edwards DJ (2022) Barriers to sustainable procurement in the Nigerian construction industry: an exploratory factor analysis. Int J Constr Manag 22(5):861–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1658697
Oke AE, Arowoiya VA (2022) An analysis of the application areas of augmented reality technology in the construction industry. Smart Sustain Built Environ 11(4):1081–1098
Okpala I, Nnaji C, Ogunseiju O, Akanmu A (2022) Assessing the role of wearable robotics in the construction industry: potential safety benefits, opportunities, and implementation barriers. Autom Robot Archit Eng Constr Ind. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77163-8_8
Outay F, Mengash HA, Adnan M (2020) Applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in road safety, traffic and highway infrastructure management: recent advances and challenges. Transp Res Part a: Policy Pract 141:116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.09.018
Panteli C, Kylili A, Fokaides PA (2020) Building information modelling applications in smart buildings: from design to commissioning and beyond a critical review. J Clean Prod 265:121766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121766
Papa A (2021) Designing IoT knowledge-driven waste management assessment mechanism: an exploratory case study. J Asia Entrep Sustain 17(7):105–108
Prabaharan R, Shanmugapriya S (2022) Identification of critical barriers in implementing lean construction practices in Indian Construction Industry. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 47(2):1233–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00959-x
Qin M, Zhang X, Li Y, Badarcea RM (2023) Blockchain market and green finance: the enablers of carbon neutrality in China. Energy Economics 118:106501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106501
Rahimian FP, Goulding JS, Abrishami S, Seyedzadeh S, Elghaish F (2021) Industry 4.0 solutions for building design and construction. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003106944
Raj A, Dwivedi G, Sharma A, de Sousa L, Jabbour AB, Rajak S (2020) Barriers to the adoption of industry 40 technologies in the manufacturing sector: an inter-country comparative perspective. Int J Prod Econ 224:107546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107546
Rajput S, Singh SP (2019) Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. Int J Inf Manage 49:98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.002
Rao AS, Radanovic M, Liu Y, Hu S, Fang Y, Khoshelham K, Palaniswami M, Ngo T (2022) Real-time monitoring of construction sites: Sensors, methods, and applications. Autom Constr 136:104099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.104099
Rasheed A, San O, Kvamsdal T (2019) Digital twin: values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective. IEEE Access 8:21980–22012. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2970143
Rasheed A, San O, Kvamsdal T (2020) Digital twin: values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective. IEEE Access 8:21980–22012. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2970143
Rawson A, Brito M (2023) A survey of the opportunities and challenges of supervised machine learning in maritime risk analysis. Transp Rev 43(1):108–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2022.2036864
Regona M, Yigitcanlar T, Xia B, Li RY (2022) Opportunities and adoption challenges of AI in the construction industry: a prisma review. J Open Innov Technol Mark and Complex 8(1):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010045
Robayo-Salazar R, Mejía de Gutiérrez R, Villaquirán-Caicedo MA, Delvasto Arjona S (2023) 3D printing with cementitious materials: challenges and opportunities for the construction sector. Autom Constr 146:104693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104693
Rosário AT, Dias JC (2023) How industry 4.0 and sensors can leverage product design: opportunities and challenges. Sensors 23(3):1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031165
Saka AB, Oyedele LO, Akanbi LA, Ganiyu SA, Chan DWM, Bello SA (2023) Conversational artificial intelligence in the aec industry: a review of present status, challenges and opportunities. Adv Eng Inform 55:101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101869
Sarhan J, Xia B, Fawzia S, Karim A, Olanipekun A (2018) Barriers to implementing lean construction practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) construction industry. Constr Innov 18(2):246–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-04-2017-0033
Schwab L, Gold S, Reiner G (2019) Exploring financial sustainability of smes during periods of production growth: a simulation study. Int J Prod Econ 212:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.12.023
Senanayake SMAH, Gunawardana PAM, Perera BAKS, Rajaratnam, D (2023) Examining the potential use of augmented reality in construction cost management tools and techniques. J Eng Des Technol
Sepasgozar SM (2021) Differentiating digital twin from digital shadow: elucidating a paradigm shift to expedite a smart, sustainable built environment. Buildings 11(4):151. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11040151
Seuring S, Brix-Asala C, Khalid RU (2019) Analyzing base-of-the-pyramid projects through Sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 212:1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.102
Severo EA, Sbardelotto B, de Guimarães JCF, de Vasconcelos CRM (2020) Project management and innovation practices: backgrounds of the sustainable competitive advantage in Southern Brazil enterprises. Prod Plan Control 31(15):1276–1290
Shinde R, Froemelt A, Kim A, Hellweg S (2022) A novel machine-learning approach for evaluating rebounds-associated environmental footprint of households and application to cooperative housing. J Environ Manag 304:114205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114205
Shoar S, Chileshe N, Edwards JD (2022) Machine learning-aided engineering services’ cost overruns prediction in high-rise residential building projects: application of random forest regression. J Build Eng 50:104102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104102
Shooshtarian S, Caldera S, Maqsood T, Ryley T, Khalfan M (2022) An investigation into challenges and opportunities in the Australian construction and demolition waste management system. Eng Constr Archit Manag 29(10):4313–4330. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2021-0439
Sivarajah U, Kamal MM, Irani Z, Weerakkody V (2017) Critical analysis of big data challenges and analytical methods. J Bus Res 70:263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.001
Sony M, Naik SS (2019) Ten lessons for managers while implementing Industry 4.0. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 47(2):45–52
Soust-Verdaguer B, Gutiérrez Moreno JA, Llatas C (2023) Utilization of an automatic tool for building material selection by integrating life cycle sustainability assessment in the early design stages in bim. Sustainability 15(3):2274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032274
Stoycheva S, Marchese D, Paul C, Padoan S, Juhmani A, Linkov I (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. J Clean Prod 187:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.133
Tayal A, Agrawal S, Yadav R (2024) A rank-FSC: Assessment and ranking of Industry 40 enablers using fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy COPRAS in Indian construction. Intell Decis Technol 18(2):663–683
Teisserenc B, Sepasgozar S (2021a) Adoption of blockchain technology through digital twins in the construction industry 4.0: a pestels approach. Buildings 11(12):670. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120670
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Trotta D, Garengo P (2018) Industry 4.0 key research topics: a bibliometric review. In: 2018 7th international conference on industrial technology and management (ICITM). https://doi.org/10.1109/icitm.2018.8333930
Tseng, ML, Ha HM, Tran TPT, Bui TD, Chen CC, Lin CW (2022) Building a data-driven circular supply chain hierarchical structure: resource recovery implementation drives circular business strategy. Bus Strategy Environ 31(5):2082–2106. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2973
Turner CJ, Oyekan J, Stergioulas L, Griffin D (2020) Utilizing industry 4.0 on the construction site: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 17(2):746–756. https://doi.org/10.1109/tii.2020.3002197
Valle FD, Oliver M (2020) Blockchain enablers for supply chains: how to boost implementation in industry. IEEE Access 8:209699–209716. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3038463
Wang G, Liu H, Li H, Luo X, Liu J (2020) A building project-based industrialized construction maturity model involving organizational enablers: a multi-case study in China. Sustainability 12(10):4029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104029
Wang K, Guo F, Zhang C, Schaefer D (2022) From industry 4.0 to construction 4.0: barriers to the digital transformation of engineering and construction sectors. Eng Constr Archit Manag 31(1):136–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-05-2022-0383
Whysall Z, Owtram M, Brittain S (2019) The new talent management challenges of industry 4.0. J Manag Dev 38(2):118–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-06-2018-0181
Winsun WEF (2016) Demonstrating the viability of 3D printing at construction scale. In: world economic forum
Woo J, Shin J, Yoo SH, Huh SY (2023) Reducing environmental impact of coal-fired power plants by building an indoor coal storage: an economic analysis. Energies 16(1):511
Wu L, Lu W, Peng Z, Webster C (2023) A blockchain non-fungible token-enabled ‘passport’ for construction waste material cross-jurisdictional trading. Autom Constr 149:104783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104783
Xu W, Shao L, Yao B, Zhou Z, Pham DT (2016) Perception data-driven optimization of manufacturing equipment service scheduling in sustainable manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 41:86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.08.001
Xu Y, Zhou Y, Sekula P, Ding L (2021) Machine learning in construction: from shallow to deep learning. Dev Built Environ 6:100045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2021.100045
Xu M, Nie X, Li H, Cheng JCP, Mei Z (2022) Smart construction sites: a promising approach to improving on-site HSE management performance. J Build Eng 49:104007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104007
Yadav G, Kumar A, Luthra S, Garza-Reyes JA, Kumar V, Batista L (2020) A framework to achieve sustainability in manufacturing organisations of developing economies using industry 4.0 technologies’ enablers. Comput Ind 122:103280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103280
Yang B, Lv Z, Wang F (2022) Digital twins for intelligent green buildings. Buildings 12(6):856. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060856
Yap JB, Lee KP, Wang C (2021) Safety enablers using emerging technologies in construction projects: empirical study in Malaysia. J Eng Des Technol 21(5):1414–1440. https://doi.org/10.1108/jedt-07-2021-0379
Yevu SK, Ann TW, Darko A (2021) Digitalization of construction supply chain and procurement in the built environment: emerging technologies and opportunities for sustainable processes. J Clean Prod 322:129093
Zhang C, Zhou G, Li J, Chang F, Ding K, Ma D (2023) A multi-access edge computing enabled framework for the construction of a knowledge-sharing intelligent machine tool swarm in industry 4.0. J Manuf Syst 66:56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.11.015
Zhou JX, Shen GQ, Yoon SH, Jin X (2021) Customization of on-site assembly services by integrating the internet of things and BIM technologies in modular integrated construction. Autom Constr 126:103663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103663
Zhu H, Sang B, Zhang C, Guo L (2023) Have industrial robots improved pollution reduction? A theoretical approach and empirical analysis. Chin World Econ 31(4):153–172
Žujović M, Obradović R, Rakonjac I, Milošević J (2022) 3D printing technologies in architectural design and construction: a systematic literature review. Buildings 12(9):1319
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Delhi Technological University (DTU), New Delhi, 110042, India
Ankur Tayal, Saurabh Agrawal & Rajan Yadav
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Ankur Tayal .
Conflicts of interest.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any involvement of Human Participants and/or Animals.
Informed consent has been obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Tayal, A., Agrawal, S. & Yadav, R. Implementation of industry 4.0 in construction industry: a review. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-024-02432-6
Download citation
Received : 31 January 2024
Revised : 30 May 2024
Accepted : 13 July 2024
Published : 02 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-024-02432-6
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
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##, ##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##.
Sigit Candra Setya
Krismadinata
Jusmita Weriza
The ability to design and implement microcontroller-based systems is one of the skills and soft skills needed in Industry 4.0. Many researchers have identified various problems and have made solutions related to the learning process using microcontrollers, even though the names of the courses taught in the study programs at their respective universities are different. So a map of microcontroller learning problems and solutions that have been carried out by previous researchers is needed, then summarize and analyze them so that the core problems and solutions related to microcontroller learning in the Industry 4.0 era can be known. So in this study, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of problems and solutions in microcontroller learning from research works on the Scopus database from 2019 to 2023, using the Watase UAKE application in which there is Prisma. The first stage carried out is the identification of studies on the Scopus database using several keyword variables that have been determined in advance, resulting in 173 articles. Then the first stage screening resulted in 78 articles, and continued with the second stage screening resulting in 36 articles. Retrieve articles that have DOI obtained 29 articles to be uploaded into the Watase database. Based on the results of data extraction and reading the contents of the article carefully, 20 articles were obtained that discussed the industry in the article, consisting of 13 qualitative research articles and 7 quantitative research articles. Only 7 quantitative research articles can proceed to the classification process stage of the meta-analysis. The results showed that the most popular learning method related to the learning process using microcontrollers in the Industry 4.0 era is the Project Based Learning (PBL) learning method.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .
Discover the world's research
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.
BMC Pediatrics volume 24 , Article number: 505 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
269 Accesses
1 Altmetric
Metrics details
Sepsis is associated with neurocognitive impairment among preterm neonates but less is known about term neonates with sepsis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an update of neurocognitive outcomes including cognitive delay, visual impairment, auditory impairment, and cerebral palsy, among neonates with sepsis.
We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science for eligible studies published between January 2011 and March 2023. We included case–control, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies. Case reports and articles not in English language were excluded. Using the adjusted estimates, we performed random effects model meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of developing neurocognitive impairment among neonates with sepsis.
Of 7,909 studies, 24 studies ( n = 121,645) were included. Majority of studies were conducted in the United States ( n = 7, 29.2%), and all studies were performed among neonates. 17 (70.8%) studies provided follow-up till 30 months. Sepsis was associated with increased risk of cognitive delay [adjusted odds ratio, aOR 1.14 (95% CI: 1.01—1.28)], visual impairment [aOR 2.57 (95%CI: 1.14- 5.82)], hearing impairment [aOR 1.70 (95% CI: 1.02–2.81)] and cerebral palsy [aOR 2.48 (95% CI: 1.03–5.99)].
Neonates surviving sepsis are at a higher risk of poorer neurodevelopment. Current evidence is limited by significant heterogeneity across studies, lack of data related to long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes and term infants.
Peer Review reports
Sepsis is a major cause of mortality and morbidity among neonates [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Young infants especially neonates, defined by age < 28 days old, have a relatively immature immune system and are susceptible to sepsis [ 5 , 6 ]. Annually, there are an estimated 1.3 to 3.9 million cases of infantile sepsis worldwide and up to 700,000 deaths [ 7 ]. Low-income and middle-income countries bear a disproportionate burden of neonatal sepsis cases and deaths [ 7 , 8 ]. While advances in medical care over the past decade have reduced mortality, neonates who survive sepsis are at risk of developing neurocognitive complications, which affect the quality of life for these children and their caregivers [ 9 ].
Previous reviews evaluating neurocognitive outcomes in neonates with infections or sepsis have focused on specific types of pathogens (e.g., Group B streptococcus or nosocomial infections [ 10 ]), or are limited to specific populations such as very low birth weight or very preterm neonates [ 11 ], and there remains paucity of data regarding neurocognitive outcomes among term and post-term neonates. There remains a gap for an updated comprehensive review which is not limited by type of pathogen or gestation. In this systematic review, we aim to provide a comprehensive update to the current literature on the association between sepsis and the following adverse neurocognitive outcomes (1) mental and psychomotor delay (cognitive delay (CD)), (2) visual impairment, (3) auditory impairment and (4) cerebral palsy (CP) among neonates [ 11 ].
We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [ 12 ]. This study protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B54SE ).
We identified studies which evaluated neurocognitive outcomes in neonates less than 90 days old (regardless of gestational age) with sepsis. While the neonatal period is traditionally defined to be either the first 28 days postnatally for term and post-term infants, or 27 days after the expected date of delivery for preterm infants [ 13 ], serious late onset infections in the young infant population can present beyond the neonatal period [ 14 ], hence we defined the upper age limit as 90 days old to obtain a more complete picture of the burden of young infantile sepsis [ 15 ]. Post-term neonates was defined as a neonate delivered at > = 42 weeks of gestational age in this study [ 16 ]. We included studies that either follow international sepsis definitions such as Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines definitions [ 17 ], or if they fulfilled clinical, microbiological and/or biochemical criteria for sepsis as defined by study authors. The primary outcome of interest was impaired neurocognitive outcome defined by the following domains of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) [ 11 ]: (1) CD, (2) visual impairment, (3) auditory impairment and (4) CP. We selected these domains because they were highlighted as key neurocognitive sequelae after intrauterine insults in a landmark review by Mwaniki et al. [ 18 ]. The authors’ definitions of these outcomes and their assessment tools were captured, including the use of common validated instruments (e.g., a common scale used for CD is the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) [ 19 ] while a common instrument used for CP was the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) [ 20 ]. Specifically for BSID, its two summative indices score – Mental Development Index (MDI) and Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) were collected. The MDI assesses both the non-verbal cognitive and language skills, while PDI assess the combination of fine and gross motor skills. The cut-off points for mild, moderate and severe delay for MDI and PDI were < 85 or < 80, < 70 and < 55 respectively [ 21 ]. There were no restrictions on duration of follow-up or time of assessment of neurocognitive outcomes to allow capturing of both short- and long-term neurocognitive outcomes.
Case–control, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies published between January 2011 and March 2023 were included. Because the definition and management of sepsis has evolved over the years [ 22 ], we chose to include studies published from 2011 onwards. Case reports, animal studies, laboratory studies and publications that were not in English language were excluded. Hand-searching of previous systematic reviews were performed to ensure all relevant articles were included. To avoid small study effects, we also excluded studies with a sample size of less than 50 [ 23 ].
Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase and Web of Science) were used to identify eligible studies. The search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian. The first search was conducted on 4 December 2021 and an updated search was conducted on 3 April 2023. The detailed search strategy can be found in Supplementary Tables 1A and B.
Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) [ 24 ] was utilized during this review. Five reviewers (WJO, BJY, NM, CLN and GH) independently conducted the database search and screened the title and abstracts for relevance. Following training on inclusion and exclusion eligibility, 4 reviewers (WJO, NM, CLN and GH) subsequently assessed the full text of shortlisted articles for eligibility. All full texts were independently assessed by at least 2 reviewers. Any conflict related to study eligibility were resolved in discussion with the senior author (S-LC). We recorded the reason(s) for exclusion of each non-eligible article.
Four reviewers (WJO, NM, CLN and GH) independently carried out the data extraction using a standardized data collection form, and any conflict was resolved by discussion, or with input from the senior author (S-LC). A pilot search was performed for the first 200 citations to evaluate concordance among reviewers and showed good concordance among reviewers of 94%. For studies with missing data required for data collection or meta-analyses, we contacted the corresponding authors of articles to seek related information. If there was no reply from the authors, the data were labelled as missing.
Three reviewers (BJY, GH and WJO) independently carried out the assessment of risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for all observational studies [ 25 ]. Studies were graded based on three domains namely, selection, comparability and outcomes. Studies were assigned as low, moderate and high risk of bias if they were rated 0–2 points, 3–5 points and 6–9 points respectively. Any conflict was resolved by discussion or with input from the senior author (S-LC).
All outcomes (i.e. CD, visual impairment, auditory impairment and CP) were analysed as categorical data. Analyses were done for each NDI domain separately. To ensure comparability across scales, results from different studies were only pooled if the same measurement tools were used to assess the outcomes and hence sub-group analyses were based on different scales and/or different definitions of neurocognitive outcomes used by authors. Both unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and/or relative risk (RR) for each NDI domain were recorded. Where source data were present, we calculated the unadjusted OR if the authors did not report one, together with the 95% confidence interval (CI). For adjusted odds ratio, these were extracted from individual studies and variables used for adjustment were determined at the individual study level.
Meta-analysis was conducted for all outcomes that were reported by at least 2 independent studies or cohorts. Studies were included in the meta-analysis only if they reported outcomes for individual NDI domains within 30 months from sepsis occurrence. For each domain, all selected studies were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model due to expected heterogeneity. Studies were pooled based on adjusted and unadjusted analyses. Case–control and cohort studies were pooled separately. The pooled results were expressed as unadjusted odds ratio (OR) or adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). If there was more than 1 study that utilized the same population, we only analysed data from the most recent publication or from the larger sample size, to avoid double counting. Standard error (SE) from studies with multiple arms with same control group were adjusted using SE = √(K/2), where K refers to number of treatment arms including control [ 26 ]. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I^2 statistic, for which ≥ 50% is indicative of significant heterogeneity. With regards to publication bias, this was performed using Egger’s test and funnel plots only if the number of studies pooled were 10 or more for each outcome.
For neurocognitive related outcomes, subgroup analyses were performed based on the severity of the NDI domain outcomes and distinct, non-overlapping populations of septic infants (such as late onset vs early onset sepsis, culture positive sepsis vs clinically diagnosed sepsis, term and post term patients).
All analyses were done using ‘meta’ library from R software (version 4.2.2) [ 27 ]. The statistical significance threshold was a two tailed P- value < 0.05.
The certainty of evidence for outcomes in this review was performed during the GRADE criteria [ 28 ] which is centred on the study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other considerations.
From 7,909 studies identified, a total of 24 articles were included (Fig. 1 ) [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. A total of 101,657 and 19,988 preterm and term infants were included in this review.
PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process for search
There were 2 case–control studies and 22 cohort studies, with a total of 121,645 infants (Table 1 ). Studies were conducted in 16 different countries (Fig. 2 ), with the most studies conducted in the United States of America (USA) (7 studies, n = 92,358 patients) [ 30 , 33 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 52 ]. There were no studies that were conducted solely on term infants. 5 studies reported data specifically on ELBW infants (27,078 infants) and 6 studies on VLBW infants (3,322 infants). All studies were performed among neonates.
World map depicting distribution of studies that evaluate neurocognitive outcomes in infantile and neonatal sepsis
Overall, all 24 studies were classified as low risk (Supplementary Table 2). 5 papers scored high risk for outcome bias for having greater than 10% of initial population being lost to follow-up [ 29 , 32 , 40 , 41 , 42 ].
As the number of studies pooled for each outcome was less than 10, publication bias was not analysed in the meta-analyses.
Among 24 studies that assessed for CD, 16 studies reported either the incidence of CD among young infants with sepsis compared to those without, and/or the odds ratio (adjusted and/or unadjusted) comparing the two populations [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 ]. The scales used, authors’ definition of CD, incidence of CD among those with sepsis and those without are described in Table 2 . The most common tools used for assessment of CD were the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) ( n = 13) and Denver Development Screening Test II ( n = 2).
Infantile sepsis was associated with increased risk of overall CD delays [aOR 1.14 (95%CI: 1.01, 1.28)], overall PDI delay (aOR 1.73 (95%CI: 1.16, 2.58)) and moderate PDI delay [aOR 1.85 (95%CI: 1.01, 3.36)]. Conversely, infantile sepsis was not associated with increased risk for severe PDI delay nor overall MDI delay [aOR 1.30 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.71)] or its subgroups. There were no significant differences in outcomes between different subgroups of infections as well as culture-proven or clinically defined sepsis for either MDI or PDI (Table 8 , Fig. 3 A and B).
A Forest plot on adjusted odds ratios for neurocognitive outcomes related to MDI, PDI, visual impairment, hearing impairment and cerebral palsy. B Forest plot on unadjusted odds ratios for neurocognitive outcomes related to MDI, PDI, visual impairment, hearing impairment and cerebral palsy. Legend: MDI: Mental Developmental Index; PDI: Psychomotor Developmental Index. Foot note: Mild MDI or PDI: < 85 or < 80; Moderate MDI or PDI < 70; Severe MDI or PDI < 55
Seven studies reported data on visual impairment (Table 3 ) [ 31 , 33 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 49 ]. The most common definition of visual impairment utilized was “visual acuity of < 20/200” ( n = 4, 66.7%).
In the meta-analysis, infantile sepsis was associated with significantly increased risk of visual impairment [aOR 2.57 (95%CI: 1.14, 5.82)] but there were no statistically significant differences in visual impairment between subgroups of early or late onset sepsis, and blood culture negative conditions as compared to the non-septic population (Table 8 , Fig. 3 A and B).
Seven studies reported data on hearing impairment (Table 4 ) [ 31 , 33 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 49 ]. Two studies defined hearing impairment as permanent hearing loss affecting communication with or without amplification [ 42 , 47 ]. Other definitions included “sensorineural hearing loss requiring amplification” ( n = 1), “bilateral hearing impairment with no functional hearing (with or without amplification)” ( n = 1), “clinical hearing loss” ( n = 1).
In the meta-analysis, sepsis was associated with increased risk of hearing impairment [aOR 1.70 (95% CI: 1.02–2.81)]. However, in the subgroup analyses, there were no differences in risk of hearing impairment between patients with late onset sepsis as compared to the non-septic population (Table 8 , Fig. 3 A and B).
Nine studies [ 29 , 32 , 33 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] reported data on CP (Table 5 ), of which 5 studies [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 49 , 50 ] used the GMFCS scale. In the meta-analysis, infantile sepsis was associated with significantly increased risk of CP [aOR 2.48 (95%CI: 1.03; 5.99)]. There was no difference in rates of CP among patients with proven or suspected sepsis, as compared with infants with no sepsis (Table 8 , Fig. 3 A and B).
Tables 6 and 7 showed data related to differences in neurocognitive outcomes between neonates with culture-proven or clinically diagnosed sepsis as well as early or late onset sepsis. Meta-analyses were not be performed due to significant heterogeneity in definitions of sepsis, time of assessment of outcomes.
There were no studies which evaluated neurocognitive outcomes between term and post-term neonates and infants.
We found that the certainty of evidence to be very low to low for the four main neurocognitive outcomes selected. (Supplementary File 3).
In this review involving more than 121,000 infants, we provide an update to the literature regarding young infant sepsis and neurocognitive impairment. Current collective evidence demonstrate that young infant sepsis was associated with increased risk of developing neurocognitive impairment in all domains of CD, visual impairment, auditory impairment and cerebral palsy.
In this review, higher rates of cognitive delay were noted among infants with sepsis [ 29 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 52 ]. We found that infants with sepsis reported lower PDI scores (Table 8 ), which measures mainly neuromotor development. On the other hand, young infant sepsis was not associated with lower MDI scores (Table 8 ), which assesses cognitive and language development. The pathophysiological mechanism of young infant sepsis and its preferential impact on PDI remains unclear. Postulated mechanisms include development of white matter lesions which may arise from the susceptibility of oligodendrocyte precursors to inflammatory processes such as hypoxia and ischemia [ 53 ]. Future studies should look into evaluating the causes of the above findings. A majority of included studies focused on early CD outcomes while no studies evaluated long-term outcomes into adulthood. CD is known to involve complex genetic and experiential interactions [ 54 ] and may evolve overtime with brain maturation. Delays in speech and language, intellectual delay and borderline intellectual functioning are shown to be associated with poorer academic or employment outcomes in adulthood [ 55 , 56 ], and early assessment of CD may not fully reveal the extent of delays. The only study with follow-up to the adolescent phase showed a progressive increase in NDI rate as the participants aged, which provides evidence of incremental long-term negative outcomes associated with infantile sepsis [ 44 ]. Moving forward, studies with longer follow-up may allow for further examination of the long-term effects of neonatal sepsis on CD.
There were different versions of the BSID instrument (BSID-II and BSID-III) [ 19 , 57 , 58 ]. BSID-II lacked subscales in PDI and MDI scores, leading to the development of BSID-III with the segregation of PDI into fine and gross motor scales and MDI into cognitive, receptive language, and expressive language scales [ 59 ]. Although we pooled results of both BSID-II and BSID-III in our study, we recognize that comparisons between BSID-II and BSID-III are technically challenging due to differences in standardised scores [ 59 , 60 ]. In addition, the BSID-IV was created in 2019 which has fewer items, However, none of our studies utilized this instrument. Future studies should consider this instrument, as well as standardising the timepoints for assessment of CD.
Young infant sepsis was associated with increased risk of developing visual impairment. This was similar to results noted by a previous systematic review published in 2014 [ 61 ] and 2019 [ 62 ] which showed that neonatal sepsis was associated with twofold risk of developing retinopathy of prematurity in preterm infants. Specifically, meningitis was associated with a greater risk of visual impairment compared to just sepsis alone [ 47 ]. The mechanism of visual impairment has not been fully described although various theories have been suggested, including sepsis mediated vascular endothelial damage, increased body oxidative stress response as well as involvement of inflammatory cytokines and mediators [ 63 , 64 ].
Our meta-analysis showed an increased risk of hearing impairment for young infants with young infants with sepsis. This is consistent with a previous report that found an association between neonatal meningitis and sensorineural hearing loss [ 65 ]. One potential confounder which we were unable to account for may have been the use of ototoxic antimicrobial agents such as aminoglycosides. Additional confounders include very low birth weight, patient’s clinical states (e.g. hyperbilirubinemia requiring exchange transfusion) and use of mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane support. To allow for meaningful comparisons of results across different study populations, it is imperative that a standardised definition of hearing impairment post neonatal sepsis be established for future studies.
Our meta-analysis found an association between neonatal sepsis and an increased risk of developing CP. This is also consistent with previous systematic reviews which had found a significant association of sepsis and CP in VLBW and early preterm infants [ 11 ]. One study found that infants born at full term and who experienced neonatal infections were at a higher risk of developing a spastic triplegia or quadriplegia phenotype of CP [ 66 ]. The pathophysiology and mechanism of injury to white matter resulting in increased motor dysfunction remains unclear and more research is required in this area.
The main limitation of this review lies in the heterogeneity in the definitions of sepsis, exposures and assessment of outcomes across studies. This is likely attributed to the varying definition of sepsis used in different countries as well as lack of gold standard definitions or instruments for assessment of each component of NDI. A recent review of RCTs [ 67 ] also reported similar limitations where 128 different varying definitions of neonatal sepsis were used in literature. Notably, there is a critical need for developing international standardized guidelines for defining neonatal sepsis as well as assessment of NDI such as hearing and visual impairment. Another important limitation relates to the inability to assess quality of neonatal care delivered as well as temporal changes in medical practices which could have affected neurocognitive outcomes for neonates with sepsis. Improving quality of neonatal care has been shown to significantly reduce mortality risk among neonates with sepsis, especially in resource-poor countries [ 68 ]. We performed a comprehensive search strategy (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) coupled with hand searching of references within included systematic reviews, but did not evaluate grey literature. Future studies should include additional literature databases and grey literature. Another area of research gap lies in the paucity of data related to differences in neurocognitive outcomes between term and post-term neonates with sepsis and future research is required to bridge this area of research gap. Likewise, there are few studies which evaluated differences in neurocognitive outcomes between early or late onset sepsis and outcomes assessed were significantly heterogenous which limits meaningful meta-analyses. Similarly, there was significant heterogeneity in study outcomes, causative organisms and severity of disease.
We found a lack of long-term outcomes and recommend that future prospective cohorts include a longer follow-up duration as part of the study design. This is important given the implication of NDI on development into adulthood. Most data were reported for preterm infants with low birth weight, and there was a paucity of data for term infants in our literature review. Since prematurity itself is a significant cause of NDI [ 69 ], future studies should consider how gestational age and/or birth weight can be adequately adjusted for in the analysis.
Apart from the domains of NDI we chose to focus on in this review, there are other cognitive domains classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) [ 70 ] and/or recommended by the Common Data Elements (CDE) workgroup [ 71 ]. Future studies may wish to look into the implications of sepsis on other neuro-cognitive domains related to executive function, complex attention and societal cognition which are studied for other types of acquired brain injury [ 71 , 72 ].
Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that neonates surviving sepsis are at a higher risk of poorer neurodevelopment. However, the evidence is limited by significant heterogeneity and selection bias due to differing definitions used for NDI and for sepsis. There is also a lack of long-term follow-up data, as well as data specific for term and post-term infants. Future prospective studies should be conducted with long-term follow-up to assess the impact of neurodevelopmental impairment among all populations of neonates with sepsis.
All data generated or analyzed in the study are found in the tables and supplementary materials.
Liu L, Johnson HL, Cousens S, Perin J, Scott S, Lawn JE, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000. Lancet. 2012;379:2151–61.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
WHO. Newborns: improving survival and well-being. Geneve: World Health Organisation; 2020.
Chiesa C, Panero A, Osborn JF, Simonetti AF, Pacifico L. Diagnosis of neonatal sepsis: a clinical and laboratory challenge. Clin Chem. 2004;50:279–87.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ramaswamy VV, Abiramalatha T, Bandyopadhyay T, Shaik NB, Bandiya P, Nanda D, et al. ELBW and ELGAN outcomes in developing nations-Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0255352.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Zhang X, Zhivaki D, Lo-Man R. Unique aspects of the perinatal immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17:495–507.
Prabhudas M, Adkins B, Gans H, King C, Levy O, Ramilo O, et al. Challenges in infant immunity: Implications for responses to infection and vaccines. Nat Immunol. 2011;12:189–94.
World Health Organization. Global report on the epidemiology and burden of sepsis. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010789 .
Milton R, Gillespie D, Dyer C, Taiyari K, Carvalho MJ, Thomson K, et al. Neonatal sepsis and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries from a facility-based birth cohort: an international multisite prospective observational study. Lancet Glob Health. 2022May 1;10(5):e661-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00043-2 .
Li Y, Ji M, Yang J. Current understanding of long-term cognitive impairment after sepsis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:855006.
Haller S, Deindl P, Cassini A, Suetens C, Zingg W, Abu Sin M, et al. Neurological sequelae of healthcare-associated sepsis in very-low-birthweight infants: Umbrella review and evidence-based outcome tree. Euro Surveill. 2016;21:30143.
Alshaikh B, Yusuf K, Sauve R. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of very low birth weight infants with neonatal sepsis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinatol. 2013;33:558–64.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services F and D, Administration C for DE and R (CDER), (CBER) C for BE and R. General Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Neonatal Studies for Drugs and Biological Products Guidance for Industry. 2019. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/129532/download . [cited 2022 Aug 9].
Bizzarro MJ, Shabanova V, Baltimore RS, Dembry LM, Ehrenkranz RA, Gallagher PG. Neonatal sepsis 2004–2013: the rise and fall of coagulase-negative staphylococci. J Pediatr. 2015;166:1193–9.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Goddard B, Chang J, Sarkar IN. Using self organizing maps to compare sepsis patients from the neonatal and adult intensive care unit. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2019;2019:127–35.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Galal M, Symonds I, Murray H, Petraglia F, Smith R. Postterm pregnancy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2012;4(3):175–87. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24753906 .
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1181–247.
Mwaniki MK, Atieno M, Lawn JE, Newton CRJC. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intrauterine and neonatal insults: a systematic review. Lancet. 2012;379:445–52.
Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development, Third edition: screening test manual. San Antonio, Texas: Pearson Clinical Assessment PsychCorp; 2006.
Google Scholar
Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214–23.
Spencer-Smith MM, Spittle AJ, Lee KJ, Doyle LW, Anderson PJ. Bayley-III cognitive and language scales in preterm children. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):e1258-65.
Survival Sepsis Campaign. https://www.sccm.org/SurvivingSepsisCampaign/About-SSC/History . History of Surviving Sepsis Campaign | SCCM.
Tan B, Wong JJM, Sultana R, Koh JCJW, Jit M, Mok YH, et al. Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173:352–62.
Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation; Available from: www.covidence.org .
GA Wells, B Shea, D O’Connell, J Peterson, V Welch, M Losos PT. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp . [cited 2022 Aug 9].
Rücker G, Cates CJ, Schwarzer G. Methods for including information from multi-arm trials in pairwise meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8:392–403.
R Core Team. R core team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org . 2021.
Schünemann H, Oxman JBGGA. GRADE Handbook. עלון הנוטע. 2013;66(1997).
Schlapbach LJ, Aebischer M, Adams M, Natalucci G, Bonhoeffer J, Latzin P, et al. Impact of sepsis on neurodevelopmental outcome in a swiss national cohort of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics. 2011;128:e348-57.
Adams-Chapman I, Bann CM, Das A, Goldberg RN, Stoll BJ, Walsh MC, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely low birth weight infants with Candida infection. J Pediatr. 2013;163(4):961-7.e3.
de Haan TR, Beckers L, de Jonge RCJ, Spanjaard L, van Toledo L, Pajkrt D, et al. Neonatal gram negative and candida sepsis survival and neurodevelopmental outcome at the corrected age of 24 months. PLoS One. 2013;8:e59214.
Mitha A, Foix-L’Hélias L, Arnaud C, Marret S, Vieux R, Aujard Y, et al. Neonatal infection and 5-year neurodevelopmental outcome of very preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e372-80.
Alshaikh B, Yee W, Lodha A, Henderson E, Yusuf K, Sauve R. Coagulase-negative staphylococcus sepsis in preterm infants and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome. J Perinatol. 2014;34:125–9.
Ferreira RC, Mello RR, Silva KS. Neonatal sepsis as a risk factor for neurodevelopmental changes in preterm infants with very low birth weight. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2014;90:293–9.
Hentges CR, Silveira RC, Procianoy RS, Carvalho CG, Filipouski GR, Fuentefria RN, et al. Association of late-onset neonatal sepsis with late neurodevelopment in the first two years of life of preterm infants with very low birth weight. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2014;90:50–7.
Dangor Z, Lala SG, Cutland CL, Koen A, Jose L, Nakwa F, et al. Burden of invasive group B Streptococcus disease and early neurological sequelae in South African infants. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123014.
Savioli K, Rouse C, Susi A, Gorman G, Hisle-Gorman E. Suspected or known neonatal sepsis and neurodevelopmental delay by 5 years. J Perinatol. 2018;38:1573–80.
Singh L, Das S, Bhat VB, Plakkal N. Early neurodevelopmental outcome of very low birthweight neonates with culture-positive blood stream infection: a prospective cohort study. Cureus. 2018;10:e3492.
Zonnenberg IA, van Dijk-Lokkart EM, van den Dungen FAM, Vermeulen RJ, van Weissenbruch MM. Eur J Pediatr. 2019;178:673–80.
Nakwa FL, Lala SG, Madhi SA, Dangor Z. Neurodevelopmental impairment at 1 year of age in infants with previous invasive group B streptococcal sepsis and meningitis. Pediatric Infect Dis J. 2020;39:794–8.
Article Google Scholar
Mukhopadhyay S, Puopolo KM, Hansen NI, Lorch SA, Demauro SB, Greenberg RG, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes following neonatal late-onset sepsis and blood culture-negative conditions. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021;106:467–73.
Mukhopadhyay S, Puopolo KM, Hansen NI, Lorch SA, DeMauro SB, Greenberg RG, et al. Impact of early-onset sepsis and antibiotic use on death or survival with neurodevelopmental impairment at 2 years of age among extremely preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2020;221:39-46.e5.
Horváth-Puhó E, Snoek L, van Kassel MN, Gonçalves BP, Chandna J, Procter SR, et al. Prematurity modifies the risk of long-term neurodevelopmental impairments after invasive group B streptococcus infections during infancy in Denmark and the Netherlands. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;74:S44–53.
Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
Horváth-Puhó E, van Kassel MN, Gonçalves BP, de Gier B, Procter SR, Paul P, et al. Mortality, neurodevelopmental impairments, and economic outcomes after invasive group B streptococcal disease in early infancy in Denmark and the Netherlands: a national matched cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2021;5:398–407.
Ortgies T, Rullmann M, Ziegelhöfer D, Bläser A, Thome UH. The role of early-onset-sepsis in the neurodevelopment of very low birth weight infants. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21:289.
Shim SY, Cho SJ, Park EA. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18–24 months of corrected age in very low birth weight infants with late-onset sepsis. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36:e205.
Brumbaugh JE, Bell EF, Do BT, Greenberg RG, Stoll BJ, Demauro SB, et al. Incidence of and neurodevelopmental outcomes after late-onset meningitis among children born extremely preterm. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2245826.
Golin MO, Souza FIS, Paiva L da S, Sarni ROS. The value of clinical examination in preterm newborns after neonatal sepsis: a cross-sectional observational study. Dev Neurorehabil. 2022;25(2):80–6.
Humberg A, Fortmann MI, Spiegler J, Rausch TK, Siller B, Silwedel C, et al. Recurrent late-onset sepsis in extremely low birth weight infants is associated with motor deficits in early school age. Neonatology. 2022;119(6):695–702.
Kartam M, Embaireeg A, Albalool S, Almesafer A, Hammoud M, Al-Hathal M, et al. Late-onset sepsis in preterm neonates is associated with higher risks of cerebellar hemorrhage and lower motor scores at three years of age. Oman Med J. 2022;37(2):e368.
Paul P, Chandna J, Procter SR, Dangor Z, Leahy S, Santhanam S, et al. Neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes after invasive Group B Streptococcus in early infancy: a multi-country matched cohort study in South Africa, Mozambique, India, Kenya, and Argentina. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;47:101358.
Bright HR, Babata K, Allred EN, Erdei C, Kuban KCK, Joseph RM, et al. Neurocognitive outcomes at 10 years of age in extremely preterm newborns with late-onset bacteremia. Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;187:43-49. e1.
Romanelli RMC, Anchieta LM, Mourão MVA, Campos FA, Loyola FC, Mourão PHO, et al. Fatores de risco e letalidade de infecção da corrente sanguínea laboratorialmente confirmada, causada por patógenos não contaminantes da pele em recém-nascidos. J pediatr (Rio J). 2013;89(2):189–96.
Burgaleta M, Johnson W, Waber DP, Colom R, Karama S. Cognitive ability changes and dynamics of cortical thickness development in healthy children and adolescents. Neuroimage. 2014;84:810–9.
Peltopuro M, Ahonen T, Kaartinen J, Seppälä H, Närhi V. Borderline intellectual functioning: a systematic literature review. Intellect Dev Disabil. 2014;52:419–43.
Conti-Ramsden G, Durkin K, Toseeb U, Botting N, Pickles A. Education and employment outcomes of young adults with a history of developmental language disorder. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53:237–55.
Czeizel AE, Dudas I;, Murphy MM, Fernandez-Ballart JD, Arija V. Bayley scales of infant development-administration manual. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2019.
Bayley N. Manual for the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.). San Antonio: TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1993.
Bos AF. Bayley-Ii Or Bayley-Iii: what do the scores tell us? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55:978–9.
Johnson S, Marlow N. Developmental screen or developmental testing? Early Hum Dev. 2006;82(3):173–83.
Bakhuizen SE, De Haan TR, Teune MJ, Van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG, Van Der Heyden JL, Van Der Ham DP, et al. Meta-analysis shows that infants who have suffered neonatal sepsis face an increased risk of mortality and severe complications. Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr. 2014;103:1211–8.
Cai S, Thompson DK, Yang JYM, Anderson PJ. Short-and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of very preterm infants with neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Children. 2019;6:131.
Joussen AM, Poulaki V, Le ML, Koizumi K, Esser C, Janicki H, Schraermeyer U, Kociok N, Fauser S, Kirchhof B, Kern TS, Adamis AP. A central role for inflammation in the pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. FASEB J. 2004;18(12):1450–2.
Ushio-Fukai M. VEGF signaling through NADPH oxidase-derived ROS. In: Antioxidants and Redox Signaling. 2007.
Sharma A, Leaf JM, Thomas S, Cane C, Stuart C, Tremlett C, et al. Sensorineural hearing loss after neonatal meningitis: a single-centre retrospective study. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2022;6(1):e001601.
Smilga AS, Garfinkle J, Ng P, Andersen J, Buckley D, Fehlings D, et al. Neonatal infection in children with cerebral palsy: a registry-based cohort study. Pediatr Neurol. 2018;80:77–83.
Hayes R, Hartnett J, Semova G, Murray C, Murphy K, Carroll L, et al. Neonatal sepsis definitions from randomised clinical trials. Pediatr Res. 2023;93:1141–8.
Rahman AE, Iqbal A, Hoque DME, Moinuddin M, Zaman SB, Rahman QSU, et al. Managing neonatal and early childhood syndromic sepsis in sub-district hospitals in resource poor settings: Improvement in quality of care through introduction of a package of interventions in rural Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170267.
Singh M, Alsaleem M GCP. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2022. Neonatal Sepsis. [Updated 2022 Sep 29]. Available from: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/books/NBK531478/ .
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 2022.
Book Google Scholar
McCauley SR, Wilde EA, Anderson VA, Bedell G, Beers SR, Campbell TF, et al. Recommendations for the Use of Common Outcome measures in pediatric traumatic brain injury research. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:678–705.
Goh MSL, Looi DSH, Goh JL, Sultana R, Goh SSM, Lee JH, Chong SL. The Impact of Traumatic Brain Injury on Neurocognitive Outcomes in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021:jnnp-2020-325066.
Download references
We would like to thank Ms. Wong Suei Nee, senior librarian from the National University of Singapore for helping us with the search strategy. We will also like to thank Dr Ming Ying Gan, Dr Shu Ting Tammie Seethor, Dr Jen Heng Pek, Dr Rachel Greenberg, Dr Christoph Hornik and Dr Bobby Tan, for their inputs in the initial design of this study.
No financial or non-financial benefits have been received or will be received from any party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Wei Jie Ong and Jun Jie Benjamin Seng are co-first authors.
MOH Holdings, Singapore, 1 Maritime Square, Singapore, 099253, Singapore
Wei Jie Ong, Jun Jie Benjamin Seng, Beijun Yap & Chen Lin Ng
SingHealth Regional Health System PULSES Centre, Singapore Health Services, Outram Rd, Singapore, 169608, Singapore
Jun Jie Benjamin Seng
SingHealth Duke-NUS Family Medicine Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore, Singapore
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, 10 Medical Dr, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore
George He & Nooriyah Aliasgar Moochhala
Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
Rehena Ganguly
Children’s Intensive Care Unit, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, SingHealth Paediatrics Academic Clinical Programme, 100 Bukit Timah Rd, Singapore, 229899, Singapore
Jan Hau Lee
Department of Emergency Medicine, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, SingHealth Paediatrics Academic Clinical Programme, SingHealth Emergency Medicine Academic Clinical Programme, 100 Bukit Timah Rd, Singapore, 229899, Singapore
Shu-Ling Chong
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
SLC and JHL were the study’s principal investigators and were responsible for the conception and design of the study. WJO, JJBS, BY, GE, NAM and CLN were the co-investigators. WJO, JJBS, BY, GE, NAM and CLN were responsible for the screening and inclusion of articles and data extraction. All authors contributed to the data analyses and interpretation of data. WJO, JJBS, BY, GE, NAM and CLN prepared the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors revised the draft critically for important intellectual content and agreed to the final submission. All authors had access to all study data, revised the draft critically for important intellectual content and agreed to the final submission.
Correspondence to Jun Jie Benjamin Seng .
Ethics approval and consent to participate.
As this was a systematic review with no access to patient data, ethical approval from the institutional review board was exempted.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Ong, W.J., Seng, J.J.B., Yap, B. et al. Impact of neonatal sepsis on neurocognitive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pediatr 24 , 505 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-024-04977-8
Download citation
Received : 11 May 2024
Accepted : 26 July 2024
Published : 07 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-024-04977-8
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
ISSN: 1471-2431
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Knowledge management for improved digital transformation in insurance companies: systematic review and perspectives.
2. driving innovation: the digital transformation landscape in the insurance industry, 3. knowledge management for insurance companies.
5.2. technological level, 5.3. detailed results, 5.3.1. impact of knowledge management in the insurance industry, 5.3.2. global evaluation of km in the insurance industry.
6.4. indonesia, malaysia and thailand, 6.5. china and hong kong, 6.6. turkey, 6.7. arab countries, 7.1. norway and germany, 7.2. france and greece, 8. america (usa), 9.1. south africa, 9.2. nigeria, 10. australia, 11. discussion.
Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
KM Capture | KM Modeling | KM Implementation | Domain | Focus | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
India | Yes | Yes | |||
Iran | Yes | Yes | Yes | e-insurance | Customer |
Taiwan | Yes | life insurance | Enterprise | ||
Indonesia, Malaysia & Thailand | Yes | Yes | Yes | Customer | |
China & Hong Kong | Yes | fraud/policy management/UW/claims | Enterprise | ||
Turkey | |||||
Arab countries | |||||
Norway & Germany | Yes | Customer & Enterprise | |||
France & Greece | Yes | Yes | Enterprise | ||
USA | Yes | Yes | Customer & Enterprise | ||
South Africa | Yes | Yes | |||
Nigeria | |||||
Australia | Yes | Yes |
Continent | Country | Infrastructure | KM | Technology | Transparency & Collaboration | Strategy | IT Investment & Governance | Digital Transformation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Elgargouh, Y.; Chbihi Louhdi, M.R.; Zemmouri, E.M.; Behja, H. Knowledge Management for Improved Digital Transformation in Insurance Companies: Systematic Review and Perspectives. Informatics 2024 , 11 , 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11030060
Elgargouh Y, Chbihi Louhdi MR, Zemmouri EM, Behja H. Knowledge Management for Improved Digital Transformation in Insurance Companies: Systematic Review and Perspectives. Informatics . 2024; 11(3):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11030060
Elgargouh, Younes, Mohammed Reda Chbihi Louhdi, El Moukhtar Zemmouri, and Hicham Behja. 2024. "Knowledge Management for Improved Digital Transformation in Insurance Companies: Systematic Review and Perspectives" Informatics 11, no. 3: 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11030060
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Recent developments in production processes and their automation have led to the definition of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, commonly known as "Industry 4.0". Industry 4.0 is a very broad domain that includes: production processes, efficiency, data management, relationship with consumers, competitiveness, and much more. At the same time, obviously, Industry 4.0 has become a new theme ...
the paper is to analyze and classify the main contributions published on the topic of Industry 4.0 in. management literature, seeking to give it a unique definition, discover the gaps still ...
Abstract. Recent developments in production processes and their automation have led to the definition of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, commonly known as "Industry 4.0". Industry 4.0 is a very broad domain that includes: production processes, efficiency, data management, relationship with consumers, competitiveness, and much more.
Abstract: Recent developments in production processes and their automation have led to the definition of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, commonly known as "Industry 4.0". Industry 4.0 is a very broad domain that includes: production processes, efficiency, data management, relationship with consumers, competitiveness, and much more.
A systematic literature review of 59 studies published between 2011 and December 2020 is conducted. Using the Theory, Context, Characteristics, and Method (TCCM) framework, the review identifies various gaps in research and proposes future research agenda. ... The literature shows that Industry 4.0 impacts strategic management in the long run ...
Based on a systematic literature review, this study has tried to explore, examine, and synthesize the potential human resource (HR) success factors and develop an efficient Industry 4.0 HR framework that can play a vital role in Industry 4.0 implementation. ... Although several studies have applied the systematic literature review methodology ...
Findings. By providing a clear picture of what scholars have studied so far on Industry 4.0 transition, in terms of KM, this literature review highlights that among all the studied digital technologies, the big data analytics technology is the one that has been explored the most in each phase of the ACAP process.
The research is based on a systematic literature review of 111 papers that were published in academic journals between 2015 and 2021. In contrast to previous reviews, we focus on constituting elements of Lean Management and Industry 4.0 to offer a perspective closely related to practical implementations. ... Industry 4.0 in management studies ...
1. Introduction. Industry 4.0 (I4.0) represents an ongoing transformational phase for manufacturing organisations aiming to fully interlink their business functions and production systems with data from the entire lifecycle or End-to-End Digital Integration (Liao et al. Citation 2017; Castelo-Branco, Cruz-Jesus, and Oliveira Citation 2019).The implementation of I4.0 has been conceptualised not ...
Abstract. Industry 4.0 has become one of the most discussed subjects in academic and professional fields. The number of articles published is large and continues to increase, introducing new issues, concepts, methods, and technologies. Many review articles deal with specific issues and not always with the necessary rigor, making a more general ...
Industry 4.0 in management studies: A systematic literature review: Piccarozzi & Aquilani, 2018: 2018: Review deals with papers published on the Industry 4.0 within management literature. Sustainability: Pharma Industry 4.0: Literature review and research opportunities in sustainable pharmaceutical supply chains: Ding, 2018: 2018
The aim of this study is to address this gap by investigating the academic progresses in Industry 4.0. A systematic literature review was carried out to analyse the academic articles within the Industry 4.0 topic that were published online until the end of June 2016. In this paper, the obtained results from both the general data analysis of ...
Quality 4.0 is an emerging concept that has been increasingly appreciated because of the intensification of competition, continually changing customer requirements and technological evolution. It deals with aligning quality management practices with the emergent capabilities of Industry 4.0 to improve cost, time, and efficiency and increase product quality. This article aims to comprehensively ...
The state-of-the-art of management studies emerging from this systematic literature review highlights that at the present time the managerial literature on Industry 4.0 is still heavily affected by the influence of manufacturing also encompassing its technical and/or engineering aspects.
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India ... In an era where new concepts and techniques are introduced continuously, there is a lack of systematic literature review (SLR) on identifying main dimensions, levels, methods to assess the maturity and readiness level toward I4.0. ... Industry 4.0 India Inc ...
The state-of-the-art of management studies emerging from this systematic literature review highlights that at the present time the managerial literature on Industry 4.0 is still heavily affected ...
Probably some interesting papers had been not intentionally missed.,Consultants and managers in developing and implementing their own Quality 4.0 models could use many practical and discussed implications concerning I4.0 technologies and quality management.,This is one of the first papers which employed the systematic literature review for ...
Thus, this study aims to review the integration between LSCM and I4.0 analysing relationship at operative, tactical and strategic levels.,Systematic literature review was conducted to identify and explain the integration of LSCM and I4.0 from scientific sources that were published before March 2021.,The analysis of the literature revealed the ...
A systematic literature review methodology with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and content analysis strategy is used to review 97 papers in peer-reviewed academic journals and industry reports published from 2000 to 2019 to propose six dimensions (Technology, People, Strategy, Leadership, Process and Innovation) that can be considered as the ...
Based on a systematic literature review, this study presents and discusses a comprehensive list of potential factors that influence the implementation of Industry 4.0 and strengthens the idea that further research is necessary in order to address contradictory findings and to develop efficient Industry 4.0 implementation frameworks.
a systematic review and synthesis of the current literature on Industry 4.0 in SCM that brings out some interesting findings, which will be helpful for the academic and industry, especially
While prior systematic literature reviews (SLRs) started to consolidate the literature, an SLR that simultaneously (a) covers several core technologies of the Industry 4.0, (b) synthesizes their positive and negative implications for supply chain performance in a broad sense, and (c) accounts for the critical success factors that foster or ...
This study references the Global Reporting Initiative and identifies relevant industry 4.0 competencies, conducting a systematic literature review to investigate the relationship between industry 4.0 competencies and sustainable manufacturing performance and the role of rational culture as a moderating variable.
The study's results indicate that 2023 will see the highest volume of publications on digital leadership in the Industry 4.0 era globally and shows evidence that the network visualisation consists of 7 clusters. Digital leadership encompasses a range of skills, actions, and practices that encourage and inspire employees during the process of digital transformation. Digital leadership focuses ...
The article aims to study the literature on Industry-4.0 technologies and "Triple Bottom Line" (social, economical and environmental) parameters in the construction industry. The study focuses on analyzing the gaps in various researches conducted till now and suggests possible information that can be used to improve business processes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and ...
The ability to design and implement microcontroller-based systems is one of the skills and soft skills needed in Industry 4.0. Many researchers have identified various problems and have made solutions related to the learning process using microcontrollers, even though the names of the courses taught in the study programs at their respective universities are different.
A systematic literature review (SLR) methodology is used to review the databases' literature on Lean and I-4.0 and their integration framework. According to the SLR, in responding to the particular research questions, we followed the guidelines provided by Kitchenham & Charters [54] and Dyba & Dingsoyr [55].
This research paper employs a Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Analysis (SLBA) methodology to explore and synthesize data on how Industry 4.0 and sensors can leverage product design.
Sepsis is associated with neurocognitive impairment among preterm neonates but less is known about term neonates with sepsis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide an update of neurocognitive outcomes including cognitive delay, visual impairment, auditory impairment, and cerebral palsy, among neonates with sepsis. We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL ...
Knowledge Management (KM) plays a pivotal role in contemporary businesses, facilitating the identification, management, and utilization of existing knowledge for organizational benefit. This article underscores the indispensability of effective KM processes in the insurance industry, which is undergoing profound digital transformation. Through a systematic review utilizing the PRISMA framework ...